1892takedown said
Im not sure Id want to pull a Ken Waters trying to attain 1800 fps, its a bit of overkill and Im curious what it would do for accuracy.  Plus, Im not a fan of bone breaking recoil–got to keep my retinas attached. 

  

Yes, but if a deer gets up & runs away after a well-placed shot…maybe a bit of “overkill” would not be entirely superfluous.  Ken described a 1735 fps load (not the fastest) as “most accurate” out of about 20 tested.

Ask you optometrist for a PAST prescription; your retinas will thank you. 

steve004 said

 

 

 

  

This is interesting as Chris’s experience with the low-power factory Winchester jacketed bullet loading, was that it was very accurate.  

  

 That has been my experience to. T/R

clarence said

steve004 said This is interesting as Chris’s experience with the low-power factory Winchester jacketed bullet loading, was that it was very accurate.    

This cartridge was developed for target shooting, not hunting.  “Killing” a bull’s-eye in one thing, killing a big-game animal quickly & humanely is something else.

  

True, and surely that’s what Winchester had in mind when they chambered it in their Single Shot model.  However, when they chambered it in their M1894, I’m confident they had hunters in mind.  And, they previously manufactured a high velocity smokeless powder load that was more stout than the most recent load. Turning to similar bullet diameter and ballistics, they had hunting in mind when they brought out the .38/72 in the M1895.  The same could be said for the .38/56 in the M1886.