July 2, 2021
That is the same as the caliber markings for the model 1895, designed to distinguish it from the 30 Gov’t of 1903 which was the original caliber. If you were unaware, the 30 Gov’t of 1903 had a slightly longer neck and a 220 grain, round nosed bullet. In 1906, the cartridge was modified to use a smaller, spitzer bullet at higher velocity, and a slightly shorter neck. Early US model rifles of 1903 were rechambered or rebarreled for the newer cartridge. Yes, that is our old favorite 30-06 Springfield by today’s shorthand. To provide further clarifying info, the .303 is a British caliber which is different. The old 30 US became the 30 Army which we now know as the .30-40 Krag, with Winchester changing its designation to try avoiding confusion. Does this help? Tim
August 27, 2014
November 5, 2014
“30 GOV’T’06” was the exposed barrel caliber designation stamp used on the M70 from 1936-1950. When the one-piece roll marking dies were adopted in 1950, it was changed to “30-06 SPRG” and a couple years later to “30-06 SPFLD” on standard contour and target barrels. The Featherweight roll marking dies remained “30-06 SPRG” through 1963.
The caliber designation stamp applied to the underside of the barrel at the time it was chambered was “1906”.
They’re all the same…
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
On the topic of the M1895 also having the same cartridge designation, was there any point that Winchester suggested modern .30-06 Springfield ammunition shouldn’t be used in the M1895? I assume that throughout the M1895 production, any .30-06 they manufactured was considered suitable. But eventually, better performing powders came into use. As I write this question, I reminded of, I think it was Tim Tomlinson, who put a headspace gauge in most every M95 30 govt’06 he came across – and in nearly every case, they were long on headspace?
Steve, Yes, that was me saying the model 1895 rifles I’ve found in .30-06 are mostly generous in headspace. And No, I’ve not encountered anything as yet where Winchester (or anyone else for that matter) suggested not using modern versions of .30-06 in the Winchester rifle models of 1895. I think the initial offerings of .30-06 were just as”hot” as today. FWIW, I do shoot my NRA musket in that chambering despite a bit generous headspace. I use military surplus and so far have no problems. I should retain those empties somewhere and only partly size the brass to make up for the excess headspace. But so far I don’t. I work on the presumption that military brass is a bit heavier in the head area of the case and so far no signs of separation. Now my 1895 in .30 Gov’t of 1903 remains tight on its headspace. I don’t shoot it but a few times with .30-06 commercial loads when I first got it. I’ve no doubt back in the time of the change over to .30-06 they upped the pressures to flatten trajectory even more than just going to the lighter spitzer bullet. Somewhere in the dark recesses I seem to think Hatcher had some notes on the efforts to attain flatter trajectory plus longer ranges. I think at one point he worked with some machine gun only ammunition to extend range but then decided to stick with one variety only (various models of cartridges tho based on bullet and maybe some on velocity). With my alacrity for memory or lack there of, I may be making that up. Clarence may have better or contradictive info tho as he is a walking encyclopedia of knowledge! Hatcher worked with the rifles primarily and Col. Whelen with the cartridges, but Hatcher “played” with them as I recall. Tim
tim tomlinson said
Somewhere in the dark recesses I seem to think Hatcher had some notes on the efforts to attain flatter trajectory plus longer ranges. I think at one point he worked with some machine gun only ammunition to extend range but then decided to stick with one variety only (various models of cartridges tho based on bullet and maybe some on velocity). With my alacrity for memory or lack there of, I may be making that up. Clarence may have better or contradictive info tho as he is a walking encyclopedia of knowledge! Hatcher worked with the rifles primarily and Col. Whelen with the cartridges, but Hatcher “played” with them as I recall. Tim
Tim, It was Capt. Ned Crossman whom the Army assigned to conduct range & other experiments right after WW I. Until his death in 1939, he was generally regarded as THE authority on most aspects of shooting, inc. smooth-bore. He & Whelen were best friends, his relations with Hatcher I don’t know. He was more responsible than any other single individual in organizing & promoting small-bore competition after WW I.
Tim, the powder made in 1906 is not as hot as today’s powder. And a gun made in that era is no longer brand new. You have to remember too that in WW II the 30-06 was loaded with a milder load so as not to damage the Garand operating system. If this is the type of ammo you are shooting. Most good loading manuals will have a section for gas guns like the Garand. I would use these loads and no hotter with a 150 gr. bullet at 2700 fps in the 95.
The 1903 used a load that produced 2000 fps with a 220 gr. bullet. Originally it was loaded to 2200 fps but it was causing too much erosion so it was reduced. In 1905 the Military round was changed again. With the new spitzer type bullet with a 150 gr. bullet the speed was changed to 2700 fps.
Most manuals say to use IMR 4895 or IMR 4064. These are medium burning powders. I believe 4895 was what the Military used?
You definitely need to correct your headspace issue. When reloading a bottle necked cartridge you don’t size the shoulder back so far. If you get a case comparator body and and a 30 cal comparator you can measure the base to shoulder dimension of the fired brass. Assuming the brass has fully expanded to fit your chamber move your sizing die to where you have about a .002″ to .003″ shorter measurement from the base to the shoulder of your fired case. This sets your headspace.
If you are reloading Military brass you may have to reduce your load slightly due to the thickness of the brass compared to commercial brass.
Maybe the reason the guns you see with headspace issues have been shot too many times with hot loads or people don’t know how to adjust the headspace? If you see enough 86’s you will see the same problem althogh you can’t set the headspace when reloading a rimmed cartridge.
Chuck said If you see enough 86’s you will see the same problem althogh you can’t set the headspace when reloading a rimmed cartridge.
Seat the bullet out far enough to engage the lands, & with proper adjustment, the case head will be forced back tight against the bolt face. Easy to do with a falling-block SS, which will seat the bullet as the block goes into battery, maybe not with a repeater.
Chuck, it’s an oft-repeated myth that the 172g M1 load adopted after WW I was scaled back to the WW I-era 150 g load in order to protect the Garand op-rod from breaking, but that change to the M2 round had already been effected for other reasons before the op-rod problem was known. The original op-rod design had been thoroughly tested before production began, but only after a lot of rounds had been fired in a lot of guns did it become apparent that it sometimes failed. If you’re interested in a detailed history of the service round, try to acquire Clark Campbell’s magnum opus, The ’03 Springfield Era, 2003, but sadly now OP.
Thanks Clarence. $175 on Amazon.
I have seated a lot of bullets against the lands when fire forming brass. In the bolt guns I also remove the ejector so the case is easily forced against the bolt face and the bullet is trapped on the other end. This usually makes sure that the case expands on the first firing and only expands at the shoulder/neck and not near the head. Then I do as I said before. Re size the shoulder back .002″. A lot of competition shooters load with the bullet touching the lands. I don’t but have tested with bullets into the lands as much as .030″.