StrawHat
Member
My point being you are not dealing with an original but a better made piece with better metallurgy.
Kevin
Kevin
JM Browning designed rifles
- Thread starter Ivan the Butcher
- Start date
Alpo
Member
An 1892 trapper takedown. Wow.
I don't believe they could do a take down with a saddle ring carbine, so it would have to be a rifle. A 16-inch short rifle? That would be something to see.
I don't believe they could do a take down with a saddle ring carbine, so it would have to be a rifle. A 16-inch short rifle? That would be something to see.
Alpo
Member
Cool. I'm not a fan of color case hardened rifles, but that's slick.
The bolt face is thin on the orig design,,thin for the use of the 30-06 cartridge when loaded to the max.
The case will in some instances set back into the face of the breech bolt causing the excess H/S problem often mentioned in the Mod95 chambered in 30-06,,but that doesn't seem to be a problem in the other calibers.
It isn't a problem in the other calibers as they don't generate the chamber pressures that the 30-06 ultimately got up to.
Likely some handloaders helped the situation along as well. Always trying for a bit extra speed and energy from any cartridge.
The locking lugs and bolt assembly itself hold just fine.
The rifles that develop the issue will show a depression of the case head in the bolt face itself. That is the set-back and the excess H/S it causes.
I'm guessing the modern repros beefed up the bolt face and built of modern alloy steels also help with the problem to make it a non-issue .
Did this happen on your personal rifle? Can you show an instance where this happened? Or did ya just read it somewhere?
..No I didn't just read it somewhere.
I've seen it on a few in the last 50+ yrs of gunsmithing & restoration work.
I've fixed a couple as well with the standard gunsmith's repair method too..
No.. it hasn't happened on my personal rifle,,a 1916 mfg 30-06 restocked by John Oberlies of Dayton, Ohio likely in the late 20's.
I'm careful with it. I load conservatively and have said that here in the past.
Did 'ya' think I just made it all up?
You should know better than that.
"..Can you show an instance where this happened?..."
No, I didn't bring the subject up and never thought it was some sort of an oddity I had to document for future generations to see when I did come across it..
It's not like it's a secret.
bmcgilvray
Member
I believe that Col. Charles Askins wrote an article on the Winchester Model 1895 rifle which appeared in the 1973 Guns & Ammo Annual which stated that the Model 1895 action was prone to headspace issues in .30-06.
I tend to believe that there have been enough reports of trouble with the .30/06 in original Winchesters that there is something to them, but I’d hope Miroku took the necessary steps to shore up that matter. Given that, and in light of the fact that I’ve never been an “adventurous handloader,” I still think a ‘95 in .30/06 is a worthwhile goal.
I do appreciate the input from 2152hq. I suppose I could change horses and look for a .405 or .30-40, but I’ve had my heart set on an ‘06 for years and hate to readjust now.
I do appreciate the input from 2152hq. I suppose I could change horses and look for a .405 or .30-40, but I’ve had my heart set on an ‘06 for years and hate to readjust now.
I had a Browning 1895 in .30-06. I didn't fire it as much as I should have, but I had no problems.
bmcgilvray
Member
I'd be tickled pink with either an original Winchester Model 1895 or a Miroku if chambered for .30-06. I'd just treat it like I do my low-numbered Model 1903 Springfield and use it with handloads that mimicked original .30-06 ballistics. Say, 2700 fps with 150 grain bullets, obtained from moderate charges of medium burning powders.
I'd shoot it, hunt with it and be happy.
I'd shoot it, hunt with it and be happy.
That is basically my thinking. That type of power would be perfectly adequate for anything I’d want to use a ‘95 for, and no doubt easier on the shooter than more vigorous stuff.
I have owned many original and modern day copies of the 1885, 1886, 1892 and 1894 Winchesters.
Had a Miroku made take down 1886 rifle in 45-70. 26" full octagon barrel, blue receiver. But it was heavy and I did not like the rebounding hammer as it resulted in too many FTF with magnum primers. Beautiful gun though. I traded it for an equally nice Uberti 1873 45 Colt rifle with their beautiful case hard type finish. It's much lighter too.
I decided on the trade after lucking onto a well used but well cared for Model 71 348 Winchester. Got it for a good price because it was tapped for a side scope mount. Action is as slick as glass and the rifle balances beautifully and comes up to the shoulder perfectly for me. Shot it very well with iron sights but I've just installed a Williams receiver "peep" which lets me get on target quicker. The 71 is a refinement of John Browning's 1886 action.
Also have two model 1885s, hi wall that has been re-bored from 32-40 to 45-70 and a lo wall 22 rim fire. The hi wall has an excellent bore. I had the lo wall re lined as the original rifling would not do better than 3" at 30 yards regardless of ammo.
Had a brand spanking new Uberti hi hall sporter in 45-70. Very light weight and handy but a beast to shoot with anything but trapdoor level loads. I traded it for a nicely refinished model 94 take down in 38-55, my first model 94.
I have owned many 94s in various calibers and configurations, all pre-68 rifles. These included 32 special and 30-30 rifles from the 50s. Both 20" round barrels and a nice model 55 take down 32 Special from the thirties. This was a half magazine lighter weight version of the model 94. All these were traded or sold. Still have a pair of 24" octagon full mag rifles in 30-30 and 32-40. And the 38-55 take down.
The model 92 is covered as well. Original Winchesters in 25-20, 32-20 and 38-40. And a nice little Rossi copy in 38/357 mag.
Except for the model 71, all of the original Winchesters in my collection are pre 1930. The two '85s are pre 1898 antiques. They all show honest use but are fully functional. All the 94s and the 71 can do less than two inch groups at 100 yds. The 38-40 model 92 is the worse of the lot and so is getting a barrel liner. Couldn't get it to do better than 6" at 30 yards! It also has not a whit or original finish on the metal so I may splurge for a re blue if it shoots well when back from the shop.
John Browning knew his business.
John
Had a Miroku made take down 1886 rifle in 45-70. 26" full octagon barrel, blue receiver. But it was heavy and I did not like the rebounding hammer as it resulted in too many FTF with magnum primers. Beautiful gun though. I traded it for an equally nice Uberti 1873 45 Colt rifle with their beautiful case hard type finish. It's much lighter too.
I decided on the trade after lucking onto a well used but well cared for Model 71 348 Winchester. Got it for a good price because it was tapped for a side scope mount. Action is as slick as glass and the rifle balances beautifully and comes up to the shoulder perfectly for me. Shot it very well with iron sights but I've just installed a Williams receiver "peep" which lets me get on target quicker. The 71 is a refinement of John Browning's 1886 action.
Also have two model 1885s, hi wall that has been re-bored from 32-40 to 45-70 and a lo wall 22 rim fire. The hi wall has an excellent bore. I had the lo wall re lined as the original rifling would not do better than 3" at 30 yards regardless of ammo.
Had a brand spanking new Uberti hi hall sporter in 45-70. Very light weight and handy but a beast to shoot with anything but trapdoor level loads. I traded it for a nicely refinished model 94 take down in 38-55, my first model 94.
I have owned many 94s in various calibers and configurations, all pre-68 rifles. These included 32 special and 30-30 rifles from the 50s. Both 20" round barrels and a nice model 55 take down 32 Special from the thirties. This was a half magazine lighter weight version of the model 94. All these were traded or sold. Still have a pair of 24" octagon full mag rifles in 30-30 and 32-40. And the 38-55 take down.
The model 92 is covered as well. Original Winchesters in 25-20, 32-20 and 38-40. And a nice little Rossi copy in 38/357 mag.
Except for the model 71, all of the original Winchesters in my collection are pre 1930. The two '85s are pre 1898 antiques. They all show honest use but are fully functional. All the 94s and the 71 can do less than two inch groups at 100 yds. The 38-40 model 92 is the worse of the lot and so is getting a barrel liner. Couldn't get it to do better than 6" at 30 yards! It also has not a whit or original finish on the metal so I may splurge for a re blue if it shoots well when back from the shop.
John Browning knew his business.
John
The modern repro 1895 rifles in 30-06 (or 270Win) will not give you any of the problems that the original mfgr Winchester rifles did.
Yes the orig were made in a long list of calibers incl the 30-06. But the 30-06 of that introduction time (pre WW1) was loaded to a lower chamber pressure than the manufacturers did post-WW1.
There were only 2 30-06 loads offered at the time these rifles were placed on the market in 1907.
The ammo for them was either loaded with 150-grain bullet w/a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, or a 220-grain bullet w/a vel of 2,200 fps.
These cart did not exceed breech pressures of 46,000 to 48,000 pounds psi.
Then post WW1 commercial OTC ammo was offered in multiple bullet weights, vel surpassing 3000fps and chamber pressures in the 52K to 56K psi range.
Today we have 60K as a max SAAMI pressure for the 30-06.
Remember the rifle was designed for a 30-06 cartridge that developed 46 to 48K psi at the time,,which is what we consider now to be Max chamber pressure for the 30-40Krag.
Win pulled the 95 in cal 30-06 in 1925 I believe when the Model 54 was introduced. The 54 was entirely capable of handling the ammo of it's day.
It's a story line that follows many great classic and favorite firearms.
The ammo they were made to shoot is not necessarily the same as what is made today even though the name of the caliber is still the same.
The repro 95 is the next one in that Model 95 line.
Stronger, some redesign likely and modern steel and heat treatment.
..and some things we might not adore like a tang safety.
Progress..
Yes the orig were made in a long list of calibers incl the 30-06. But the 30-06 of that introduction time (pre WW1) was loaded to a lower chamber pressure than the manufacturers did post-WW1.
There were only 2 30-06 loads offered at the time these rifles were placed on the market in 1907.
The ammo for them was either loaded with 150-grain bullet w/a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps, or a 220-grain bullet w/a vel of 2,200 fps.
These cart did not exceed breech pressures of 46,000 to 48,000 pounds psi.
Then post WW1 commercial OTC ammo was offered in multiple bullet weights, vel surpassing 3000fps and chamber pressures in the 52K to 56K psi range.
Today we have 60K as a max SAAMI pressure for the 30-06.
Remember the rifle was designed for a 30-06 cartridge that developed 46 to 48K psi at the time,,which is what we consider now to be Max chamber pressure for the 30-40Krag.
Win pulled the 95 in cal 30-06 in 1925 I believe when the Model 54 was introduced. The 54 was entirely capable of handling the ammo of it's day.
It's a story line that follows many great classic and favorite firearms.
The ammo they were made to shoot is not necessarily the same as what is made today even though the name of the caliber is still the same.
The repro 95 is the next one in that Model 95 line.
Stronger, some redesign likely and modern steel and heat treatment.
..and some things we might not adore like a tang safety.
Progress..
Last edited:
Similar threads
