Will a Winchester 1895 from 1915, .30'03 cal., be OK with factory ammo if rebored or rebarreled to .35 Whelen? Extraction?

IIRC the original bad rep of the 1895 with the '03 & '06 cartridges was due in at least some part to increasing headspace issues. Apparently this problem didn't happen with all rifles, only with some.

IMO you'll be fine as long as your smith ENSURES that the headspace is minimal in the beginning. To me this would mean that a rebore MUST have the barrel set back one thread in order to clean up the original chamber, not a big deal but still of some importance in my mind.

Additionally, I recall some sort of confusion about the actual headspace dimensions of the factory 35 Whelen back when it was legitimized; this may have been a brass issue rather than a chamber issue but IMO it's worthy of investigation.

Sounds like a worthwhile alteration, I wish you good luck with it!
Regards, Joe

There was an article in the American Rifleman in the early 1950s which gave what was the maximum load for a Winchester 95 in 30-06. The problem was returning GIs wanted to shoot 8mm mauser in them. It wouldn't work just like in woundn't work in the 03 Springfield.

The higher pressure of the .30-06 caused stretching problems with the steel that was used in the 1895s at that point in time. (Not a problem with the new 1895s of today). Re-barreling to .35 Whelen very well could have the same problems?
You should check with someone who really knows about .35 Whelen pressures in relation to the pressures of a .30-06.

A few year back I wanted a lever action .35 Whelen so I looked into my options. I consulted with Cliff Labounty who at the time had recently pioneered a process to rebore DR's.

My choices cam down to a modern Browning or Winchester 1895, made in Japan by Miroku, or a Browning BLR, also made by Miroku.

I went with the BLR simply because one was available to me at the time. Cliff rebored it and I still have the gun, it shoots wonderfully.

Here is some more info on the 1895 and it's limitations...

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/model_1895.htm

Very interesting link, Thanks.

Yes sirree. I have a 1939 era Win M71 rifle- only offered in .348 Win. I also have a G&H Mauser in .35 Whelan made in 1934. I have used both for Black bear and Elk in MT. and CO.- the .35 being a BA is scoped, the M71 has open sights-

The M71 is the only lever action centerfire rifle I own, all the rest are BA- all of those are the Mauser long extractor design and wear Leupold scopes.

IMO- the stronger lever action of that era was the old Savage 99- the .300 Savage was close to the great 30-06 in performance, so I have read. As far as action strength, I once read that Parker Ackley rebarreled a 12 ga. M1897 Winchester into a 30-06 and it worked flawlessly- truth??

Because I can still shoot open iron sights accurately, and assuming I have a good supply of ammo at hand for either the .348 Win (hard to find today) or in some cases, even the .35 Whelan- I could take either one (prefer both) for a Alaskan or NW territory survival rifle)--

??siree. I might be missing something, but how is that germane to the question of M95 strength?

Back in the 1990s there was a smith named Fred Zeglin who had a shop called "Z-Hat Custom". He had a series of wildcats or "almost proprietary" ctgs. based on the '06 case and if I recall correctly barreled '95s for them. If he's still on the green side of the grass, he might be a useful source. I think his wildcats were called the "Hawk" series.

The discussion and the link are interesting and shed further light into the dark corners. The description of the breech face battering around the firing pin hole is especially interesting and VERY revealing, at least to me it is.

The description of the battering is identical to the battering caused by initial excessive headspace.

The firing pin strikes the primer and simultaneously indents it & drives the entire case forward against its shoulder, as far forward as the chamber will permit. The priming compound ignites, driving the primer (but not the case) back against the breech face. This is where the battering begins, with the running start imparted to the primer. The powder then ignites and may or may not drive the case head back against the breech face. If the case DOES drive back against the breech face, the battering becomes much worse.

I posit that the '03 & '06 examples were afflicted with loose chambers and maximum headspace, as already recounted. I further posit that repeated firings would first cause and then exacerbate an even worse excessive-headspace condition.

As circumstantial but compelling supporting evidence I cite the extreme LACK of negative reports on the rifles chambered for the 7.62 Russian cartridge. The dog that did not bark in the night if you will. This cartridge has MUCH LESS capacity than the 30-06 but yet produces velocities that almost always equal or exceed the '06. Obviously, very obviously, the Russian cartridge must have been loaded to even higher pressures than the '06 so why didn't THOSE 1895s get the bad rep?

Ah, you say, but the Russian cartridge has a larger rimmed footprint and so would exert less pressure per square inch on the breech face. Oh, I say, but the primers are exactly the same size and so the smaller-diameter battering as previously described should still have occurred, but apparently did not! Therefore I conclude that pressure, per se, was not the prime cause of the '03 & '06 problems.

So therefore I return to my initial analysis and recommendation of taking extra care in the headspace determination. If pressure and old steel was really the problem then I should have noticed this about 40 years ago when I began working with early Win 1885 single shots and modern hot cartridges. NO SIGN of battering in any of my walls but then again all are chambered to minimum headspace. JMOFWIW.
Regards, Joe

“the Russian cartridge has a larger rimmed footprint and so would exert less pressure per square inch on the breech face”

I believe that the force is calculated by taking the inside diameter of the cartridge in square inches times pressure not the outside diameter of the rim.

Although the powders are obsolete it gives one an idea of what they working with back in the day.

Re-read J. D. Steele's post again and pay particular attention to the part about checking for excessive headspace. I once had that situation occur with an M-98 VZ24 rebarreled to .22-250. On the third shot with a fairly mild load several grains below max, I had a complete head seperation and was totally blind for about 20-30 minutes and had very blurry vision for some time after. Trust me, a lot goes through your mind when you are blinded. Paul Mausers' improved bold shroud on the M-98 which helped deflect gas from the shooters eye is probably the only reason I can see to write this. Safety glasses became standard equipment in my range box.

Some years back I read a report with photos of a 95 in 30-06 badly damaged by firing a 7.9 mm German military cartridge. IIRC, the article was written by Hatcher. The photo showed a rifle with bulged side rails & a lot of other damage. IIARC, the photo showed the breech block blown clear of the rifle.

In the article, the writer said that the Winchester engineers tried & succeeded in duplicating the damage with several 95s chambered for 30-06. The writer also said that this experiment was a key part of the decision to discontinue the 95 in 30-06. Sharpe tells the same story, sans photo, in "The Rifle in America".

If this extreme (but repeatable) experiment (with very extreme headspace + an over-sized bullet) damaged these rifles to that extent, it seems not unreasonable to think that repeated loads of somewhat lesser intensity might lead to observable damage.

IMHO, all of Joe's advice is correct.

Does this include modern single shot Winchester 1895's? What about the modern Browning B78's or 1885's?

There is no such thing as a Winchester Model 1895 single shot.

Sorry I wasn't clearer in my analysis. The Russian cartridge does have a slightly larger ID in the powder chamber but mainly the larger footprint of the rim serves to more widely distribute the load over a larger area of the breech face. Similar to a woman's stiletto heel versus a wide wedge heel, the load of the 30-06 is concentrated on and transferred by the smaller case head area while the larger rim area of the Russian case will tend to 'float' more on the breech face. The force differential is negligible but it's still there. This somewhat confuses the issue but I still hold to my opinion.

This is a gray area in my mind, i.e. the actual force exerted upon the breech face by different-shaped cartridge cases is difficult for me to evaluate precisely. The initial tendency is to simply use the cartridge's internal powder chamber floor area in a straightforward calculation of straight-line rearward force, but to me this is misleading. The total rearward force is also increased by the curved shape of the internal powder chamber's floor-to-wall transition which applies more force in an ever-decreasing manner as the radius increases beyond the powder chamber ID. IOW as the force vector gradually changes from rearward to sideways, the additional rearward force is gradually decreased as the angle changes and the area widens.

Then there's the question of case taper, chamber wall surface finish, presence of oil, brass hardness, etc. Been a LONG time since I had to use the calculus I learned oh so long ago and I've long since erased my memory tapes so I quit calculating(grin).

My old Physics prof is a shooter and is still kicking, guess I should call him!
Regards, Joe

1895 is a lever action, 1885 is a single shot. Modern rifles of both types are much stronger than the originals but it doesn't seem to matter with the single shots since the old high walls are plenty strong anyway.
Regards, Joe

Abba, Du Sprechit Deutche Gary??- Ein Umlat fur Die "e", Ja?? German-Germane-- Vas ist disse schiess/schiessen??

The question, as I read it, had to do with a lever action Winchester (one of Teddy's favorites I have read) and the only one of that era with a non-tubular magazine- not the first for a smokeless powder load, that would be the M1894 in .30 WCF- aka- 30-30 (cal. 30 with a .308 NBD) and a smokeless powder load equal to 30 grains of black powder)

Once again, unrelated drivel from "run with the mouth" who is way over proud of his knowledge, wants everyone to know he has it, an interjects it when it's completely immaterial.

Germane= relevant, pertinent. Running on about M71's and G&H sporters is neither relevant or pertinent (germane) to a discussion of M95 strengths/weaknesses. But, alas, I fall prey to yet another internet know-it-all. When will I learn?

On the other hand, thanks to the informative replies posted by others, I learned something about a subject I had largely ignored. Thank you.

Thanks to all you gents for the commentary and expecially for the link. My inquiry was caused by this custom 95 coming up in a Paulin auction next month:

http://www.auctionflex.com/showlot.ap?co=23431&weid=14022&weiid=4957922

Very handsome stocks but the bore is worn. If it could be recut to .35 Whelen it would be great. But in view of the comments I am doubtful. I also did some checking to compare .35 vs. '06 factory ammo pressures, the sources are a bit confusing because some of the figures are in CUP some in PSI but in general in modern factory ammo the two cartridges seem to be about the same. Since historically the 95 was marginal for '06 after, say 1920 when the 150 gran went from 2700 to 2900 fs, that suggests that .35 Whelen would be on the edge too, tending to stretch tha action. There would be no problem with a new 95 but that would not have the fancy stockwork.

It seems to me you would be putting a lot of money into something that is marginal. If the wood is your reason for wanting this rifle. I think you could restock a marlin with pretty wood have les money invested and not have to duck everytime you pull the trigger. I would leave the high pressure centerfire to the bolt guns. Reboring the Winchester would add to the cost and also detract from its value.
This is just my opinion.
Tom

What about 9.3x62? Same case I believe.

Don't claim to be an expert. I'd buy it and rebarrel it to .38-72 or .405. But then I don't really need it.

Brent

As per Mike Armstrong's suggestion I did write to Fred Zeglin and here is his reply:


Fred Zeglin <fred@z-hat.com> Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Reply-To: fred@z-hat.com
To: mkbenenson@aol.com

Howdy,

As a rule if you stay away for the hot ammo from Norma and the "extended
range" ammo there is no problem.
SAAMI limits the pressure of 30-06 ammo to keep guns like your safe. So
long as it is in good condition and the headspace is set correct either
caliber would be totally acceptable in your gun. Of course 06 is only
possible with a new barrel.

We could have it rebored for you. The cost is $395 plus shipping. About
95% of all rebores work out just fine, but the risk is yours if the barrel
does not rebore. In your case I would tell them 35 caliber and if that did
not work they could still try for 9.3mm. Let me know what you decide.

I have written back to Mr. Zeglin to say I will not do it. I can control the ammo used in the reworked rifle but cannot control the next owner, who may be less careful.

Just curious, but what '06 diameter case -- that is damn near a straight wall to the mouth -- would cycle thru the action, with minimal adaptations.

I'm positing a case that was more or less a originally a black powder number, that would be difficult to overload to higher CUP. Something in the spirit of a .40-70, but with a parent case that wouldn't involve a great deal of re-engineered gunsmithing. Just thinking that a rebore and chamber to something that is limited to lower pressure, would still be a fun shooting gun.

And, this question may be for naught anyway,as I can't think of semi-rimmed base that might make a workable straight wall. Maybe, the .400 Whelen re-named the .400 Rimless Cast-bullet Flinger -- stamped on the bbl?

I will mention that I was shooting a fellow's little .45 Colt H&R single shot carbine a bit ago,and ya know what? It was just one helluva lotta-uv fun. Smacks reactive targets just fine,offhand,at the hunnert yard berm. That's sorta how I see such a project developing with the rifle you describe: a lower pressure, lead-pill, plunkin'-roller, of appropriate magnitude, in a zoot historic levergun.

Besides, if it has that famous crescent buttplate,future generations will thank you.

One of me fave levergun ca'tridges is the lowly and unheralded .35Rem. It gets no respect today,but is a fine and easy to load round, which has reasonable pressure, a useful trajectory and very mild recoil. It's case might shuffle thru that boxy action. I did once land a daid-centre hit on a four inch wide piece of channel-iron standing in a sand bank at 275 yards. 200 grain SP punched right on thru it, neat as a drill bit. Just sayin':it has it's own hunting history and is a fun plinker with CB's,too.

Anyway, I'm up past my bedtime, had a rare beer besides, and thereby disclaim responsibility for the foregoing. Typing while under the influence,Ossifer? Nuh-unh!!