Me personally, I don't think the action is up to the pressures that a .500 S&W generates. That's one reason I am having my Win 71 converted to .50 Alaskan, which should accomplish better ballistics than a .500 S&W with less pressure, and much cheaper cost. That's my 2 cents...your mileage may vary! HAPPY NEW YEAR!
You don't think, or do you know? I have done extensive research on these rifles and the only negative comments seem to come from folks who think they are overpriced or can't afford them and love their Marlin's. No substance to their comments from what I see. Please let me know if you have any facts. From what I can tell, these rifles are awesome for folks that have the ability to buy one. Not for everyone for sure, but what a great rifle for those in need of a closer range power house.
Lonnie
Hi Lonnie,
I do not know, but from the design of these rifles, if I am not mistaken, are after the Winchester 1886/71 family with their rear lock-up that I believe most will agree isn't as strong as a bolt action rifle. How does this same design withstand the .500 S&W's pressures (65,000)? Better metallurgy? Perhaps, but that does not make up for the inherent design, which I do not believe was ever intended for those high pressures. That is why, after considering purchase of a Big Horn 89, I believe a .50 Alaskan converted Win 71, kept to under 50,000 would provide better longevity over a cartridge (.500 S&W) that is loaded to extremely high pressures to get the ballistics of what a .50 Alaskan can do at much lower pressure. This is not in any way meant to speak ill of the Big Horn, but rather my rationalization for a 50 caliber lever rifle.
