Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I have an early model 1894 rifle (SN 93,606) that suggests a manufacture date around 1897. This rifle has what appears to be an original Winchester barrel marked .30 WCF, but I thought that cartridge was not introduced until after that date…so I’m puzzled by this, but today I have a different question:
I have been shooting it, and the primers (factory loadings) are pushed out noticeably, indicating a headspace problem.
I confirmed an excess headspace problem by closing the bolt on a .30-30 Field headspace gauge.
Subsequently, I’m trying to determine if I can repair this condition. I understand (well, I read on the internet
) that model 94 locking bolts are marked (when oversize?) and can be used to reduce headspace. I have found one used locking bolt that is in fact marked (on rear surface) “.005” which suggests to me it is 5 thousandths oversize, compared to a nominal thickness bolt, I suppose. But I can’t measure any difference in thickness (between the two bearing surfaces) in this bolt and the one I removed from the rifle. And, when I swap out the two locking bolts, I can close the bolt (and locking bolt) equally easily on the field gage. The rifle has excessive headspace with either locking bolt. Perhaps the unmarked one in the rifle is already “oversize”…?
Can someone here confirm that the markings I describe on the locking bolt (see attached photo) do in fact indicate a thicker locking bolt? Do I perhaps just need to find one with a larger marking? Most of the others I have seen (on eBay) are either not marked or they have a marking like “16” or “22”, and I don’t know if those marking are indicating a thicker bolt, or just represent some assembly markings.
If I can’t find a locking bolt that alleviates the headspace problem, I have contemplated adding weld metal to the front bearing surface of the replacement locking bolt and filing it back flat to add thickness, but I’m afraid this might be beyond my capabilities.
I will appreciate any guidance you guys can offer.
Thanks,
Ray
Ray James, College Station, Texas
Ray,
Winchester introduced the 30 WCF cartridge in May of 1895. Model 1894 S/M 93606 is a post-1900 production rifle… several years after the 30 WCF was introduced.
The bolt you found marked .005 is indeed 5-thousandths oversize. Finding one that is larger oversized than .005 is very unlikely.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Ray,
If it was my gun I would try to make special ammo for it.
– Make a disc on the front of the rim and use it to bring the cartridge to the bottom of the breech (possibly with tape cut to size)
– When firing these cartridges, the shoulder of the case should be shifted further forward due to fire forming.
– Use these cases for reloading but only calibrate the case neck.
Now these cases should be in contact with the bottom of the breech even without the washers.
I am not a gunsmith and do not guarantee success. The considerations are only theoretical in nature and I’ve never done that. I would appreciate your opinion on this.
Stefan
Stefan:
I had considered the solution you suggest, but basically (as I think it through) I worry that it may not address the concern.
I think the hazard of excess headspace in this rifle must be one of two things:
1) The primer pushes all the way out and gas escapes thru the primer hole and onto the shooter.
2) The case, if too much headspace, may separate where unsupported by the chamber wall, with similar outcome as above, but maybe allowing even more gas flow than above.
Now your suggestion seems like it would prevent 1) but not 2). Whether 2) is the real hazard or not, I don’t know, but it is my concern.
I have poor-boy-ed two other rifles with excessive headspace; a 30-40 Krag….I cut a shim (forget the thickness) from brass shim stock and epoxied it to the recessed face of the bolt. That rifle performed fine after the fix, but I eventually had the barrel set back and properly rechambered. The second was a Winchester model 43 in .218 Bee, which is a model notorious for headspace problems. It would split nearly every other case fired. That rifle has a two-piece bolt, so I fabricated a .005 steel shim to fit between the bolt and bolt head, reducing the headspace by .005. That rifle now functions flawlessly, and you can feel the resistance of the factory cartridge when closing the bolt. Incidentally, when shooting that .218 Bee with excessive headspace, I don’t think I ever felt any gas escaping when the cartridge head separated.
I wear safety glasses when shooting, but usually not when hunting, and I want to hunt with the 1894, so I’m a bit concerned about fixing it by fireforming longer cases. I hope I can perhaps modify a locking bolt to reduce the headspace…
Ray
Ray James, College Station, Texas
November 7, 2015
Offline
If I wanted to shoot the rifle I’d have my gunsmith set the barrel back. May need to rent a chamber reamer if he doesn’t have one. If brass and ammo were easier to find I’d just toss the brass after firing.
Mike
Unless it was a family heirloom or something, I would sell it and put the money toward something else.
Hello from Norway, I am new to the forum and the collectors assocition, huge amount of interesting info for a Winchester fan.
So to my question.
I have a post 64 30-30 with the same headspace problem. It seem that the bolt has a very ill fitted rear surface where it should contact the locking lug. The bolt do not seem to be very hard, I tried, and a file bites easily, would it be possible to weld up the rear end of the bolt? and make the bolt both a little longer, to correct the headspace problem, and make it better fitted to the locking bolt? Oversize locking bolts looks not to be available for pre 64 guns?
Standard head space for Winchesters is .007″ max. Scotch tape is roughly .002″ thick. Add 1 piece at a time until the bolt won’t close. You have to trim the tape round like the end of the bolt face.
I know, it seems to be about double the max measure, between 013 and 014. Something has to be done. I will try another bolt, if that do not help, I will have to set back the barrel and rechamber, or, if possible, weld the back of the bolt and refit it to the locking bolt. Contact area between bolts is very small as it is now.
Years ago, I had a similar problem. I had a gunsmith weld extra thickness on a locking bar and then machine it. He determined the amount of excess heads pace and made the proper addition to the locking bar. Worked fine and wasn’t very expensive
Do you know what kind of weld he used? Was there a need for hardening in any way? I suspect the parts is not very hard, as a file bites easily on them.
Ulvbane said
I know, it seems to be about double the max measure, between 013 and 014. Something has to be done. I will try another bolt, if that do not help, I will have to set back the barrel and rechamber, or, if possible, weld the back of the bolt and refit it to the locking bolt. Contact area between bolts is very small as it is now.
Contact Mark.
He might have a way to fix the bolt or maybe he can remove the extra metal from the receiver and not have to cut the barrel. If you cut the barrel you would have to buy a reamer to cut the chamber.
You cannot remover metal from the face of the receiver or the barrel will not index properly. The sights will end up at the 11:00 0 clock position, the magazine tube pin/screw won’t line up and of course the lettering will be out of whack also. I believe tig welding to add material to the back of the bolt is the better option. Another option would be to try a matched set of bolt and locking block from another rifle and see if the problem disappears. I do have a set from a pre 64. Slightly newer than yours, it was in the low 200,000 serial range. The rifle they came out of was mechanically fine however the receiver looked like a piece of Swiss cheese with all the extra holes in it. Send me a pm if you are interested in trying this approach.
Erin
I found a bolt and a locking bar for sale, they are on their way to me now. We will see if that helps, otherwise I will try to weld up the bolt, and / or modify the locking bar so it comes a little higher when action is closed, that will also reduce headspace a little. I live in Norway, so getting any help from a US gunsmith is kind of out of the question.
Erin Grivicich said
You cannot remover metal from the face of the receiver or the barrel will not index properly. The sights will end up at the 11:00 0 clock position, the magazine tube pin/screw won’t line up and of course the lettering will be out of whack also.Erin
Erin, my bad. I’m so used to shooting round barrels with scopes.
Oversize locking bolts are only available for pre -64 models, mine is a post -64.
Problem solved. I got a used bolt and a locking bolt, replaced the locking bolt first, tested, and, that was it ! The rifle is within specs, and working perfectly. Primers sit flush with casehead after firing.
My 1894 Takedown 30-03 made in 1913 is exhibiting excessive headspace. Went to the range yesterday and noticed the primers backing out in these measurements: 0.0175, 0.011, 0.0145, 0.013 and 0.0155. Would you consider this excessive? I am thinking about replacing the locking bolt with an oversize one. Any recommendations on how much oversize? TIA.
1 Guest(s)
