Log In
December 9, 2002
Offline
steve004 said
I’m wondering about the customers who purchased these carbines – if they gave any thought to the variation from the standard carbine? The model 1894 and model 94 went through many variations – so it wasn’t all that unusual for a carbine to show up that wasn’t identical to earlier versions. I suppose that the variation that used the musket barrel, and had a magazine tube that didn’t reach to the end of the barrel, would logically have attracted the most notice. Maybe when they showed up a dealer’s stores, those dealers might have noticed? And is it possible they were discounted in some way?
Steve,
I’m thinking so. Especially during that time period. Travel back then, wasn’t what it is today. My point is that they we’re mfg in 1928, and even towards the end of that year, they we’re in the General stores, of the times, and in the dealers presence for sale during some tough economic times. A discount of some sort back then, for all the above and obvious reasons. IMO.
Tony
November 19, 2006
Offline
I’ve gone back and read the Winter 1985 and Spring 1989 articles by Art Gogan, the summer 2012 Rick Hill article, and then reviewed the information Bob R. had in his book. These references, combined with all the WACA forum posts come together to make quite the story.
December 9, 2002
Offline
steve004 said
I’ve gone back and read the Winter 1985 and Spring 1989 articles by Art Gogan, the summer 2012 Rick Hill article, and then reviewed the information Bob R. had in his book. These references, combined with all the WACA forum posts come together to make quite the story.
Steve,
I found myself doing the same thing, and more than once, as each time I picked up something else as far as learning something.
I don’t have Bert’s memory and have to refresh my, like my PC! 
I’m in agreement as it’s quite the timeline of research posted here, as brought to our attention. 
Tony
November 7, 2015
Offline
steve004 said
I’ve gone back and read the Winter 1985 and Spring 1989 articles by Art Gogan, the summer 2012 Rick Hill article, and then reviewed the information Bob R. had in his book. These references, combined with all the WACA forum posts come together to make quite the story.
Steve-
This thread has renewed interest for me as I’ve nearly finished Bob R’s Trilogy book. I’m presently bogged down in the catalog reprints at the end, fascinating stuff. Thanks for the tip on the Gogan and Hill articles. It’s interesting that new info is still emerging on these nearly hundred-year-old carbines.
Mike
March 31, 2009
Offline
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert H. said
Just as an FYI, it is not possible to “rechamber” a 30-03 barrel to 30-06 without first cutting the entire chamber off of the barrel.
Bert
Not true.
“Military .30-03 barrels can safely and functionally be converted to .30-06 by unscrewing the barrel, setting it back (milling a small amount off the breech end), re-threading, and re-chambering. This requires a qualified gunsmith with a lathe and the proper reamer.”
This is what the Military did and that is why finding a 03 Springfield in 30-03 is rare.
Chuck,
The cost in both the time and labor to do the work necessary to convert a 30-03 barrel to 30-06 would be greater than simply installing a new barrel.
In addition to milling .2″ off of the breech end of the barrel, then rereaming the chamber to the correct dimension, that is not all that would have needed to be reworked.
The rear sight mounting holes would need to me moved further forward, the barrel fitments to the stock would also need reworking/moving. I simply do not believe that the Springfield Armory would have wasted all of the extra time needed to convert a 30-03 barrel versus simply putting a replacement barrel on the rifle.
Bert
Well, the Military did it anyway. As far as making it a 30-06 that was not all the work. I believe that a few other things were done to the barrel too. But the truth is whatever it took the Military modified all the 30-03 barrels they had to 30-06. Look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-03_Springfield Pay attention to what is said related to Problems.
November 19, 2006
Offline
There’s another WACA magazine article that sheds further light on this picture. At least for me:
Spring, 2021 pages 54 to 54 titled, “From the McCracken Research Library” edited by Brad Dunbar. One of the items of interests is
the posting of a clip from the 1927 American Rifleman magazine titled, “WINCHESTER DISCONTINUES MODEL 95 RIFLE IN .30-06 CALIBER.” The clip goes on to state:
The Winchester Repeating Arms Company have decided to discontinue the manufacture of their well-known Model 95 repeating lever action rifle in .30-06 caliber. In regard to this they state:
“As our Model 54 rifle is a much more modern arm in every respect than the Model 95 lever action, and better adapted to handling the recently developed cartridges with their high velocities and corresponding pressures, we have decided to obsolete the Model 95 in the .30 Government .06 caliber.”
We do not regard this as much of a loss, except to the left-handed shooter, for we agree with the Winchester Company that their Model 54 bolt-action rifle, of which we have invariably been having the finest kind of reports from satisfied sportsman and riflemen all over the the world, is a very much more modern and satisfactory weapon. It is presumed that the manufacture of the Model 95 Winchester in .30-40 Krag, .303 British, .35 W.C.F., and .405 W.C.F. calibers will be continued. All these cartridges are rimmed cartridges, and the maintenance of a satisfactory head space with them in a lever-action rifle is a much simple matter than with a rimless case like the .30-06. Also, these cartridges give considerably less breech pressure than the .30-06 cartridge.
The is yet more information in the 2021 article – a great addition to this evolving multi-chapter story.
November 19, 2006
Offline
Another reference, Art Gogan had a Fall, 1999 WACA magazine article titled, “Hyrbid Winchesters” and that piece contains his data sheet for collectors to submit details about specimens they have.
