What do you think of the Winchester (Miroku) 1885 Trapper with a 16" barrel?

What do I think?

Aesthetically it is ASTOUNDINGLY un appealing. The barrel has NO art to it, the sights look like an afterthought, the fore-arm looks sourced from another rifle....

Conceptually - so short a .45-70 does little for me in a single shot.

I'd hate to waste space in a safe and would never bother putting it on a rack to look at and would rather carry a short Marlin as a handy heavy-hitter or a proper double-rifle as a non-repeater hunter.


Todd.

Solomonson said:

LOL! I shot a Ruger #3 in 45-70 yesterday with some fairly stout loads. It wasn't terrible, but I was also wearing a well padded safari jacket... I've long coveted a #3 in that caliber, but they have become difficult to find and expensive. Maybe that's what's driving my interest in the Trapper?

Click to expand...

They are a lot alike.

The #3 I had was my dads, and I remember shooting it as a kid, and always wanting to just throw it in the creek after a couple of rounds. I used to hate the thing. At the time, my dad didnt reload, and only seemed to by the heaviest loads he could find, or at least they felt that way. I always compared it to shooting a 10-22 in 45/70. That stock sucks!

I got it when he passed and was going to get rid of it outright, but got to looking around, and came up with a load similar to someguy2800's. Mine was 14 grains of Trail Boss under a 300 grain LRNFP. That load is a pussy cat, and you can shoot it all day in a tee shirt. Accurate too, and really not a slacker if you wanted to hunt with it.

I ended up trading if off a couple of years ago on something else I just had to have in the moment. Story of my life. It seems like it doesnt take much to distract .....Look, a bird!

I don’t have anything to offer other than if it’s Miroku the quality will be excellent.

Solomonson said:

$899... At the upper level of what I would consider.

https://www.cdnnsports.com/1885-trapper-45-70-16-5.html

Click to expand...

I like the sights a lot ! I like the saddle ring, and the price is certainly decent, considering. No weird safeties either !

MIROKU. Everything else aside (loading, caliber ... whatever) Miroku makes NICE GUNS!!!!!!

I’m pretty sure FN doesn’t own Miroku though the two have a close business relationship since the 60’s.

Solomonson said:

Yeah, I don't agree.

IF there is truly a historic basis for the "trapper" -- if they were actually produced by Winchester back in the day, then they are initially justified by that -- form follows historic function. Going a bit deeper the forearm looks quite nice actually, the sights are modern/adjustable but still fine -- including the front and the short barrel is what makes it a trapper.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the variants of the 1885 but they did make all sorts of short little guns in large calibers, as cavalry carbines. Little Rolling Blocks in .50-70 or .45-70, for example. The one in the OP is not a historical model but a little big bore gun like this in general isn't a modern concoction. I think it's cool. And it's nice to have models that aren't long, heavy, heavy-barreled BPCRs. That said, they often issued carbine-specific loads for less recoil.

Winchester did indeed make 1885 single shot carbines, the shortest standard factory barrel offered was 15 inches, but on special order they would make it just about any way the customer wanted. my favorite single shot is a browning 1885 low wall in .260.

Goosey said:

I don't know about the variants of the 1885 but they did make all sorts of short little guns in large calibers, as cavalry carbines. Little Rolling Blocks in .50-70 or .45-70, for example. The one in the OP is not a historical model but a little big bore gun like this in general isn't a modern concoction. I think it's cool. And it's nice to have models that aren't long, heavy, heavy-barreled BPCRs. That said, they often issued carbine-specific loads for less recoil.

View attachment 872156

Click to expand...

I had a .44/40 Rolling block carbine like that short one pictured. I sold it 5 or 10 years ago for a good profit to some SASS guy who had to have it.

eastbank said:

Winchester did indeed make 1885 single shot carbines, the shortest standard factory barrel offered was 15 inches, but on special order they would make it just about any way the customer wanted. my favorite single shot is a browning 1885 low wall in .260.

Click to expand...

That gun s almost an exact copy of that including the sights ! So there you go !

I have virtually no use for any rifle having a barrel shorter than 18"; especially if the gun is a single-shot that typically has a receiver already much shorter than most other action-types do. Practically speaking, a 16" long barrel is no handier in heavy cover than one having two more inches but there is a price to pay in terms of more muzzle blast and less velocity that the shorter barrel brings to the table.

I am liking the idea of trying one of the 1885 Trapper Mirokuchesters. The appearance seemed weird, the first time I saw one, but, it has grown on me. Most of them I see available are .30-40 Krag, or .38-55. Some of the places I carry a rifle, I prefer to keep a low profile, at least part of the time, so it is nice to be able to keep it on a strap or sling, with the entire profile lower than the top of my shoulder.

I do not know about any of the commercial loads, but some number of handgun hunters have used 14” Thompson Center Contenders, chambered in .45-70, so, there should be some recipes available for short-barreled loads.

I am wondering about a Miroku-Winchester Trapper, available locally, in .30-40 Krag, and my search for short-barreled information, on that cartridge, resulted in this thread showing-up in the results.

Well, I was at a nearby LGS, earlier this week, and saw one of these Miroku-Winchester 1885 Trapper Carbines, .45-70, and asked them to put it on hold, for a day or two, while I decided whether to arrange a lay-away, or buy outright, and whether to bring anything to trade for partial credit. I returned late this afternoon, and bought it, outright. It is a handy little thing, the same OAL as a 16” AR15, with the M4 stock fully collapsed, but slim enough to be toted in an unobtrusive scabbard or sleeve.

I do not feel an urge to preserve this one as a collectible, so if recoil is too annoying, I will try a slip-over pad, or perhaps have a proper, modern pad fitted. Really, however, if I want to fire many rounds of .45-70, I have two Ruger No. 1 rifles so chambered, one blued, and one stainless, with a laminated stock. I may well enjoy this Trapper, as-is, firing just a few rounds at a time, occasionally.

Recoil is pretty subjective, My original Trapdoor carbine does not seem punishing to me at all, with the full power, 70 grain rifle load. But apparently it was so brutal to most people, that they had to "invent" the 55 grain carbine load. !!! 300 and 350 grain bullets would certainly tame recoil, if that was a problem.

I was considering the same gun some time/years ago, and they were asking $1200 or so for them. So I bought the Trapdoor for $750 instead.

Rexster said:

Well, I was at a nearby LGS, earlier this week, and saw one of these Miroku-Winchester 1885 Trapper Carbines, .45-70, and asked them to put it on hold, for a day or two, while I decided whether to arrange a lay-away, or buy outright, and whether to bring anything to trade for partial credit. I returned late this afternoon, and bought it, outright. It is a handy little thing, the same OAL as a 16” AR15, with the M4 stock fully collapsed, but slim enough to be toted in an unobtrusive scabbard or sleeve.

I do not feel an urge to preserve this one as a collectible, so if recoil is too annoying, I will try a slip-over pad, or perhaps have a proper, modern pad fitted. Really, however, if I want to fire many rounds of .45-70, I have two Ruger No. 1 rifles so chambered, one blued, and one stainless, with a laminated stock. I may well enjoy this Trapper, as-is, firing just a few rounds at a time, occasionally.

Click to expand...

Glad you found one, should be an excellent rifle. With a hard butt pad I hold it different , if you play around with the position a bit you may find its comfortable to shoot with moderate loads more than a few times.
Good luck!

I think they look weird and I can't get past it. Might feel different if I handled one but just from looks, I don't want anything to do with one. Needs at least six to eight more inches of barrel.

CraigC said:

I think they look weird and I can't get past it. Might feel different if I handled one but just from looks, I don't want anything to do with one. Needs at least six to eight more inches of barrel.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, they do look weird. A lever-action repeater Trapper carbine, with a magazine about as long as the barrel, is something to which we have become accustomed, but an 1885 High Wall-type of rifle seems to “need” a long barrel, to look “right.” Somewhere along the way, however, the idea of a rifle that can hang on a strap or sling, under a poncho or raincoat, became appealing. I had became accustomed to the AR16/M4 carbine, with a stock that collapses, resulting in a handy package about 32” long, during my police patrol days. I was only a “carbine unit” officer for a few years, as I worked straight nights, and preferred the shotgun, which could be kept up-front, with me, and deployed at my discretion, whereas the rifle/carbine had to be kept cased, in the trunk, unless specific circumstances existed. I sold my Colt AR15A2 Govt Carbine to a colleague whose younger eyes were better-suited to those sights*.

For that matter, a shotgun tends to look “right” with about 26” of barrel, to my eyes, but my duty shotguns had 18” to 20” barrels, and I kept hoping the chief would OK 14” barrels, for patrol officers. I was willing to pay the NFA tax, as I would be the owner of the weapon, as I owned all of my duty firearms, but needed the chief to do his part, by amending policy, and signing-off on the CLEO paperwork.

I saw paintings and line drawings of historic carbines being toted my dragoons and other cavalry, and I would occasionally see such weapons, at a local dealer that specializes in collectible firearms. None were High Wall types, but some were rolling-block types. I have not ridden a horse, since I was a teen, in the Seventies, but the utility of the shorter carbines makes plenty of sense.

So, eventually, the “weird” aspect of the Miroku-Chester 1885 Trapper normalized itself.

*I later acquired AR15/M4 weapons that could accept optics, but never got around to being re-certified/qual’ed to tote a patrol carbine,

i like 45-70,s, short-long-light-heavy. the target was shot by a ruger # 3 from a rest with a 300 gr hornady bullet with 50 grs H-4198 for a honest 1900 fps(croney) at 100 yards. as for recoil, when shooting at game i never feel it and sight in off a lead sled. one thing for sure i have never lost a deer that i shot thru the lungs with the 45-70 and they are easy to find.

My first thought after looking at it is that you could nickname it "Muley" or "Dynamite" over the kick it will give you when you shoot it. Otherwise - I love it. It is a cool and novel looking rifle.

See if they will add on 4 more inches to that barrel.

Like Swampwolf said due to receiver length they are short rifles to begin with. My 1885 has a 24” barrel and is a light weight nice handling rifle even in the brush country I hunt in. I personally don’t have any use for a “short barreled” rifle.