I started this thread earlier: http://smith-wessonforum.com/firearm...#post141686417

I am most interested in one of the historical 1866 or 1873 rifles, for the historical experience, for plinking, for home defense that that thread was about.

But something I read someone wrote elsewhere, was that the safety on the new copies of the 1866/1873, is more or less accurate as they historically were, which is the point, but that also the poor safety from the 19th century comes with the purchase. I hadn't really thought about that. For example, if you happen to drop the rifle and it is loaded, the rifle can shoot by itself, since unlike similar new rifles, there is no built-in safety that prevents this.

Then also if you have to unload the tube magazine, as I understand it, you have to work with action for each shot to come out, which can be dangerous, as it is not uncommon to accidentally shoot the weapon. It does not feel so safe really, and especially not if more than me, family members, etc. are going to shoot the weapon.

I have heard many people say that modern rifles from Henry repeating arms are the most safe option, they both have built-in protection so that the rifle does not shoot if you happen to drop it, and you can both load and more importantly reload quickly, safely and easily, by emptying the tube magazine. Here: Henry Color Case Hardened 357 Mag Lever Action Review - YouTube and here: Henry 45 70 Side Gate Lever Action Rifle Review - YouTube for example.

While others believe that loading close to the muzzle as on the Henry rifles can also be dangerous and that unloading is not as effective and safe as claimed.

(Also Henrys, rifles (except the 1860 Henry rifle) are not historical, although their Henry Big Boy in brass seems quite similar to the 1866 rifle.)

So I became somewhat uncertain about how to think about safety. Anyone here who has experience and can tell me what is true about safety and what I should consider?

Thank you.

I think a person interested in historic lever actions must accept the 19th century technology as is.

The way to mitigate the danger posed by the lack of modern external safeties is to always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and do not keep a round in the chamber unless shooting. Col. Cooper has a section on lever action manipulation in Art of the Rifle that I thought was quite good.

You do not have to chamber a round to empty a Winchester magazine tube. When the lever is all the way forward you can reach in a pluck out the round about to be chambered, or turn it upside-down and the round will likely fall out. Then, close the action and repeat. Easy!

I am a huge fan of the lever action. All of them. However, there in nothing like the old Winchesters. They have dynamic handling qualities all their own. The Marlins and Henrys are fine rifles. I enjoy the ones I have and have had, but they are just not the same.

Something few would give thought to, even the most safety-conscious shooters, particularly those familiar with lever-action rifles. If someone felt a need for a safety on a lever-action rifle, perhaps another action type would better suit them.

It’s his rifle so if he’s nervous about the safety, he should get a rifle that meets his safety concerns.

I have no interest in the newer lever action guns in part because of those newer safety arrangements, but I’m pretty confident in my ability to safely operate either new or old lever action safeties. A lot of that is my mussel memory for operating lever action guns after many decades of experience.

It’s no good to encourage someone to acquire a gun that they’re frightened of.

The Miroku-built versions of some of the 19th century Winchesters use a rebounding hammer and a manual safety on the tang. Thus, they are as safe as any other rifle of modern manufacture. These are used on the 1886 and 1892 versions. They do not include these features on the 1873 or 1866 versions, however. Modern Marlins use a safety that blocks the hammer. This makes it safe to unload by running cartridges through the action. Of course, the normal safety rules always apply. Having said that, I've used the old-style lever guns in various models for 60+ years. Never had an accidental discharge and, if I did, it would hit nothing but the dirt. I learned to use them long ago and I am perfectly comfortable with them just as they were 150 years ago.

__________________
Everybody could shoot

Yes, doing it this way is very fast and easy. They drop straight down into a nice neat pile.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

__________________
Slava Ukraini!

Thank you all for your help. Maybe it is even the case, that as long as I do as you write about here, the old 1866/1873 rifles might even be safer than the new Henry rifles, considering that they are loaded right next to the muzzle?

So, get a Miroku/Winchester 1892....I dont like the tang safety, but it dont bother me..Great shooter in .357...slightly picky in .38spl..handloads cure that...loads of fun to shoot..very safe gun

The historical safety for lever guns is the half-cock position, in lieu of an unloaded (or spent shell) chamber.

Modern Marlin rifles have a cross-bolt safety in the receiver, which blocks the hammer. Modern Moroku/Winchester lever guns have a tang safety, and a positive hammer block operated by an extended trigger pull, but no half-cock position per se. The hammer retracts automatically when the trigger is released, much like in a modern revolver.

Tube loading is not unsafe, if basic safety rules are followed. millions of us have done it since we were kids with.22 rifles.

If you watch Laban Teale work his 1866 on Conagher you will want one. Find one of the Miroku Winchesters. It will be expensive, but worth it. Of course, the original 1866 shot the 44 Henry rimfire and nothing else, so if you want as close to original as possible a Miroku Winchester 1873 in 44-40 is the one. It is also featured in Conagher. My favorite movie as you have probably guessed.

Just a note regarding this rifle in .45 Colt... While an excellent gun and reasonably accurate, cast bullet loads using the popular Lyman #454424 SWC design ( about 260 grains), required the bullet be seated considerably deeper than for revolver loads for them to function through the magazine of the 1892 reproduction Miroku. Whether or not this holds true for any other bullet designs, I don't know.

I have done that a few times, but 99% of the time back then, it was emptied by rapidly pulling the trigger on a dancing coke can!

The old Mossberg/Western Field M72 had a safety. I'm talking a lever on the left side of the receiver. The rifle was more of a Marlin knock-off with side ejection.

The best safety for lever actions or any gun is the 6 inches between your ears.......I detest extra safeties on traditional lever guns.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

^^ Yep, I agree. I have a newer Marlin with the cross bolt safety that I removed and replaced with a safety delete kit. I also removed the hideous bolt safety on my Rossi 1892. I am not a fan of classic lever guns that have been modified with added manual safeties.

Attached Images

IMG_3064.jpg (118.6 KB, 295 views)

__________________
- Change it back -

I own a number of Model 1892 and Model 1894 rifles and carbines as well as a Marlin 39A and a few 9422s with the traditional quarter cock hammer system. Only one of them is equipped with a modern safety, and I don’t have any reservations about carrying any of them in the field.

That’s still the case even though my father managed to shoot shoot himself with a Model 1892 in .32-20 when he was 16. He was carrying it loaded on a tractor with the lever closed and the hammer set on the quarter cocked notch. Unfortunately the rifle slipped and the hammer struck the axle of the tractor on the way down. It fired and the bullet entered under his lowest rib and exited out through the shoulder blade. He walked about a mile and a half to the house and survived just fine, with a couple scars but a lot wiser.

Fast forward about 30 years and he was serious about teaching firearm safety to his kids, for obvious reasons, but had nothing against using a Winchester 1892 or 1894 as he recognized the fault was his not the gun’s.

I also took an NRA Hunter Safety Course at age 12, a requirement to obtain a hunting license at an age under 16. Consistent with what my father taught us, the instructor reinforced that the basic method of rendering a firearm safe was to open the action.

That works every time on a lever gun.

The Model 1892 and earlier model Winchester lever guns only have a quarter cock notch on the hammer. However, on this Model 1892, as soon as the action is opened even slightly, the firing pin is retracted and blocked so that the round cannot fire out of battery.




The Model 1894 had two significant changes in the operating system. The first involved the locking lug across the back of the bolt with essentially a transfer pin for the firing pin. As soon as the locking lug drops even slightly, it eliminates any contact between the hammer and firing pin.




The second major difference is the use of a grip safety. The top surface of the lever presses up on a stud that is connected to a counterpart behind the trigger. It prevents any rearward motion of the trigger until the lever is fully depressed.

1892 with no grip safety:



1894 with grip safety:




With any of these rifles or carbines the firearm is safe as long as the lever is lowered even slightly as the action is open and the firing pin protected from any hammer blow. With this 1892, with the hammer in the quarter cock notch, the lever will only drop a short distance and won’t eject the round or cause a feed issue. This is how my father should have carried it on the tractor. It’s also how you’d cross a fence with it (also laying it on the ground while you cross) or carry it in rough terrain where you might slip and fall.




The grip safety on the Model 94 adds another level of protection as it prevents the trigger from moving rearward unless the lever is fully depressed.




Note however the quarter cock notch can still be sheared if the firearm falls in a manner that a solid object hits the rear of the hammer. However, also note that a tang safety does a good job of protecting the hammer from a blow from the rear. Had my father’s 1892 had a tang sight it’s unlikely he would have been shot.



In 1982, Winchester added a rebounding hammer. It incorporates a hammer block on the trigger that engages after the hammer falls and rebounds and remains in place until the trigger is pulled again. That provides protection against the hammer striking the firing pin of the rifle or carbine is dropped.



In late 1991, Winchester added a cross bolt safety that was pretty well universally hated due to the divot and cross bolt in the receiver. However it at least did not interfere with a tang sight.

The current crop of Winchesters utilize a tang safety that came along shortly before production was moved over seas to Miroku.

It allows the 1894 to be set on safe while allowing the action to be cycled to unload the weapon.



However it interferes with a tang sight, requiring it to be moved farther aft on the tang, right where the thumb usually comes over the top of the tang. The tang safety thus requires the shooter to hold the rifle with the thumb alongside the tang. I’m not a fan and the odds are good this .38-55 will end up with a Williams receiver sight instead.

It’s also worth noting the safety is entirely redundant. When unloading a Model 94, the action can be cycled without depressing the grip safety, so the trigger is still locked.

Even on the 1892, you can still unload the rifle or carbine by slightly short stroking the lever on the way back up so that the firing pin is never unlocked.

It’s worth noting that Uberti and Chiappa/Armi Sport replicas are not sold with anything other than the original safety devices. Yet ADs are not happening with them anymore than they do with other safety equipped firearms.

That willingness to produce a forearm without multiple redundant safeties is also due to Europe having the good sense to keep lawyers in check and protect people and businesses from frivolous lawsuits where the fault lies with the user, not the product. Our overly litigious “everyone blame the gun and the people who made it” society is why we can’t have nice things.

Savage 1899.

I replaced the ineffective “pig tail” safeties on my Rossi 92s with filler plugs because the safety was both not necessary and was unreliable. The bolt mounted safety is easily moved from safe to fire by any contact at all with brush. There’s no sense having a safety if it doesn’t stay on “safe” until you move it to “fire”.

I am a fan of savage 99 & win ‘92s. Missed a shot with a Marlin 94 because I didn’t have the lever squeezed tight enough. No more lever safeties for me. I am impressed with the Miroku model 92s a compact smooth quality gun; even their 86, but it’s a bit unwieldy.

I noticed the grip safety on my Miroku made Model 94 takedown has a much larger stud behind the trigger than my pre 64 Winchesters, and requires a very tight hold on the lever to fully depress it.

If I decide to use it in the field, that stud is going to get ground down to a more practical and grip friendly length.

Well written!

The Browning BLR has an ingenious and elegant safety system IMHO. First is a rebounding hammer. There also is a half-cock notch for the hammer. The elegant part is that when in half-cock you can fold the top of the hammer forward, physically preventing the hammer from moving forward even with a failure of the half-cock notch. The BLR also has a detachable box magazine that makes unloading simple.

I love the Miroku made Winchester 1892s. The tang safety doesn’t bother me at all since it’s exactly like the safeties on my over & under shotguns. It would bug me if I wanted a tang mounted aperture sight though.

The Marlin cross bolt safety does bother me. It is not in a natural location, either for engaging or disengaging the safety. It’s also redundant with the half-cock notch and lever disconnector.

I have several lever guns and use them often. One is in my pickup every day and one rides in a scabbard on my saddle a lot. I NEVER carry one with a round in the chamber. When the rifle is needed it is a natural motion for me to lever the action as I bring it to my shoulder. It is such a habit that if a loaded round was in the chamber I would shuck it out on the ground

I own one each, Marlin and Winchester, with cross bolt safeties. Nothing wrong with either in my opinion. For hunting they do add some benefit.

As to the tube fed centerfire guns, be VERY careful loading them. NEVER hold them upright and drop the cartridge into the tube.

I don’t keep a lever, or any rifle for that matter, loaded for home defense. Not that it is a bad choice, I just don’t. If I did as I mentioned it would be a natural move for me to lever the rifle as I picked it up. A ‘73 or ‘66 carbine would work well in that situation.

Dan

IN GENERAL: Don't drop your firearms, loaded or not...

SPECIFIC TO TYPE: Don't keep (load) a round in the chamber of a lever action rifle until you are ready to fire it...

SPECIFIC TO EACH FIREARM: Learn to load & unload your firearms safely.

Cheers!

P.S. If you desire all the historical attributes (both good & bad) of an older firearm, buy the actual OLDER FIREARM.

#2 is funny and wrong.......When a big buck shows up......And you rack the action to load it......He'll be several hundred yards away before you can shoot.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

I took the CBS out of my hunting Marlin 444 and ground it flat with the receiver when pushed in the off position. Blued the raw end and reinstalled in the off position. I tightened the screw so tight that it will never move. Same as a lock delete kid but much cheaper. Ben that way since 1999. No problems. No oops.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Whole heartedly agree as well. As a matter of fact, after I read the OP's comments, I never really even thought of a lever action not being "safe", ever. I guess that's what happens when you've shot 'em for many years...

... has a 1/4 cock hammer safety, when in that position, it is LOCKED.

You can pull the rod that compresses the rounds in the tube completely out and do a 'mag dump'. Then just cycle the action to be sure nothing is feeding.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Since the OP specifically stated in this thread (and in his previously referenced post about lever actions) that he had no interest what-so-ever in hunting, racking the action might, in a home- or self-defense situation, actually be of some value...? It seems to work with shotguns!

Your hunting scenario would also apply to a bolt action rifle, of course.

Cheers!

P.S. The OP's concerns in this thread seemed to be primarily regarding safety issues, both operational and physical vis-a-vis the firearm. Hence my 3 suggestions.

I have a Winchester 94AE in 45 Colt. I removed the crossbar safety gizmo completely and filled the receiver holes with blued hole covers. Also installed Williams receiver rear sight and front sight. Longer sight distance.

Two thoughts on this.

1) As I stated above, a lever action an in fact any firearm, is safe when the action is open. With a lever gun, dropping the lever just a little renders it incapable of being fired. There’s no need to carry it with an empty chamber.


2) That said, pulling the lever up to the stock/lower tang to close the action still generates a fair amount of noise and creates the effect you describe if you try it while deer hunting.

In fact one of the complaints back in the day about the change to the rebounding hammer on the Model 94 (a change introduced in 1982 just prior to the Angle Eject change) was that it was not possible to cock the hammer without getting a couple metallic quiet (but still loud enough to spook a buck) clicks. At the time I found that to be the case regardless of how the hammer and trigger were manipulated. I can’t verify that recollection today as I no longer have a Model 94 from that era and have not owned one for about a decade.

In contrast with the original Model 94 quarter cock hammer you can lift the hammer off the quarter cock notch, pull the trigger to the rear, pull the hammer all the way back, release the trigger and then lower the hammer on to the sear all without making a sound. That was and still is a big asset when still hunting for deer in woods at close range where even small sounds carry.

The inability to do that with the initial rebounding hammer design was not well received by many deer hunters.

Interestingly, I have a Model 94 trails end take down rifle made in 2022 (the fourth one made that year) and while it has the rebounding hammer as well as a tang safety and grip safety, the hammer can be brought to full cock silently using the same method as the original Model 94.

So at some point between 1982 and 2022, Winchester addressed the complaint.

Racking the action in a home defense situation is another old old tale. Which is simply untrue All that does is give your position away.........Bet ya can't name one incident where that old tale worked.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

I’ve removed the CBS from both of my 1894s. Replaced one with a fake screw and the Trapper’s with a saddle ring. They are only cas toys. I’ve seen a couple guys go to the line, beep goes off and they cycle and NOT fire a couple rounds before someone yells ‘safety’ and they push the safety off and depending on the order of firearms might get a reshoot or might own the stage and will have to continue.

The Henry large frame lever guns are unique in having both a side gate and a removable inner magazine tube.

A side gate is essential for ease of reloading in the field while on the move. A tube magazine design without a loading gate doesn’t let you reload while sill being ready to shoot.

On the other hand, there’s no free lunch. The large frame Henry lever guns use a closed top receiver like the Marlin 36 and 336. That makes it much harder to visually confirm the rifle is indeed empty and that the last round did not get hung up.

When I worked in the DC area, I’d attend the large gun show in Chantilly VA. They would have an AD almost every show, an almost without exception ot would be with a a tube fed firearm. A common scenario as an attendee unloading the rifle or shotgun at him or in the parking lot, casing the gun and bringing it inside. Phase two would involve the gun being pulled from the case with the trigger being pulled in the process and the firing pin hitting a round that had hung up in the magazine tube.

In that regard, I am a big fan of tube fed designs that utilize a very open receiver top to make it very easy to visually confirm here are no rounds in the tube by verifying you can see the magazine follower.

I’ll take that over removing the tube and then cycling the action as the Model 94’s open top receiver allows 100% positive assurance the weapon is unloaded.



But again, there are trade offs. With a closed tube magazine it has to be unloaded by cycling all the rounds through the action.

On a newer tang safety Model 94 you can cycle the rounds out of the gun with the safety set on “safe”, and that is the major benefit of having what is still a redundant safety device.

On an old 1894 Winchester with no manual safety, you can still cycle the rounds through the action without closing the lever enough to depress the grip safety, thus also blocking the trigger from any movement.

I do that on mine by placing the end of my pinky finger on the curve of the lever between lever and lower tang so that it creates just enough of a block to allow the extractor to engage the rim, while still preventing the lever from depressing the grip safety. It also leaves enough room inside the lever for the other three fingers so that there is no reason to have your trigger finger dangling outside the lever when unloading, where it might find it’s way to the trigger.




In short, it does not matter what you have. What matters is that you *fully* understand how it operates, what risks it poses, and think through and use effective measures to mitigate those risks when using the firearm.

A certain President, back when he was vice president said all we need for home defense is a double barrel shotgun. They also make a distinctive sound when snapping closed, and that may have been parts of his reasoning.

But that kind of non fact based reasoning is right up there with the same non fact based reasoning that says the 9mm Luger will “blow the lungs right out of the body” as well as the non fact based reasoning that .223 Remington is far more deadly than larger center fire rifle rounds (which is nearly all rifle rounds), or in this case a 12 gauge loaded with buck shot at close range.

One might wonder how many times that mere sound of a shotgun being racked resulted in no further response necessary...?

I'm sure it MUST have happened. At least ONCE?

There just HAVE to be some potential perps (Uh, unidentified "suspects"?) who heard and promptly retreated? Of course, getting accurate statistics is virtually impossible...

No personal experience, happily, on my part.

Cheers!

P.S. Bambi's Dad must be quite fleet of foot to be "several hundreds yards away" in the time it takes to load a lever action. Of course, one in the chamber while hunting seems prudent regardless of the weapon design.

Your quoted man is an empty sock.... Knows nothing about firearms.....Probably doesn't know which end the bullet comes out.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

The answer to lever action safetys has always been "Use the one between your ears".

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

That’s obvious. To be fair though, I met him once when he was VP. He came out of his office in the executive office building and was able to direct me to the restroom. So there’s that…

Better than filling the safety hole with a plug, is putting a peep sight there. Adjustable Bolt-Mounted Blue Peep Sight Safety Replacement [PS-01] - $66.95 : Steve's Gunz, Rossi 92 Specialist
You might need a taller front sight but that's not hard to find.

Attached Images

	20220729_100102.jpg (162.5 KB, 76 views)
	20220729_100116.jpg (53.0 KB, 75 views)

I have a Skinner sight on a BL-22, because there is no tang on which mount a tang sight. I’m jus not a an of the Skinner sight for various reasons.

Consequently all my Rossi 92s have tang sights.

I suspect it is a lot like defensive handgun statistics. Most defensive handgun uses don’t actually result in the handgun being fired. Just drawing or beginning to draw a handgun is sufficient most (an estimated 95%) of the time to end an assault when the assailant realizes he is about to get shot and flees. How many of those encounters are reported? Probably not very many.

I’ve saw a weapon twice in work related situations an never had to fire. I also had an individual attempt to mug me with a knife a block or so away from an ATM. I had been in a hurry to get to the AT&T store a couple blocks off the metro before it closed, go cash, hurried down he empty street (cold rainy night) took a wrong turn, turned around and found my self face to face with a Hispanic man in a hoodie, with on arm raised toward my neck and the other coming out of his pocket with a nice. I jabbed him in the chest with my left arm and stepped into him to drive him off balance and keep him off balance to give me time and space to draw with my right hand. However as soon as I lifted my jacket to draw, he has an immediate change in attitude and demeanor, and turned and fled. He clearly did not want to get shot.

I didn’t report it as I had an inoperative phone, and still needed to get to the AT&T store. By the he was long gone and frankly I probably could not have positively identified him anyway. So why spend the time waiting for the police, making a statement, etc, especially in a jurisdiction where concealed carry was legal, but resisted and discouraged by the county.

This one would definitely confuse him.