I have a 336 SC at Nonneman's waiting to be picked up. I would expect a rechambered 307 to shoot exactly like it did before being rechambered. The only problem would be if the 'smithing work was poorly done and the chamber was cut wrong, but having spent a few hours with Nonneman and knowing the quality of his work, A+ IMO, I know that isn't going to happen.
FWIW, Nonneman's personal preference is the 30-30AI loaded at max+ pressure. He believes, and is probably right, that 307 brass will be hard to get sometime in the future. My take on this is that since you can use either 307 or 308 brass, if you stick to the 307 OAL specs, what is there to worry about? Same-same regarding the 356 that is also waiting for me to drive down to Maryville, MO, to pick up.
Nonneman is 1 of only 3 'smith who I have used and can recommend without any reservation. The others being Ray Montgomery in Grand Junction, CO, and Ahlman's in Morristown, MN. I think that Nonneman is without peer when it comes to 'smithing the Marlin lever actions, plus he is a really nice guy.
I am a big .307 Winchester fan. For what ever its worth, it is easy to make .307 and .356 brass from .444 Marlin brass. I have compared the cases side by side and there is not difference in load data between the Winchester and formed Marlin cases. The point of impact is different so the brass is not interchangeable in the box of ammunition. I have three .30-30AI rifles and a Winchester .307. I look forward to reading about your experiences with the .307 Marlin.
Edit] I forgot about the attached picture. From the left:.308 Winchester, .307 Winchester, .307-.444 Marlin, .444 Marlin, .356-444 Marlin, .356 Winchester, .358 Winchester]Edit
I have a conversion on the way,supposed to be delivered mid week.I'll let you know.my 2 30-30 AIs are great the newer one with safety will shoot loads that are way to hot with out even a hiccup but groups start to open up so i shoot recomended loads. i think its safer.
I find the .307 considerably easier to work with as a reloading project. The .30-30AI does have thin brass, the case mouth feeling sharp to the finger tips. The shoulder is easy to setback just a little and cause chambering problems. I use a Lyman M die to "condition" the necks slightly and add a very slight bell which helps with bullet seating. Dave Scovill has pointed out in several letters to me that I will be better off with tighter necks and a stronger grip on the bullet. I have experimented a little with this and have not seen a lot of difference in the .30-30AI using extruded powders. With ball powders the M-die does reduce bullet pull and it opens up the groups and extreme spreads a little when chronographing. Based on some comments Dave made to me about this I have purchased a Lee case neck expander and intend to try just a slight bell on the case without opening the neck. Its just an experiment as I am not a fan of most ball powders. I have experimented with various types of brass for making .30-30AI cases. Using cases previously reloaded as standard .30-30's I found case life to be short. Necking up to .32 caliber and forming a false shoulder helped a little but cases life was still short with high pressure loads. Using new brass formed with maximum published .30-30 data to the AI shape I have not encountered any significant case loss to either split necks or broken cases (broken at the pressure ring). Using old .30-30 cases loaded to high pressure you could be assured of cracking or breaking the case at the pressure ring in four loadings.
With the Winchester .307 case it is rare to loose one to any reason. A few will eventualy wear out their primer pockets but it takes a lot of use to do that. I have only had a few split necks with the .307 or the .356. Case life using the formed .444 Marlin cases seemed to equal the Winchester cases after I bought Redding form-trim dies to do the forming task in one pass through the die. Using .308 and .358 brass I had problems with the cartridge stop on the link. It is not quite high enough on my rifles and I could not reliably load more than one round in the magazine and expect it to feed. To rounds in the Winchester would sometimes allow the first to feed and stop the second. Three rounds in the magazine guaranteed the second round would jump the cartridge stop and tie up the action. Reducing the length of the magazine spring might stop this but the brass is so easy to make that if Winchester stops producing it we will have no problems keeping these rifles in ammunition. I will be interested in hearing if your Marlin will feed the rimless cases. Loaded to a COAL of 2.55" I had not problems using my loading data with any of the three types of cases. I believe there is an interest in this type of loading and articles demonstrating simple case forming tasks would be popular. If I interpet Daves comments correctly he does does not believe this to be true. I have a friend who says the secret to writing a popular magazine article is taking good pictures and filling in the blank spots with captions!
My previous Nonneman conversion, 35 to 356, and the stainless 336 in 356 that Bearrr264 built for me feed 358 brass loaded to 356 OAL fine, so I expect the 2 guns that Nonneman currently has will do the same. I'm planning to use the 170 grain Partition in the 307 and the 220 grain Speer FN in the 356 as my primary loads.
I currently have a 307, but it is a pre-WW2 Savage 99H that I had rechambered from 303 Savage. It was a gray rat that had been d&t when I got it, so nothing collectable was harmed in the process.
I beleive when winchester brought out the .307 and the .356, Marlin would only chamber for the .356. I believe Layne Simpson in Rifle magazine said Marlin claimed they would have to use a stronger steel in their barrels if they chambered them for the .307. He didn't explain why, as I remember.
That would probably be yet another example of Layne Simpson writing as an authority on something he hasn't researched in detail and makes up answers to fill space.
260, Layne Simpson seems to have taken some hits recently on the Internet for his writing. I am no judge, as I don�t read most of the magazines he writes for. I believe, with regards to the .307 cartridge, the Winchester Angle Eject rifles and the Big Bores in particular, this may not be a fair assessment. I am a big fan of the .307 Winchester cartridge and I believe the Winchester Big Bore rifle is adequate to the need. The rifle most certainly could be improved and was a contributor to the failure of the cartridge. To give Layne Simpson�s contribution a fair look we must remember the first real review of the .307 was written by him for the 1984 issue of Gun Digest, page 22. He wrote a good one-page review of the rifle and cartridge with some limited loading data. This was a positive, early review of the cartridge and rifle. I believe Rick Jamison�s two-part article on the rifle and cartridge in Shooting Times magazine beat Simpson�s review to the newsstand by a few Months, but I have always believed Simpson wrote his piece first. These two upbeat reviews were followed by a rather negative review written by Edward A. Matunas, who wrote the Winchester Ammunition review for the 1984 Gun Digest, page 245. Mr. Matunas had nothing positive to say about the .307. Typical comments were: "Accuracy and trajectory will be the limiting factor." Ken Waters gave a good boost to the cartridge in his ".307 Winchester Pet Loads", in Handloader magazine, July 1984. Edward A. Matunas took a second and cheaper shot at the .307 in the December 1985 issue of Shooting Industry magazine. On page 77 in his column: "Know Your Hunting Cartridges" Mr. Matunas threw dirt in the face of the .307 and .356 cartridges. While not 100% negative, the column had very little in the way of positive comments on either the cartridges or the lever action rifle they were packaged in. In the May 1998 issue of Shooting Times Layne Simpson wrote a lever action rifle article that has a GREAT quote on page 73: "I consider the .307, by the way, to be the finest deer cartridge ever offered in any tubular - magazine type lever-action rifle." I wish he had thought to write that a little earlier! I wrote USRA about this quote and suggested they use it in their advertising. USRA wrote a very nice reply but did not follow up in their advertising. On page 68 of the November 1998 issue of Shooting Times Layne Simpson stepped up again in his article: "Where Have All the Brush Cartridges Gone?" On page 70 Simpson says: "In my opinion, the .307 Winchester is absolutely the very best deer cartridge ever designed specifically for lever action rifles with tubular magazine." Ken Waters writing in the December 1999 issue of Handloader magazine (#196) wrote an article entitled: "Loads for Lever Guns", page 32. On page 35 Waters wrote: "Accordingly, the .307 Winchester ranks as one of the finest caliber's for lever-action deer and black bear rifles." Ken waters wrote his ".307 Pet Loads, Update" for Handloader #208. Not a lot of new information on the cartridge but still worth having, if only for this quote: "No matter how you look at it, the 307Winchester (and its .356 mate) are the finest cartridges for lever action tubular magazine rifles that have come our way, along with the strong modern Winchester Model 94 Angle Eject that made them possible." Ken Waters, writing in Wolfe Publishing: The Legacy of Lever Guns wrote on page 47: " Pardon me if I don�t beat around the bush, but I consider the .307 Winchester to be the all-time best factory deer cartridge ever developed for lever-action rifles with tubular magazines." I feel Layne Simpson lead the way in praise for the .307 cartridge and rifle combination, followed closely by Rick Jamison and Ken Waters. Those three writers are about the only "well known" advocates for the cartridge and rifle. Certainly they are the only ones who tested the rifle extensively, using a variety of powder and bullet combinations. I cannot comment on the criticism of Simpson�s recent writing. I can say that when he was pretty much all alone he stepped right to the front and praised a cartridge that deserved our attention. I can blame the failure of the .307 cartridge on a lot of things, but not on a lack of effort from Layne Simpson, Rick Jamison or Ken Waters.
In general, I have found Layne Simpson's writing acking in depth of research. As such, I can't bring myself to read anything that Mr. Simpson writes without some degree of doubt.
260 Yours is not the first criticism of this type I have read about Layne Simpson. I don�t read the magazines he writes for so I cannot relate. I hope Layne takes some of the criticism to heart and adjusts his writing. I tend to hunt close in heavy cover and the lever action rifles and cartridges are well matched to this type of hunting. Simpson has written quite a bit about this type of hunting, along with the rifles and cartridges. I am from New Mexico and cannot relate to the �group� type hunting or comradeship that exists in Layne Simpson�s home country, but I can relate to his writing style. I feel comfortable with his past writing and hope he can �win back� his readers. Have you ever written to him?
If it is of any interest Simpson has championed the 170 Nosler for the .307 many times. I have shot quite a few of them in the .307 and .30-30AI. I never found it to have remarkable accuracy, it has been a 2" bullet for me, but I will say it shots consistently and penetrates right along with the 150 grain Barnes X.
[quote]I beleive when winchester brought out the .307 and the .356, Marlin would only chamber for the .356. I believe Layne Simpson in Rifle magazine said Marlin claimed they would have to use a stronger steel in their barrels if they chambered them for the .307. He didn't explain why, as I remember. [/quote
Horkin, I started thinking about what you wrote and looked around a little. I had to read your post several times as your words sure sounded familiar to me. I think the reference you were looking for is from the Questions section of the November 1998 issue of Shooting Times magazine:
�Can Marlin 336 Be Converted From .30-30 To .307 Winchester? I wish to improve the ballistics of my Marlin Model 336 in .30-30 by having it rechambered to .307 Winchester. Would doing so be safe? Vincent G. Gallagher Wayne, PA Several years ago when Marlin decided to build a short production run of Model 336s in .356 Winchester, a company official informed me that the barrels installed on those rifles underwent a special heat treatment that allowed them to safely handle higher chamber pressures than were recommended for barrels used in building Model 336s in .30-30 caliber. Since the .356 Winchester and the .307 Winchester in which you're interested are loaded to the same chamber pressures, I'll have to recommend against the rechamber job."
I really need to look around a little more as my little pea brain remembers similar words by someone else....
As long as the barrel isn't obstructed, I'm not going to worry about shooting my 307 or 356 conversions. As far as Marlin's input, what would you expect them to say? No manufacturer is going to take the risk of saying that any conversion outside of factory specs is safe. Heck, Ruger won't rebarrel a 77 to anything other than the spec that it originally left the factory as, like a 270 to 6.5x55, so what does that tell you?
I agree fully with your view about the conversion of the Marlin rifles. I feel it is 100% safe. Myron Rockett wrote about his .444-308 wildcat more than 20 years ago and he recently posted on Leverguns that his standard Model 94 was still going strong after all these years. I was looking for this quote as I am giving a lot of thought to you comment on Layne Simpson's writing. I know there is an earlier statement in another magazine that is a very close quote to the one I just posted. Just somthing to look at, beats watching tV.
I have a 336c in 35 caliber that I think was made in the late '50s. I've had it since '61 when my dad bought it off a guy who couldn't hit anything with it. It was my first deer rifle and I killed my first deer with it that year. Anyhow, I am intrigued by your conversion to 356 as I've wanted one in that caliber for a while and have had no luck locating one. How well does it shoot factory 356 ammo? I was considering the new Leverevolution ammo, but this looks more interesting. Would you mind giving me the website or address of the guy who did your conversion?
thanks
I didn't understand a word you said, but whatever it was I'm right there with you.
Nonneman doesn't have a web site, that I know of. I have posted his telephone number somewhere in this forum and would suggest that you do a search for it and call him to discuss your interest. You also might want to go over to the Winchester ammo site and compare the 35 to 356. I can't think of anything that you can buy anywhere that will offer the amount/percent of performance increase that a Nonneman 35 to 356 conversion will offer for the price in a tubular magazine lever action rifle.
I have never had a converted 356. I do have 8 Marlin 336ERs. The 356 takes heavier bullets than the 35Rem. Thats why the rate of twist is differnt and why Marlin changed from 12 rifleing 83-84 to 6 rifleing 85-86.
Hows that Marlin shoot? I have shot some very small groups with my Winchester using the 130 grain Speer flat nose bullet and IMR 4064. I cannot allways do it, but this combination will often put three shots inside an inch at 100 yards. Sometimes, when everything goes right it will suprise me. The 150 grain Barnes X will shoot right with the Speer in my rifle.I will be interested in hearing what bullets your Marlin likes.
Interesting thread. Now you guys have me interested in bumping up my 336 in 35 Rem. Question though: My understanding is that the .307 is basically a rimmed .308 and the .358 is basically a necked-up .308. Is the .356 also a .308 child? Additionally, thought this may be of interest: http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976722469.htm Don
Sorry for not getting back to the board,but time is a factor the rifle was not delivered mid week. then it sat in the safe but i loaded up some 150's and some 4064 and wet to the range.the gun shot well about 1.5" I did not shoot the rifle before the conversion.I am still working up a load but the mid loads in my speer manual did not show any signs of pressure. I was also suprised at the mild recoil.the rifle will feed empty 308 cases with out a hiccup.and midway has brass. Thanks
On any average day 1.5" is good shooting with any load in my rifle. The two most accurate bullets I have shot in the .307 is the 130 grain Speer jfn and the Barnes X 150 grain bullet. In my Winchester both of these bullets will shoot honest 1" 3 shot groups - if I do my part - and certainly not every time. 5 shot groups are considerably more diffcult, I have done it with both bullets - but not often. Canting seems to my difficulty with these rifles. The recoil is not heavy but handling it the same way every time is a challenge for me. My favorite hunting load is the 170 grain Speer bullet ahead of 40.0 grains of IMR 4064 for about 2350 fps from the 20" barrel Winchester. This is not a maximum load. I have taken quite a few of our West Texas white tails with this load.
I have also used the 150 grain Barnes X in the .30-30AI with similar excellent accuracy. I have two Winchesters and a Marlin reamed for the AI. The Barnes bullet handles the micro groove rifling very well. My most accurate loads with the Barnes X in both the .30-30AI and the .307 used Hodgdon Varget, Highest velocity came with Alliant Reloder 15.
A bit off topic perhaps but when I am doing a lot of bench shooting with the .307 or .356 I install a wedge from Brownells or a homade wedge made from balsa. The wedge kicks the toe of the stock out about 3/4". This has the affect of reducing drop or straightening the stock. It is a bit easier to handle recoil at the bench in a uniform manner and I can see the difference in my group shooting. Could be a head game thing but works for me. The wedge slows the rifle coming to the shoulder off hand so I remove them before hunting season.
I sure wish someone would make a machine that could repeatedly fire both the 356 and 307 conversions for thousands of rounds and put an end to whether or not they are safe.
I've been reading about these conversions for about 2 years now. Some people swear by them and others wouldn't put their face behind them. I have no clue which to believe.
Also I have heard of several people converting to 356 but I have heard just about zero reports as to the reliability of cycling and ejecting or accuracy performace etc. It seems most people get one converted and then we hear nothing of the final results. That leaves me a bit curious. Maybe they love them so much that they are out hunting with them. Or maybe they don't work out and they have a $500 gun that no one will buy making it essentially worthless. I have been unable to determine which one is predominate.
Marlin did make the 336ER and I have not heard of any failures. I have also heard that they stopped making them because of fears of the strength. But they did not recall them like any good lawyer would have demanded if there was an inkling of that. I've also heard that the 336ER was some how heat treated. And I've also heard that is B.S.
I do not know what the rifle twist rate is for a 356 but a 35 Rem is 1:12. I suspect they are different and thus I have to question if a converted 35 Rem can stabilize the heavier bullets as faster velocity of 356.
This is all so confusing. I'd surely love to have a 356 but do not want a virtually unsellable, inaccurate gun that could blow my face off! I've also read that you can +p load the 35 Rem and approach but not achieve 356 performance.
Just what is a guy to do <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Three things that do you no good: Runway behind you, altitude above you, and fuel left at the pumps!
�I sure wish someone would make a machine that could repeatedly fire both the 356 and 307 conversions for thousands of rounds and put an end to whether or not they are safe.�
That would be a fun project. P. O. Ackley pointed out several times one of the primary factors in his rifles handling high pressure was the quality of his barrel steel. Several gunwriters have quoted Marlin as stating the .307 version of the EER would require barrels of increased strength. I have several pictures of Marlin 336 rifles that failed due to extreme high pressure and these rifles failed in the chamber/barrel thread area. At least two of the failures were due to the use of inappropriate powder. I have a Marlin 336 chambered for the .30-30AI and while this is a very different cartridge due to its smaller base diameter I have experienced no trouble shooting the rifle with high pressure loads. I have fired the rifle in excess of 1500 rounds and there are no indications of peening the locking bolt or other problems. This rifle easily pushes the 170 grain bullets to 2,350fps and using Alliant Reloader 15 and Hodgdon Varget I have shot many loads at the 2,400 fps+ level.
�Also I have heard of several people converting to 356 but I have heard just about zero reports as to the reliability of cycling and ejecting or accuracy performance etc.�
My 336 when reamed to .30-30AI required no modification. A Beartooth Forum member named Taylor experienced some minor feeding trouble with his 336 when it was reamed to the .30-30AI. I have not read of any reported feeding trouble with conversions to the .356 cartridge. I have read of several minor problems with feeding from home conversions to the .307. 260 Remguy and at least one other member of the Campfire have had their .307 conversions done by a professional gunsmith and they report no feeding trouble whatever. A member of the Marlin owner�s forum �Lantrad� has reported some minor feeding problems with his Marlin 336 home conversion to .307.
�It seems most people get one converted and then we hear nothing of the final results. That leaves me a bit curious. Maybe they love them so much that they are out hunting with them. Or maybe they don't work out and they have a $500 gun that no one will buy making it essentially worthless. I have been unable to determine which one is predominate.�
We will probably never know the answer to this question. It is certain that if the conversion is a �failure� due to feeding problems these are correctable or you could return the rifle to Marlin and have it returned to .30-30 by rebarreling.
�Marlin did make the 336ER and I have not heard of any failures. I have also heard that they stopped making them because of fears of the strength.�
I believe there were no strength issues with the Marlin EER. The problem was Winchester and Marlin failed to adequately promote their product and several gunwriters dismissed the cartridges in print. The negative press helped to kill the cartridges early on.
�I've also read that you can +p load the 35 Rem and approach but not achieve 356 performance.�
The .30-30AI and the .35 Remington loaded to +P levels cannot equal the .307 or .356. A Winchester or Marlin rifle converted to .307 or .356 must be treated as a wildcat cartridge and the rifle loaded as an individual by a careful handloader. As long as this approach is taken you will be certain of increased performance with a reasonable expectation of safety. The resale value of wildcat conversions should not be factored into your consideration of whether or not to convert any rifle. There is no guarantee you will ever recoup the cost of the conversion should you choose to sell the rifle.
I thought it would be better to separate my thoughts on this. I should point out Myron Rockett has been shooting his top eject Winchester Model 94 for 25 years or so using full power loads. His wildcat was named the .308/.444 and is the same as the .307 Winchester. Two gunsmiths who are actively converting the Marlin rifles to .307 and .356 are Nonneman and White. Both men price this conversion very reasonably.
Greg Mushial and I have discussed the conversion possibilities of the Marlin 336 over a number of years. Greg has converted several 336 rifles to cartridges that are not normally considered �safe.� Greg has an 1895 Marlin barreled for the .450 Alaskan cartridge. He has not attempted to modify the rifle to feed. This rifle has fired many high pressure loads with no difficulty. While discussing the .307 conversion on the old Marlin Talk board I suggested the .307 Improved cartridge might be the better choice. This is not with the idea of greater velocity but rather to ease the strain on the Marlin locking system. Greg posted this picture of the standard .307 and what he termed the �.307 Iorg Improved.� It should be pointed out I did not think of this first as the .307 Improved has been around for quite awhile in TC Contender circles. I still believe the improved case shape is the best way to go but it may give feeding problems that require even more action modifications. I have attached the picture Greg posted from his RCBS Load program. The cartridge designer function of RCBS Load is quite a bit of fun to play with. Below is a link to Greg GMDR web site.
I'm really, really, really happy with Regan Nonneman's work. Since I like the 2/3 magazine style offered on the 336SC, the Nonneman conversion is really the only practical way for me to go. If you want a 356 to shoot and hunt with, without feeling that you have to handle it with kid gloves, a 35 to 356 conversion is the only financially practical way to go. I can find 90% or better Marlin 336 rifles in 35 for under $250 all the time. Add another $100 to $125 for a Nonneman conversion and you've got a powerful tubular magazine lever action rifle for under $400.
Nonneman is 1 of only 2 'smiths who I can recommend without any reservation. The other being the pistol 'smiths at Ahlman's in Morristown, MN, who are better than the guys at S&W, at least in my experience.
How old of a model 94 would be safe to rechamber from 30-30 to .307? I have my dad's 94 that will never be sold, so I'm not worried about hurting the resale value. Without looking at the serial number, I know it is a 1950 or earlier vintage. I am looking for more decisive killing power on deer (yes I have shot deer with it, with very well placed shots)
For a rifle of that vintage and with its family history I would leave it alone.
I believe an Angle eject, non-Big Bore Winchester would take the conversion to .307 without trouble - but I don�t know this to be true. Our experience with the .30-30AI has demonstrated to us the Angle eject Winchester will accept 1.0 full grain of powder greater charge than a similar vintage Marlin 336. This is across the board with all powders and bullet weights. Our methods of guessing what is safe are admittedly, primitive. I have a mid 1970�s top eject Model 94 parts gun, and new Winchester Model 94AE and a modern Marlin 336, all reamed for the .30-30AI. The older and well used top eject M-94 reached our personal stop point 1.0 grain of powder before the Marlin 336. The Marlin 336 reached our stop point 1.0 grain before the Winchester M-94AE. Myron Rockett used an early 1980�s vintage Model 94 if memory serves me correctly. Rockett has posted on the Leverguns board this rifle has been in continuous use with his .308/.444 wildcat cartridge and has shown no signs of distress. Rockett used the rifle for both hunting and silhouette shooting.
I would enjoy meeting Layne Simpson or anyone who owns a rifle chambered for the 7mm Shooting Times Easterner cartridge. This Improved cartridge has a water capacity of about 48.7 grs with a bullet seated to .400�. This is a powerful cartridge for a standard lever action rifle. I would be interested in hearing of experiences with this cartridge in hot � above 90 degree � weather and general experiences with powder selection for this cartridge. I have experienced some early indications of high pressure using the .307 cartridge in my Winchester M-94 Big Bore rifle at temperatures above 95 degrees when using published load data for 170 grain bullets and Winchester 748 and Hodgdon BLc2. Hodgdon Varget and Alliant Reloder 15 did not give me these warning signs at the same velocities. I am talking about light lever kick and just a hint of sticky extraction.
I don't think the game will know how fast the .30 caliber bullet was traveling when it passed completely through them and out the other side. While the conversion is interesting, a .308 BLR would be better and probably cheaper in the long run.
"If what I say offends you, you should hear what I don't say."
This makes a good "horse race." I have shot deer with all of the modern "Big Bore" lever cartridges. I have had more "one shot, dropped in its tracks" kills on white tail deer with the .307 than all of the rest combined. With the bullets available I have found the Speer 170 grain bullet to be the best as far as penetration, expansion and weight retention. I have used all of the available bullets including the Barnes 150 grain X and the Nosler partition. I typicly hunt close and my shots are generaly under 100 yards with the deer in motion when first seen. I have found the 170 grain Speer in the .307 at above 2350 fps to be the best. The .444 Marlin with the 270 grain Speer Gold Dot and any of the 240 grain JSP bullets to be next. The .375 Winchester with the 200 grain Sierra has given me quicker kills on deer than the heavier Hornady bullet. The .356 kills deer quickly with the 200 grain bullets. The 220 Speer is to heavily constructed for our light bodied, West Texas deer.
As far as rifles go I find the Savage 99 and the Browning BLR have the same fault of being muzzle light and not quick in my hands. My Dad likes the Brownings and we "discuss" the matter to the point my wife runs us out of the house! There are some hunters out here that "walk-up" their deer in the brush like quail. The shooting is fast and close. A lot of these guys prefer the 7-30 Waters or any of the .357 Magnum lever guns, with heavy bullets. Most of these hunters prefer a longer barrel or an octagon barrel to add weight forward. The various Model 92's, and the Marlin and Winchester Modle 94's each have their advocates. The "serious debates" out here are not over caliber or make of rifle, but over sights.
I am pretty sure, around 99.9% sure, that Nonneman won't rechamber any Winchester 94s, as he has told me that the Rockwell hardness is not up to the task. He does a Rockwell hardness test on all of the Marlin actions that he rechambers and has told me that they are very consistant which he believes is a sign of great QC.
I can certainly sympathize with a gunsmith trying to make a living by guessing what some of these Winchester Model 94 receivers are built of. My mid 1970�s parts gun has a �mystery metal� receiver. This receiver is a bit stretchy and while it handles normal .30-30 pressures just fine it does not lend itself to the higher pressures of the .30-30AI. I reamed the chamber with the thought of giving this rifle a break by the use of the straight cartridge case. The barrel is a Canadian Centennial 20� full octagon barrel. This is a fine rifle but it is not in the same class as the recent manufacture Angle Eject Model 94 receiver. The recent Angle Eject receivers work very well chambered for the .30-30AI cartridge. While looking for the margin of safety we loaded well beyond our stop points and the M-94AE handled everything we fed it. The Marlin 336 performed well also but began to give indications of sticky extraction with 1.0 grain of powder charge less than the Winchester M-94AE. These loads were above what we considered maximum and we have not loaded to these levels since the initial testing. Both rifles will push a 170-grain bullet to 2350 fps on a 100-degree day without difficulty using extruded powders. Hodgdon Varget and Alliant Reloder 15 will give higher velocity safely but there is not a real need. A 170-grain bullet at 2350 fps kills deer quickly from any angle. I like both the Marlin and the Winchester rifles. The Marlin has a good trigger and half cock safety. The Winchester has controlled round feed, a hammer extension that screws into the hammer and a locking bolt giving full contact with the moving bolt. There are quite a few Winchester .307 rifles around so we can have one in whichever action style suits our fancy. It generally boils down to which rifle is most readily available � and Winchester is out of business.
Thinking about this thread brought up a point that is sometimes overlooked. The long barrel .30-30 is capable of surprising performance. The 26� .30-30 equaling the 20� .30-30AI with heavier bullets. John Barsness article in Handloader No. 235, July 2005, on his 28� Charles Daly Drilling illustrates this point. Johns load of 34.0 grains of Alliant Reloder 15 behind the 170 grain Nosler Partition gave him 2323 fps. I have killed quite a few West Texas white tails with a .307 load of 40.0 grains of IMR 4064 and any 170 grain flat or round nose bullet. This load giving about 2350 fps from my 20� barrel .307 Winchester. 2350 fps is a very good velocity for shots less than 100 yards as this velocity allows the .30-30 bullets to expand rapidly, retain plenty of weight, penetrate deeply and kill decisively. Firing the standard .30-30 from 16�, 20� and 26� barrels side by side with handloads, conventional factory loads and the new Hornady Lever-Evolution loads has demonstrated the surprising potential of the 26� barreled .30-30.
Johns article brought back many happy memories of my fathers Charles Daly 12 X 12 X .38-55 Drilling. Dads Drilling looked very similar to Johns but it was not equipped with the tang sight. Dad�s barrels were fluid steel but were etched with an imitation Damascus pattern. This was the first gun I handled that was equipped with a horn butt plate and forend cap. Dad experimented with every load variation in the shotgun barrels and overcame an oversize bore by paper patching cast bullets. I have many fond memories of setting at the kitchen table while he patched bullets or strung split shot together with fishing line. I have split many Alcan Nitro wads with a razor knife to make scatter loads for this gun. John�s article is a long one for a feature article today and well appreciated by this reader, as was the following article by Gil Sengel on Farm Guns.
I attempted to edit my post but the time limit had exspired. I wanted to add the serial number from Dads Drilling. sn34898. This one will have barrels 1" shorter than John Barsness Drilling and an intersting story to go along with it. If any one happens to run across this Charles Daly 12 X 12 X .38-55 I'd like to hear from them.
I also wanted to add that a 34.1 grain load of Alliant Reloder 15 will push a Harnady 170 grain bullet 2,076 fps in my 16" Winchester Trapper. The same loads pushes this bullet 2,221fps from the 20" Model 94AE. The 26" barrel Model 94 gets 2,382 fps from this load. The hunter armed with a 26" barrel .30-30 has a very interesting rifle to play with and need not feel he is seriously outperformed by the 20" .30-30AI or .307..
