Winchester Model 1860 and 1866 Rifles

boykinlp

boykinlp

Member
Bronze Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
13,805
Location
South Carolina
I throughly enjoyed the thread on the Winchester Model 1873, and as I was researching on the Internet, I started looking at the Winchester Model 1860 and 1866 rifles too. Reading about their history and the place that Smith, Wesson, Winchester, and BT Henry all played in it was very interesting. Thinking about the damage a few people with 1860's could do against an enemy with muskets or cap and ball revolvers, is unreal. Custer felt it first hand. Also, while reading about the Winchester .44 Rimfire Cartridge, I came upon information on the "Rocket Ball" ammo and "Volcanic Repeating Arms Company" and thought it was fascinating. If you think buying vintage ammo is crazy, try buying one round of Winchester .44 Rimfire, or even worse, a "Rocket Ball" round. I, of course, had seen 1860's and 1866's in movies or on TV before, but have never seen one in person. I realize the original are astronomically priced.

It was cool to watch a ton of videos on the 2 models too. It looks like both Uberti and Henry do make them now. The US made Henry is beautiful, but really, really expensive. Thinking $1000 more than the Uberti.

So, how many of you folks have 1860's or 1866's to show us? BTW, here is a picture of a"Rocket Ball", I believe.
Larry
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    35.8 KB · Views: 31
Register to hide this ad
Wasn't the 1860 made by Henry? It shot a .44 rimfire which hasn't been made in a VERY long time!!


For SASS, I shoot an 1866 and an 1873 reproduction in 44-40....real ones are too expensive.

The folks shooting an 1860 in SASS are using reproductions in .45 Colt or 44-40 usually.

Randy
 
growr said:
Wasn't the 1860 made by Henry? It shot a .44 rimfire which hasn't been made in a VERY long time!!


For SASS, I shoot an 1866 and an 1873 reproduction in 44-40....real ones are too expensive.

The folks shooting an 1860 in SASS are using reproductions in .45 Colt or 44-40 usually.

Randy
Click to expand...

Actually the 1860 was produced by the New Haven Arms Co. which was owned by Oliver Winchester and at least one other partner. Benjamin Tyler Henry was the mechanical brains of the outfit and the others were investors. They eventually parted ways over money and Winchester reorganized as Winchester Repeating Arms. That was in 1866 and the same year the "Improved Henry" was introduced as the Model 1866. Fascinating guns and men.
 
I don’t think repeating arms, or the lack of them had as much impact on the outcome of the Little BigHorn as we’ve always been told. I think it had more to do with the 8-1 warriors to soldiers ratio and indirect fire of arrows raining down. You can’t shoot back if you can’t see your enemy.
 
"I don’t think repeating arms, or the lack of them had as much impact on the outcome of the Little BigHorn as we’ve always been told"

But the Gatling guns left behind would have made a difference.
Just look at what machining guns did in WWI on frontal attack on foot soldiers.....
 
STCM(SW) said:
"I don’t think repeating arms, or the lack of them had as much impact on the outcome of the Little BigHorn as we’ve always been told"

But the Gatling guns left behind would have made a difference.
Just look at what machining guns did in WWI on frontal attack on foot soldiers.....
Click to expand...

I watched a recent documentary on it, where the lack of the Gatling gun was mentioned. According to it, most of the casualties were from indirect arrow fire. The warriors were launching them from over the hill, so the Gatling could not have brought direct fire on them. The main point of the documentary was the mistakes that Custer made in his leadership and decisions.
 
STCM(SW) said:
"I don’t think repeating arms, or the lack of them had as much impact on the outcome of the Little BigHorn as we’ve always been told"

But the Gatling guns left behind would have made a difference.
Just look at what machining guns did in WWI on frontal attack on foot soldiers.....
Click to expand...

Studies have shown that there were far fewer repeating rifles in Indian hands at the LBH than is commonly believed, estimated at some number around 100. Custer left his Gatling behind because he thought that it would slow him down too much in that terrain. Gatlings were not exactly lightweight. Whether it would have helped him even had he taken it along is a matter of speculation.

I believe the only "official" government-purchased Henry rifles used during the CW were those issued to the 1st DC Cavalry unit. Most others were privately purchased by soldiers in the state units. The most-used CW repeating rifle was the Spencer. It continued in service for several years after the war.
 
Last edited:
Interesting reading indeed on those models. Dug out my book called "History of Winchester Firearms 1860-1980 by Barnes. Interesting info by the way. States Winchester produced approx. 170,101 of the model 1866. Discontinued 1898. My favorite is always the 1873. Over 720,000 of the 1873 produced.
 
I have an 1891 vintage 1873 musket with a correct bayonet but tomorrow I’m shooting my 1866 uberti musket at my cas club’s monthly match. We sadly got snowed out last month which fell on the anniversary of Rorkes Drift so I’ll shoot in this getup with two .455 Webleys. Been doing this for years. Not competitive but a lot of fun. ‘No comedians please.’ There are a lot of similarities in hard lessons learned between the British and their Martini Henrys and the US and it’s Trapdoor Springfields. Both ‘modern’ militaries vastly underestimated their ‘primitive’ enemy.

Update- we had our shoot today. 11 very hardy souls as it was an overcast 41* but with a wind chill that made it 33*. Ouch. We called it done after 3 stages. We [only 4 of us] retired to Darryl’s Seafood Restaurant in Manteo for a yummy lunch. I had a good time. Shot all three stages with mounted bayonet. I told Lt Chard that it was a bloody miracle..that the Zulus had…froze. Bad day for loincloths. A cold day in Natal.
 

Attachments

  • 84AE0347-3E28-4201-8865-FF0217C449B8.jpg
    84AE0347-3E28-4201-8865-FF0217C449B8.jpg
    45.5 KB · Views: 34
  • BDA7C2DB-34F9-4610-A53D-56A96DA5DE64.jpg
    BDA7C2DB-34F9-4610-A53D-56A96DA5DE64.jpg
    78.1 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:
I thought there might be more forum members with a Model 1860 or 1866, but I guess the Model 1873 was king. I think the receivers on the 60 and 66 were just so beautiful.
Larry
 
The 1860 had it problems - no wood fore-end for when the barrel got hot, and the slot in the magazine tube collected sticks and dirt and was easily damaged. Those defects were corrected in the 1866 and 1873. I once had a Model 1876 in .45-75, but I never fired it. Basically an up-sized Model 1873. The only 1873 I ever owned was a .32-20 with a sewer pipe bore. I was going to get it lined, but that would have cost me about $200 at the time, which I didn't have. So I sold it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top