Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Re: The pull through cleaning piece. The only thing I had to compare to was the pull through pictured on page 220 in the 1916 WINCHESTER CATALOG. My pull through does not unscrew or come apart. Also the bristles are not bronze or brass, but some sort of fiber. As previously stated, with my track record of buying things that are not what I thought they were, it’s probably an after market item. RDB
Hey Roger, That one is nice as well I love the patina. What year is your made. I just ordered the 1895 book last night, I should be able to get a better understanding of this gun. Do any of you reload for the .30-40 Krag. I picked up a set of dies and some cases, but have not looked in the best powder or bullets to run just yet.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I load a bit for the 30-40, interesting cartridge. I cast a 209 gr Ranch Dog 312299 (clone of the Lyman) over a conservative charge of Rx7 powder. Bore in my 1895 leaves a bit to be desired so any refinements to the load will have to wait for a better rifle. My rifle did NOT like the lighter bullets.
Mike
30-40 rounds are in the back four rows.
I have heard that this rifle likes the heavier bullets. Correct me if I am wrong, but the 30-40 can use the standard .30 cal or 308 diameter bullets? or am I missing something.
[email protected] said
I have heard that this rifle likes the heavier bullets. Correct me if I am wrong, but the 30-40 can use the standard .30 cal or 308 diameter bullets? or am I missing something.
Yes, standard .308 bullets.
good, thats what I suspected, being an old gun and the cartridge I was unfamiliar with.
My experience with shooting my high-walls in 30 U.S. (30/40) is that they very much prefer the 220 grain bullets. I get marginal results with the 175 grain or lighter bullets.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
I agree, Bert. The 30-40 likes heavier bullets. I’ve had 180’s tumble at 100 yards. Standard 30-40 will not stabilize lighter bullets.
Mike
TXGunNut said
Very nice, congrats Peter! Don’t stay up all night working that action; I found it quite mesmerizing and never quite figured it out until I got the 95 book by our very own Brad Dunbar and Rob Kassab.
Mike
Hey Mike, well I broke down and ordered the 95 book. I have heard about this book on few occasions now since getting this carbine. I was thinking of having a search done at the Cody museum as well. I have never had a search done before, do you know if it is well worth the price?
I don’t think you can go wrong for the price and if I remember correctly they usually have a 15%(or something like that) sale around Christmas. If you add the cost of your 1895, the book, and a factory letter- your still WAY AHEAD!
[email protected] said
Hey Mike, well I broke down and ordered the 95 book. I have heard about this book on few occasions now since getting this carbine. I was thinking of having a search done at the Cody museum as well. I have never had a search done before, do you know if it is well worth the price?
I don’t know the serial number of your carbine but I feel confident that it was made many years after the serial number range where a factory letter is available.
Thanks Bill, mine falls in the six digit number beginning with 424. SNA only. Does this mean there is more information available or less?
I had a 92 that fell into that category and all it said was when the serial number was applied. I would assume all in that category are the same, meaning that it won’t be able to tell you any specifics, like if it had a pistol grip or shotgun butt. There may be exceptions?
According to Larry Shennum’s Red Book, that would put it in the 1929 t0 1930 production. Near the end of production. RDB
November 7, 2015
Offline
[email protected] said
Hey Mike, well I broke down and ordered the 95 book. I have heard about this book on few occasions now since getting this carbine. I was thinking of having a search done at the Cody museum as well. I have never had a search done before, do you know if it is well worth the price?
Good call on the 1895 book, I know you’ll enjoy it. I’m a Cody Museum member and searches and letters are part of the membership package. As a WACA member I can request additional searches. It appears the only information available for your 1895 is the date the serial number was stamped into the receiver, or SNA date. To answer your question more directly the search is worth the price but I generally won’t request a search if warehouse information is not available. Sometimes a Cody letter with SNA info only adds value for the collector and future buyers, your call.
Mike
Chuck said
Roger, it is my assumption that the 1895 used the same pull through as the 1903. The pull through for the WWII guns is the same as the 1903. The 2 ends of the pull through screw together and then the cord is wrapped around it. The brush is separate. I think yours is fine just not wrapped correctly.
Well, I talked to my friend about this today. He says I’m wrong. Nothing new there. The early 1903’s were two piece but they didn’t screw together. The 2 piece that screwed together came out in 1908.
So, Roger you may have the earlier type for the 1903 Springfield?
Henry,
The 1895 Muskets most likely used the Lee Navy 1895 style bayonet. The lever action 1895’s had a larger barrel hole in the upper guard and a larger groove in the locking lug. He did say that the Springfield Armory type is not correct but it could fit.
Edit: We also talked about the Krag 1892 bayonet. I wonder what the Krag looks like against the Lee Navy?
Hey Chuck, I got out my Model 1903 Springfield Rifle book and did some comparisons. The early 1903 brush originally had “blackened pig bristles” and was 3″ long. It did not have the slot at the end of brush, as mine does. In the 1916 Winchester Catalog (My carbine dates to 1913) makes mention that the pull through, “cannot be used in Models 1873. 1892, and 1903 Rifles”. I am curious also, to know how you know how the cleaners were wrapped? RDB
rogertherelic said
Hey Chuck, I got out my Model 1903 Springfield Rifle book and did some comparisons. The early 1903 brush originally had “blackened pig bristles” and was 3″ long. It did not have the slot at the end of brush, as mine does. In the 1916 Winchester Catalog (My carbine dates to 1913) makes mention that the pull through, “cannot be used in Models 1873. 1892, and 1903 Rifles”. I am curious also, to know how you know how the cleaners were wrapped? RDB
I don’t know but I can ask. I’m afraid to unwrap mine. As far as a pull through not being able to go through certain guns, I think they will but most of those you listed came with cleaning rods. If you can drop the weight through it you then can pull the rest through. It may be harder to accomplish but I bet it can be done as long as you have the right caliber brush. I am not an expert but I think most of the early pull throughs were 30 Cal.
1 Guest(s)
