Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Dave K. said
Steve, Good points. My understanding is that the bolt action rifles became more popular when the soldiers returned from World War 1and many were familiar with this of action.
That was the impetus for the Model 54–a kind of sporterized ’03 Springfield. (TOO BAD Winchester didn’t just continue making their far superior ’03 Sniper Rifle of 1922!)
Online
I was just thinking about how long the .405 ruled the roost at Winchester. Introduced in 1904 and I believe discontinued when the M95 was dropped during depression-besieged year 1931. After the .405 was dropped, a more powerful cartridge didn’t come along until the late 1930’s when the M70 came out in the .375 H&H. And, a bigger bore cartridge didn’t come out until the .458 Winchester Magnum was introduced in 1956!
Interesting that with the discontinuance of the .405 and the .45-70, Winchester went a couple decades without chambering a rifle in a larger bore diameter than… the 9mm in the M54 (until they introduced the .458)? Just random thoughts based on memories that might be mostly accurate. I do realize that from the mid-1930’s to the late 1950’s, Winchester considered their .348 to be their big bore rifle.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Interesting post, Steve. My only theory is that speed became more important than mass when it came to rifle bullets. In the widely accepted formula for energy velocity is indeed a bigger factor but some folks, then and now, cling to mass and momentum. Yes, it’s possible to launch a .40 or .45 projectile at 3000fps but no one wants to tote the rifle or touch it off more than a few times. Quite honestly I don’t really enjoy shooting a .348 when it’s “being all it can be”. I’ve had my fun with the big bores and historic cartridges but I’ll probably retrieve a modern 30-06 Super Grade from the safe next time I want to put meat in the freezer…but rest assured a 45-70 will come along as “backup”.
Mike
TXGunNut said
My only theory is that speed became more important than mass when it came to rifle bullets.
That has been THE prevailing principle in cartridge evolution since the time of muzzle-loaders: the US service rifle caliber shrinking from .58 in 1865 to .30 in 1892 in order to increase range & reduce trajectory; it’s why Winchester introduced the .270 in 1925.
clarence said
TXGunNut said
My only theory is that speed became more important than mass when it came to rifle bullets.That has been THE prevailing principle in cartridge evolution since the time of muzzle-loaders: the US service rifle caliber shrinking from .58 in 1865 to .30 in 1892 in order to increase range & reduce trajectory; it’s why Winchester introduced the .270 in 1925.
And eventually they shrunk it all the way down to .223! What’s next, a .17 caliber?
clarence said
TXGunNut said
My only theory is that speed became more important than mass when it came to rifle bullets.That has been THE prevailing principle in cartridge evolution since the time of muzzle-loaders: the US service rifle caliber shrinking from .58 in 1865 to .30 in 1892 in order to increase range & reduce trajectory; it’s why Winchester introduced the .270 in 1925.
Does more important mean more effective?
RickC
You guys should read the arguments between Charles Newton, Edward Crossman and Lieut. Townsend Whelen in the early 1900’s many were posted in Outdoor Life magazine. Newton was continually under fire because the old school just couldn’t let go of their lever guns and accept the lever bolt and the higher velocity smaller caliber guns. Well we love our lever guns but you can see what happened with the bolt actions. If you ever see the book by Bruce Jennings, Charles Newton Father of High Velocity, you should read it. Many of Newton’s ideas are still with us over 100 years later. WACA member Larry Wales has written several good books on Newton but the Jennings book has quite a few more articles.
The Winchester Lee Navy is a good example of an 1895 idea of what eventually came to be the norm.
steve004 said
And eventually they shrunk it all the way down to .223! What’s next, a .17 caliber?
Though the Army belated recognized that was a step too far by bringing back M14s in Afghanistan!
The 5.56 was never a long range cartridge. Close quarters jungle type warfare. We shot some at 400 meters but you did not have to qualify at that distance. Early bullets were light and unstable on purpose. Now they are heavier and with the 1:7 or 1:8 twist rates much more stable. Bullets now days need to penetrate a helmet. The 30-06 gives the distance and accuracy that was needed for desert warfare. The M1A 308 works and it conforms with the NATO agreement. The M1A replaced the M-14. Never shot a M 14 or the M 1A. For some of the same reasons the 03 Springfields were used in several wars after WW I.
I can hit the larger targets at 600 yds with a 1:7 twist and 69 grain .224 bullets. Don’t remember off the top of my head what energy is left though? Probably could do better with a scope larger than 4X power too.
Clarence just set me straight. I thought the M1A was an evolution of the M 14 and used by the Military.
steve004 said
John – so what kind of shape is the rest of your 30-06 M1895 in? By the way, I think several of my .33’s were also made in 1903. I think 1903 was a very popular year for the .33. You mention you have two extra lightweight .33’s? Technically, to be called as such, these would have to have 22 inch barrels?
In reverse order… I do stand corrected re the models ’86. The barrels per my own XL are both 24″. Pix of each of my now renamed “Partially Lightweight Rifles” :)m one TD other solid frame. Honorable mention with pix, my full mag ’86 too.
Re the ’95, by SN from 1927. The butt stock has been repaired, reflected in two prominent dowels in the wrist area. But far worse, both some sort of glue on the action metal aft AND considerable evidence of a bastard file being used, defacing both metal at joining point with the stock and worst encompassing the top tang. Again, pix below. Otherwise, a fair amount of original blue. I have no real talent even to evaluate repair/restoration, but I do doubt in any practical sense a competent restoration amounting to anything other than a ‘shooter’.
Thanks for a great Thread here! 🙂
John
Appreciate the acknowledgment for posting this thread John. I also appreciate your replies along with everyone else’s. Sometimes what’s interesting or new to me is also something others have thought about but just haven’t put pen to paper(posted).
I don’t post new threads to see how many views it gets. It’s always stuff I want to know & this forum & WACA is the place to find it & learn a great deal in the process. I’m a Winchester rifle only collector & I like it that way. It works for my budget & my interest.
RickC
I would take an 1886 extra light in .33 all day long to answer the original post. Carrying levers most of my hunting life has taught me quite a bit, and although I agree about velocity chasing back in the day (and to some extent today), if the goal is meat on the table, I like grain weight. Turning 50 I am an anachronism amongst my peers. In another life I sold highly sophisticated optics to military units and have spent plenty of time behind state of the art sniping platforms. No question, a properly made bolt gun is consistently the most accurate platform man has designed.
The M1a is the civilian version of the M14 and lacks the full auto selector switch…and a few minor details. I know some can be made very accurate as proven at Camp Perry, but it is really a battle rifle with commensurate accuracy in general. I have considerable time with this platform and the pitfalls trying to make EBR’s out of them. They are awesome but within limits.
Never a fan of TR or the 1895 for a variety of reasons.
But I can tell you it is MOST awesome to show up in hunting camp and traipse about the glorious Rocky Mountains each year with a Model 71 and either an 1885 or 1886 as backup. Everyone has kevlar stocks, custom blue-printed actions, incredible optics, and great open range success. Skirt the timber and it’s another story. I have used a few model 70’s over the years and they have done well, and I love bolt guns, but I won’t give up my levers or lead bullets for that matter.
And in case none of you dabble in the tactical world, all the rage these days is PCC…pistol caliber carbine. Basically AR platform scaled down to shoot 9mm,10mm, or 45 acp. I of course show up with 1892’s in .45 colt…Miroku of course but what the hell.
Re the ’95, by SN from 1927. The butt stock has been repaired, reflected in two prominent dowels in the wrist area. But far worse, both some sort of glue on the action metal aft AND considerable evidence of a bastard file being used, defacing both metal at joining point with the stock and worst encompassing the top tang. Again, pix below. Otherwise, a fair amount of original blue. I have no real talent even to evaluate repair/restoration, but I do doubt in any practical sense a competent restoration amounting to anything other than a ‘shooter’.
John –
Thanks for posting the photos. That too bad what happened to your ’95. I thought maybe it could all be solved by just the addition of a buttstock. I can see that it is more than that now 🙁
1 Guest(s)
