Home Forums Lever Action Central Big Bore Levers The MYTH of the weak 'toggle-link' in the 1876

I posted this 'reply' up on another much older thread the other day, but doesn't look as though folks are looking at the older threads much, sooooo, I figured to start a new thread to 'spread the word' as it were, as I have noticed the reference of 'weak' toggle-link actions mentioned in several other threads and should be addressed as it is a myth that has been repeated for 140 years after the first erroneous article was published in 1878-79. So here is a dose of truth, for those who can handle it, for those who can't, well nothing ever seems to change their minds. I'd just ask for one thing: Try repeating the testing, done by O. Winchesters engineers, on your 'preferred' action (preferably with video) before you ever criticize the toggle-link action of the 1876. Now a copy and paste of what I posted in the other thread.


I'm going to copy and paste a portion of the excellent research by William Hockett detailing the actual results of testing on the so called 'weak' toggle link action, but for the sake of some brevity, a bit of condensed history on the MYTH of the weak toggle link action. After lab testing proved the toggle-link was not weak, some research was done into the so-called 'failures' of broken toggle links. In virtually every case the 'failure' was NOT the result of firing any ammunition, but the result of the action being abused...….such as trying to force damaged ammunition, or dirty actions, that users had tried to force into operation. Tests proved that when locked into place, the toggle-link action had no operational weakness. But the damage was done by the publicity of writers who had absolutely no knowledge of what they were talking about, and published second hand (hearsay) stories.....in other words, the 1876 rifle had been 'Borked' by a press, trying to find fault with one of the 'captains of industry'. Once the toggle link was locked into it's 'loaded' position, it was a position of maximum strength, it's only 'weakness' was when it was open and operating...….as ALL actions are. Here are the FACTS about the testing in Winchesters laboratories, as documented and published after the publicity damning them. One should also add, that the newer Uberti reproductions of the 1876 WCF rifles, have an even better engineered and heat treated toggle link action, that makes it even stronger then the original Winchesters. ( I shoot a 450 gr. Barnes Original JSP with a modest 31 grains, and have loaded it up to 38 grains of IMR 4198, and have fired several hundred rounds, now the bullets can't be found, but I still shoot 450 gr. cast lead, with 28.8 gr. of 4198, with no ill effect. The longer I use it, the smoother the action has become.....it's a beauty.) Here's a verbatim portion of Hockett's research:

FACTS: The Model 1876 is the only repeating rifle that had successful, documented use in the northern plains buffalo slaughter. Earlier repeating rifles such as the Henry, Spencer, and Winchester Models of 1866 and 1873 may have seen limited use, but only the Model 1876 was considered by hunters as powerful enough to do the job against the big woolies. The strength of the Model 1876 rifle and the .45-75 W.C.F. cartridge was tested by Winchester in the late 1870s. The factory conducted tests on the strength and reliability of the action to answer concerns by customers. These tests will astound collectors and shooters who have stated the Model 1876's toggle link action is "weak." In response to a letter sent to the company by Charles Hallock, Esquire, of Forest & Stream magazine, Oliver Winchester responded by telling about the tests the factory accomplished on the 1876 rifle. He indicated that engineers first started the tests by removing one of the toggle links and fired 20 rounds (this was with .45-75 W.C.F. cartridge with 350 grain bullet) with no effect. They restored the missing link then went through 6 more trials starting with a charge of 105 grains of black powder, behind a 700 grain bullet! The comment "worked well" is noted. They then increased the charge of powder to 165 grains behind 3 bullets (1,150 grains) and that "worked well." From there, they increased the powder charge to 203 grains and added more bullets until they reached 1,750 grains of lead (five 350 grain bullets). This also "worked well." Finally, they added one more bullet, bringing the total weight to 2,100 grains, and things began to happen. The comment was, "Breech pin slightly bent. Arm working stiff." The seventh and final test was again 203 grains of powder but this time six Martini bullets weighing 480 grains each (2,880 grains) were used. "The charge bent the breech pin, blew out the side plates, split the frame and otherwise disabled the arm," was the comment. Oliver Winchester noted that in this seventh trial, the shell had burst into fragments and the escape of gas at the breech did the damage.
The big Centennial model was known for its excellent accuracy and is reputed to have been the most finely made of all the early Winchester lever action rifles.

Now it should be noted, that each of the "6 more trials" stipulated above, did NOT consist of a 'one and done', but were a series of tests involving scores of firings. I dare anyone to try putting a cartridge holding 203 grains of black powder in it, then place 1,750 grains of lead over it on their 'strong' actions, fire it a dozen times, and come up with a result of "works well"!! I'm not saying it can't be done on some actions, but......I don't want to be in the same room with ya.....just send me the video.

Top
Reply Quote Report Email Pos

I have no doubt the above results were found "back in the day" though I don't see where "scores" of rounds were fired. The only mention of repeated shots was where the one toggle was removed. The rest were described as "trials" which can mean anything from one round to many thousands. Many "trials" involve multiple examples firing many thousands of rounds for an average so one sample cannot skew results.

I have an original and a replica 1876 and everything I have read state the 1876's action is plenty strong- for its day. The problem is, it's day was the black powder era and black powder is somewhat more forgiving in regards to pressures than smokeless. It was once believed to be impossible to overcharge a muzzle loader and there are many accounts of multiple projectiles being used in the same type of firearms so the findings mentioned do not surprise me.

The comments I have read on the 1876's weak action all had to do with the use of smokeless powder, not black. That there were early problems with the 1876 and smokeless powders is sort of obvious as there were no factory offerings using smokeless powder that I know of. Those who have a fair bit of experience with firearms of those times overwhelmingly tend to recommend only black powder rather than smokeless. This includes powders like Trail Boss as the pressure characteristics are different than black powder.

I really like my 1876s but I am realistic in what it is and what it isn't. The original gets used with black powder only due to its design parameters, the replica gets some smokeless through it depending on the purpose.

There were scores of rounds fired in each of the six trials, and were detailed in the Winchester archives, and referenced by Mr. Hockett, western historian and author of the above information. I simply had no interest in attempting to collate all the data and results into a viewable archive then attempt to cut and paste into a forum thread. You can research his article and the documents he referenced yourself if you are so inclined. I still stand by my comment: Try to replicate the load and charge in your own 'strong or stronger actions and video it for us to view if you think the toggle link is a weaker action then yours. Sure it's 140 years old, sure it's from the bp era, but that sure doesn't mean it's weak. And, by the way, it's the barrels that are too weak to handle the smokeless loads, not the actions. Seen more than a few that had chrome-moly barrels replacing the old deteriorated originals, and they handle the smokeless just fine. True, you absolutely can NOT turn a 45-75 into some kind of '450 Magnum' or a 50-95 into a 2700 fps poor mans BMG, but with some work-ups done properly, they can be a right powerful rifle, capable of taking anything in North America, including the great bears, with authority.

The 1876 was used successfully by T. Roosevelt and the RCMP in 45-75 WCF. The 45-75 will keep up
with comparable 45-70 BP loadings, as was the purpose of the 45-75. I have owned 1876 Winchester originals in 45-60 /45-75-they are fine rifles.
The 1886, especially in 33 WCF, 50 EX, and 45-70 was John Browning's best design in lever actions.
Smoother and stronger than the Marlins or the 1876.

Much game was killed with the 1876-including bear and buffalo-and Custer could have used a few at the Little Big Horn in that same year.

Custer would have been better served with better tactics, better understanding of his opponent, and less hubris.

As for the trials, I see no indication that "scores" of rounds were fired. The first test started with the words, "Fired twenty times..."

The second through seventh tests started out, "Fired with a charge of..." which is indicative of a single shot in each test. My English grades were not all that great but I'm pretty sure I am correct in my assessment. I found a copy of the correspondence between Winchester and Halleck in my copy of "The Winchester Model 1876 'Centennial" Rifle" by Herbert G. House on pages 113 and 114 with description of the test on pg 114. If you have information detailing the tests in greater detail I would greatly appreciate a link or other means of identifying it so I can look it up.

As for the later tests, it is pretty common knowledge that black powder (BP) has very different burning characteristics than smokeless. As such, BP is very inefficient burning after a certain point and much of the powder is blown out the muzzle along with any projectile. At one time a recommended means of determining a maximum charge of BP was to shoot over a clean white sheet or snow and look at the amount of unburned powder left. Keep adding powder until there was an "excessive" amount left over. The charge just before that would be the optimal load. Needless to say, such a method is rather subjective though it did lead to some pretty interesting charges. It also lead to the belief that one could not overcharge a black powder firearm even though some of them were made of iron rather than steel like the 1876.

This also works with projectiles. It was not unheard of to load double or even triple ball in a muzzleloader at times though it was more often with smooth bores than rifles. Having to seat the bullets from the muzzle would have engraved the rifling onto the bullet which would have eased the build up of pressure some. The use of Martini bullets is interesting too as they were less than bore size at around .450" due to their being paper patched. That too would have eased pressures to some degree.

I also cast suspicion on companies of the time doing their own testing. There were a lot of shenanigans in the advertising field and Winchester was right in there with everyone else. I'd be pretty willing to bet that Winchester had an idea of how to make a test appear thorough but put the odds on the side of their product. There wasn't much in the way of product liability back then, at least compared to today. P.T. Barnum and Buffalo Bill were not the only showmen in town.

Again, I am not saying the 1876 action was weak for its era, far from it. I just say it is a weaker one in overall comparison to others which came later. There are numerous reasons for this, not just the design of its operating mechanism. With the stronger alloys needed to handle the much higher operating pressures of smokeless powders, I am pretty sure the actions would handle the test used on the 1876 just fine and probably better.

Custer underestimated the strength of the Lakota extended village and the numbers therein. He also was not fully aware of
groups of Northern Cheyenne that had joined the Brule and Miniconjou Sioux. Many have misunderstood Custer's tactics:
he was technically under arrest by Grant and only Gen Terry gave him the 7th Cav to redeem himself by victory over the Lakota.
Hence his wish to meet the Sioux with his detached command-alone.

In an effort to avenge the 7th CAV, the massacre at Wounded Knee occurred near Pine Ridge Res or Agency. Women and children slain.
The 7th was responsible for that
Then the 1st Cav lost its colors in Korea. President T. Roosevelt held up the promotion of the CO at Wounded Knee, COL Forsyth.
Not a very sterling record for a cavalry regiment.


Custer still could have used 1876 or even 1873 rifles

Custer wasn't under arrest and Terry had nothing to do with Custer's appointment to the 7th Cavalry. General Sheridan was the reason Custer was given command of the 7th and even able to go west after testifying against Grant's brother and others in Grants cabinet for abuse of Indian reservation supplies. Custer also had no say or reason to use the 1876 or 1873 in the Cavalry. Those decisions were made by the Army after testing rifles for the purpose of fighting Indians.The 1876 wasn't even a consideration for use in the 7th Cavalry as it wasn't available let alone tested before Custer and the 7th headed to Montana Territory in 1876.

The Trapdoor Springfield was chosen for reasons that escape people of the 20th and 21st centuries. It was chosen for it's ability to perform in a skirmish deployment and sustained fire under those circumstances. A repeater wasn't used due to the need for a dependable rifle that could withstand harsh conditions and still function. It was also chosen because the 45-55 could put down a horse, which may be easier to hit than the rider.

As to the strength of the 1876, it had been tested and passed those tests that qualified it as a strong action. Most of the negative rumors you hear about the 1876 being weak are myths based on no actual first hand knowledge of the 1876. People have spread stories like this for thousands of years by hearsay and no real experience about the object that became so notorious.

Here is an original 1876 45-60 that blew up under a double charge of smokeless powder. You can see that the action held while the barrel blew into pieces as well as a round detonating in the magazine that blew up the magazine tube and forearm. Let this be a lesson not to double charge a rifle and not believe all the rumors you hear about such rifles...

The reason for the shrapnel handle????