When you look at the 1883 Burgess carbine it is so clearly superior to the 1873 Winchester that it seems bizarre that it did not take over the market. The Winchester 1873 technology had not advanced significantly since 1860 when the Henry rifle adapted the ineffective S&W Volcanic to use rim fire cartridges. The Burgess had a shorter and stronger one-piece receiver, a stronger action, a more modern and appealing appearance, and worked great. But Colt wasn't able to sell them because the public was convinced that the Winchester was better.
But the 1881 Marlin and 1883 Burgess and Whitney Kennedys scared Winchester enough to finally have Browning design the 1886 for him.
It's odd that it took until 1892 for Winchester to make a carbine that had the same modern compact size and appearance as the 1883 Burgess.
Winchester sent out sales reps with "skeletonized" Winchesters, which had portions of the receivers removed to show how the innards worked without removing sideplates. This, along with the gladhanding/hardsell marketing the reps engaged in was very effective. People supposedly really loved those skeleton rifles.
O. Winchester had been a shirt salesman and Lt. Governor of Connecticut and he knew how to sell.
The 1873 is said to be a weak design. The toggle link system does appear weak (more especially so in comparison to the later Browning designed 1886, 92 & 94 designs) but it is actually pretty strong. The toggle pivot points actually don't line up in a straight line, the central pivot, the "knee," is slightly higher, and the toggle is shouldered against the receiver and bolt.
It is actually a fairly robust design, but it is true that that fact doesn't make it better than the Marlin 1881 (.44-40 versus .45-70?
) or some others, and as pointed out, while Winchester did go on to the 1876, he also went further on to the great J. M. Browning designs of the 1886, 92, and 94. The 1892 was a great design, Browning got a bonus for, downsizing the mighty 1886. The 1892 was actually a stronger design than it really needed to be, but thanks to that, many still exist, the design lives on in the Rossi version chambered in modern magnum calibers, and the older Browning 1892 and the newer Miroku made Winchester labeled 1892s.
Slightly tangential, I received today a nice hardcover book one the "Colt Burgess Magazine Rifle, 1 of 1000." I look forward to going through it thoroughly and reading it. It has many nice photos, histories, patent drawings (the Burgess shares design similarities/heritage features with era rifles other than the 1881 Marlin!). Also of note are certain differences between original Burgess 1883s and the modern Uberti carbine.
Of note:
1.) Original Burgesses, both rifle and carbine, had butt traps for collapsing cleaning rods like the 1873 Winchester saddlering carbine, while newly made Uberti copies lack this feature.
2.) Most, if not all, Burgess original carbines had a saddlering, like the Winchester. The Uberti does not.
3.) Front sights on original Burgess carbines were attached to the barrel, behind the barrel band. Uberti copies have the sight integral to the barrel band, a feature found on the 1866 Winchester, and I believe, early 1873s, later 1873 Winchesters apparently had separate sight & barrel band.
People considering purchasing a Uberti Burgess might consider the above differences, but keep in mind, it is not necessarily an exhaustive list. That does not mean I consider the Uberti copy in any way inferior or disappointing. It's a fine copy.