Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
A friend asked me about this. I’ve never owned a M1895 in .30-06. I had a .30-03 and did shoot it, but I handload and I loaded it down – far short of factory .30-06 loadings. My friend would appreciate knowledge, experience and advice on this.
November 7, 2015
Offline
No personal experience or knowledge but It’s my recollection the 1895 was not designed with today’s higher velocity (pressure) ammunition in mind. I know some use modern factory ammo in their old 1895’s but if I had one I wouldn’t.
Mike
Steve004, there has been a thread on this under the sights tab ref the model 21 receiver sight on a .30-06 carbine 1895. Much as Mike said, it is not a good, long term practice to use today’s higher pressure cartridges in the older rifles. Many already have excess headspace due to this practice and it will only get worse. Handload, and use milder loadings. If the rifle already has excessive headspace, reload the brass from that rifle without full length sizing or setting the shoulder back if possible and the brass will last longer. Military brass has heavier material in the head area and holds up better, too. But keep the loads reasonable for that rifle. My take on it. Tim
tim tomlinson said
Steve004, there has been a thread on this under the sights tab ref the model 21 receiver sight on a .30-06 carbine 1895. Much as Mike said, it is not a good, long term practice to use today’s higher pressure cartridges in the older rifles. Many already have excess headspace due to this practice and it will only get worse. Handload, and use milder loadings. If the rifle already has excessive headspace, reload the brass from that rifle without full length sizing or setting the shoulder back if possible and the brass will last longer. Military brass has heavier material in the head area and holds up better, too. But keep the loads reasonable for that rifle. My take on it. Tim
Thanks Tim. I’ll look for that thread. I suppose shooters feel better using modern .303 British and .30/40 Krag ammo in their older rifles given these aren’t loaded as hot as the modern .30-06? I would assume these two cartridges have less headspace issues given they are rimmed vs. rimless?
Steve004, If your friend isn’t a reloader, there are factory “reduced recoil” loads available. I’ve shot both Hornady and Remington versions through my 1895’s. They’re pleasant to shoot and I don’t worry about creating a headspace problem. The ballistics are comparable to the 30-30. They might be tough to find now, but they should start showing up again when this current ammo craze subsides. Mark
Mark Douglas said
Steve004, If your friend isn’t a reloader, there are factory “reduced recoil” loads available. I’ve shot both Hornady and Remington versions through my 1895’s. They’re pleasant to shoot and I don’t worry about creating a headspace problem. The ballistics are comparable to the 30-30. They might be tough to find now, but they should start showing up again when this current ammo craze subsides. Mark
Thanks Mark. I was not aware of that. My friend is not a reloader.
Mark Douglas said
Steve004, If your friend isn’t a reloader, there are factory “reduced recoil” loads available. I’ve shot both Hornady and Remington versions through my 1895’s. They’re pleasant to shoot and I don’t worry about creating a headspace problem. The ballistics are comparable to the 30-30. They might be tough to find now, but they should start showing up again when this current ammo craze subsides. Mark
I posted this yesterday on another Topic. These are loaded for the WW II M1 Garand and are somewhat reduced to not break the operating rod.
These have 150 grain bullets and shoot at about 2700 FPS. One other key is that the powder burn rate has been selected to keep the muzzle energy at around 2500 lb/ft. Compare these figures to a loading chart for a standard 30-06 and you will see the difference.
November 7, 2015
Offline
steve004 said
Thanks Tim. I’ll look for that thread. I suppose shooters feel better using modern .303 British and .30/40 Krag ammo in their older rifles given these aren’t loaded as hot as the modern .30-06? I would assume these two cartridges have less headspace issues given they are rimmed vs. rimless?
The 30-40 Krag and .303 British are very early smokeless cartridges and are indeed relatively low pressure rimmed smokeless cartridges. A rimmed cartridge has negligible headspace issues due to the cartridge design and lower pressures. Headspace issues are generally encountered with rimless cartridges that headspace on the shoulder due in part to the higher pressures provided by the shoulder. Some rimmed cartridges that utilize a shoulder have headspace issues but I’ve only seen it once and I may have been wrong about it then.
I’ve often felt there should be “vintage” SAAMI specs for the 45-70, 38-55 and a few other hyphenated cartridges.In the case of the 1895 in 30-06 that could also be a good idea but not many 30-06 1895 owners are shooting their guns today. Personally, I don’t usually need all the modern 30-06 has to offer. It’s a shame your friend is not a reloader, Steve. The 30-06 is THE reason I jumped off the cliff into reloading and I’ve never looked back. As I mentioned in the other thread my 30-06 loads are a few hundred FPS under today’s factory loads and me and my rifles are OK with that.
But then again, my entire 30-06 odyssey has been with post-64 Winchesters.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
