Home
Among the Miroku-made Winchesters, which has the strongest action? A 1886 or 1895? Also, can a new Win 1886 handle Marlin safe .45-70 loads?
Here is a little exert from a guy that built one of the very first .500 Smith and Wesson leverguns and also did test on the major leveractions and if they could take the .454 Casull.

Quote
The 1894 and 1895 Winchesters are NOT particularly strong actions, having llooooooonnnnngg receiver walls and angled, rear locking bolts. In short, physics and geometry are against them from the outset. As mentioned above, the '94 AE suffers the further indignity of having the only strengthening metal available to it REMOVED to make way for the abominable ejection system.

The '86/M-71 and '92 Winchesters are by far the strongest of the "traditional" lever actions, with the nod going to the '86/71, with its square-to-bore vertical lockup, which situates the lugs about 2/3 the distance back from the breech-face as compared to a '94 or '95. The '86's receiver walls are robust and not chopped up or hollowed out as are those on the '94, in particular.

The new Browning/Winchester 1886 and Model 71 are virtually identical offerings, made of good, through-hardened steel, and will serve as the basis for some VERY powerful loading.


The Winchester '86 is much stronger than the Marlin '95 with those in the no saying it can be safely loaded to 50 KPSI.
Jayco
I agree that the 1886/71 is stronger than the Marlin 1895 and that the Winny 94 is not. And yes, 50K PSI is generally regarded as the safe operating pressure limit in the 1886. The Marlin is at least 5k-7K less than that. None of this is what he was asking about, though.

The Winny 1895 is a different story. Early versions(1st generaton) were not nearly as strong as 2nd and 3rd (modern) variations of which he speaks. (However, they were about as strong as a modern Marlin 1895). To say a modern Win 95 is weaker than a 86 is simply not correct, nor close. If you look at the chamberings, they include both the 30-06 and the 270 Win. These cartridges routinely churn up WELL over 55K PSI and often over 60K PSI.

Take a look at what Fred Zieglin of Z-Hat does with a 1895. Ever heard of the .411 Hawk or .375 Scovill built on 1895s?

Modern 1895s are chambered for MUCH higher pressure cartridges than any of said other lever guns ever were or ever will be......
Agreed.I guess I should have posted the whole quote..This was a talk with Jim Taylor and Buck Elliot on leverguns.com about the strengths of the traditional leverguns for .454 Casull use...

Just remember that pressure is always and only relative to the resistance of the system in place to contain it... If the pressure does not exceed strength of the containment apparatus, all is well. The Freedom Arms .454 revolver has a built-in 100%+ safety factor - that is, it will contain pressures in excess of 100% overload. That said - DON'T try to find out how much or how high that is... We did succeed in breaking a .454 at F.A., but only after much tedious loading and firing of ammunition no one could conceivably load by accident or mistake. The gun never did "blow up," it just finally "broke..."

In my own .454 levergun tests, back in the late '80s, we did manage to ruin a few Winchester '94s, and one Marlin 336. The Marlin failed after the fewest rounds of factory-equivalent ammo, digesting only a handful of rounds (somewhere short of 20, if memory serves...) before the action would no longer lock up safely or securely.

Next to fall was a brand-new Winchester '94 Big-Bore AE, which stretched and flowed like taffy, as the bolt tried to climb up the locking lug and out of the top of the receiver, peening the lug recesses in the receiver terribly, and noticeably stretching the right side wall of the receiver. In their infinite wisdom, Winchester (USRAC) beefed up the receiver in the wrong place, while cutting ALL the strength out of the right receiver wall, to allow for their ill-conceived "angle ejection" modification. The '94 that performed best in my testing was a well-used carbine, made in the 1920s. It was still tight and crisp when we screwed the .454 barrel into it, but even it became dangerous and unserviceable in fewer than 50 rounds.

The whole point of the testing was to prove to various and sundry doubters that the 1894 Winchester was NOT a suitable platform for the powerful .454 Casull round - and WHY. The guns used (and used up...) in the tests were donated to the cause by those very Doubting Thomases...! It doesn't get much better than that.

BTW, the same Sharon barrel was used in all the tests, and it emerged unscathed. It was finally rethreaded and rechambered to .45 Colt and installed in a Browning '92, where it still resides -- a 24", octagon beauty.

The 1894 and 1895 Winchesters are NOT particularly strong actions, having llooooooonnnnngg receiver walls and angled, rear locking bolts. In short, physics and geometry are against them from the outset. As mentioned above, the '94 AE suffers the further indignity of having the only strengthening metal available to it REMOVED to make way for the abominable ejection system.

The '86/M-71 and '92 Winchesters are by far the strongest of the "traditional" lever actions, with the nod going to the '86/71, with its square-to-bore vertical lockup, which situates the lugs about 2/3 the distance back from the breech-face as compared to a '94 or '95. The '86's receiver walls are robust and not chopped up or hollowed out as are those on the '94, in particular.

The new Browning/Winchester 1886 and Model 71 are virtually identical offerings, made of good, through-hardened steel, and will serve as the basis for some VERY powerful loading.

Be careful, and don't try this at home...

Regards,



Jayco
Here is some more of that conversation about "traditional" lever actions some might be interested in.This does pertain to the the ops question about the Winchester being able to use hot Marlin loads....

ANY of the lever guns mentioned in this discussion ARE SAFE WHEN USED WITH THE CARTRIDGES AROUND AND FOR WHICH THEY WERE DESIGNED, AND VICE VERSA. (With a possible caveat concerning the .454 Puma...)

The Winchester and Marlin guns chambered for such hot little numbers as the.307 and .356 WILL WORK WONDERFULLY WELL WITH THOSE CARTRIDGES, provided they are not 'hot-rodded.'

There is a TREMENDOUS difference between 52,000 psi and 65,000 psi (or CUP, if that is the term in your head -- although they are NOT the same.)

Rapid acceleration to 65,000 psi, using even slow-burning pistol powders, such as W-296/H-110, produces a significant SHOCK to all parts of the gun, which leads to battering of loose-fitting parts, such as Jim mentioned. Even closely-fitted mechanisms have SOME play, or they won't work -- line-to-line fit has a tendency to bind things up in a hurry, particularly when you introduce a little HEAT into the equation.

Is a new Marlin 336 "stronger" than a solid, sound Winchester Model 1886 or 1892? NO...

The Marlin may (or not) be made of stronger materials, but the DESIGN of the locking mechanism is not as stout as that of the '86 or '92 Winchester. THAT is why in all the .454 test programs I'm aware of, the Marlins failed SOONER than the various Winchesters, when subjected to the pressures generated by the .454 Casull round -- somewhere in the vicinity of 62,500 to 65,000 psi. FAR BEYOND stresses ANY of those rifles were originally designed to encounter.

Lastly -- Just because John Browning designed the 1894 AFTER he had already built the '86 and the '92 DOES NOT MEAN that it is in any way an "improvement" over either of its predecessors. It is DIFFERENT -- it employs a different lockup, albeit on the same principle, and its lever's toggle linkage is a clear departure from its ancestors' mode of operation as well.

The idea was to put a smaller-diameter cartridge - of approximately the same overall length as those used in the '86 - into a lighter, trimmer receiver, which the '94 accomplishes very well. The '94 is NOT Browning's strongest or best-engineered lever-action rifle. He set the mark with the '86, and everything else that came after was intended to fill in all the gaps around the OUTSIDE, as it were, of the '86's PERFECT mechanism AND to protect Winchester's position in the market.

SCORES of rifle mechanisms were designed and patented by the Browning’s, and the patents SOLD to Winchester, with that one idea in mind. Browning's genius for getting around his own patent claims saved the day for the Big Red W time after time.


Jayco
I have a Model 1895 in .405 Winchester. It was designed for that cartridge after Teddy R decided to go to Africa. With all due respect, how can a '95 be considered a weak action if it can handle the .405?

I also have a Model 71 and I am in love with it. Model 1886s are my favorites and it came in the big .50.
Originally Posted by ppine


I have a Model 1895 in .405 Winchester. It was designed for that cartridge after Teddy R decided to go to Africa. With all due respect, how can a '95 be considered a weak action if it can handle the .405?



FWIW, the reason the .405 was in the Winchester M1895 was that the .405 was too long for a Model 1886 action, so strength wasn't the issue that length was.

I didn't see anybody declare the Winchester M1895 to be a weak action (although it's not particularly strong) - just that the M1886/86 is stronger.


.
The 1886 is one on the great rifles of all time. The Model 71 is an update and even stronger. Too bad the .348 fell out of favor.
1886.
Thanks logcutter for the great write up. I had a Calvary carbine in 30 US when I was a kid and wish I would have held on to it, but such is youth. Love those 86 & 71 levers, just waiting on the right one to trip my trigger before I buy. Otis.
Compared to the Henry, Models 1866, 73 and 76, all of the actions in the discussion are pretty strong.
Many of the original Model 1895 rifles were returned
to the factory for repairs in the stock grip areas.
Winchester stopped chambering the 1895 in 30-03 and 30GOVT 06 because of problems with owners confusing the
8mm Mauser WWI cartridge with the 30 -06.
It rightly caused lots pf problems. Winchester did a thorough investigation but still decided that nothing is proof against idiots.

The 86/71 is a stronger rifle.
design....
1886
450Fuller, my 1895, designated as ".30GOVT" is chambered in .30-40. However, I do know the rifle was also chambered in '06.
I own and shoot/hunt with 1892, 1886, and 1895 and find them all well suited for their intended purpose and some non intended purposes such as African DG.

For successful hunting performance, I have found no reason for "hot rodding" any of them. And they are not limited to plinking bunnies or deer.
-1892 .357 magnum has been proven great for deer, feral hogs, close in varmints and such.
-1886 .45-90 has done the same for many deer-like critters, Bison, elephant, Cape Buffalo, leopard, etc.
-1895 .405 has been fun with much American deer sized game, Water buffalo, Cape Buffalo, feral hogs, warthogs, Nilgai, Red deer, and other exotics.

BTW, to me the term "Hot Rodding" means loading rifles up to or above their design limits (a risky business at best).

The same people "in the Know", have told me that low 50s are the upper safe operating pressures for the 1886 and 1895. Those were folks in the bullet and ammo business that have done extensive testing of their products. I have personally not exceeded 48,000 PSI with my ammo for the 1886 or 1895 - it was just not needed for hunting; including ele and big bad bovines. The spotted kitty was taken with a 300 grain .458 Nosler PP which nailed it to the ground - not a wiggle or flop.
The 1895 was a good -rifle, I shot my first bull elk with a .405 WCF. But as John Taylor states in his "African Rifles and Cartridges",
the 300 gr bullet lacked sectional density and lost velocity fast. The 450 or 50 Alaskans will show just how strong the 1886/M-71
actions are with Winchester or nickle steel in a stronger action. An 1895 in 35 Whelen tends to be a balanced rifle, and the
35 Winchester was a good cartridge. But the 348 or 348 Ack Improved were better in the Model 71.
Originally Posted by logcutter
Agreed.I guess I should have posted the whole quote..This was a talk with Jim Taylor and Buck Elliot on leverguns.com about the strengths of the traditional leverguns for .454 Casull use...

Just remember that pressure is always and only relative to the resistance of the system in place to contain it... If the pressure does not exceed strength of the containment apparatus, all is well. The Freedom Arms .454 revolver has a built-in 100%+ safety factor - that is, it will contain pressures in excess of 100% overload. That said - DON'T try to find out how much or how high that is... We did succeed in breaking a .454 at F.A., but only after much tedious loading and firing of ammunition no one could conceivably load by accident or mistake. The gun never did "blow up," it just finally "broke..."

In my own .454 levergun tests, back in the late '80s, we did manage to ruin a few Winchester '94s, and one Marlin 336. The Marlin failed after the fewest rounds of factory-equivalent ammo, digesting only a handful of rounds (somewhere short of 20, if memory serves...) before the action would no longer lock up safely or securely.

Next to fall was a brand-new Winchester '94 Big-Bore AE, which stretched and flowed like taffy, as the bolt tried to climb up the locking lug and out of the top of the receiver, peening the lug recesses in the receiver terribly, and noticeably stretching the right side wall of the receiver. In their infinite wisdom, Winchester (USRAC) beefed up the receiver in the wrong place, while cutting ALL the strength out of the right receiver wall, to allow for their ill-conceived "angle ejection" modification. The '94 that performed best in my testing was a well-used carbine, made in the 1920s. It was still tight and crisp when we screwed the .454 barrel into it, but even it became dangerous and unserviceable in fewer than 50 rounds.

The whole point of the testing was to prove to various and sundry doubters that the 1894 Winchester was NOT a suitable platform for the powerful .454 Casull round - and WHY. The guns used (and used up...) in the tests were donated to the cause by those very Doubting Thomases...! It doesn't get much better than that.

BTW, the same Sharon barrel was used in all the tests, and it emerged unscathed. It was finally rethreaded and rechambered to .45 Colt and installed in a Browning '92, where it still resides -- a 24", octagon beauty.

The 1894 and 1895 Winchesters are NOT particularly strong actions, having llooooooonnnnngg receiver walls and angled, rear locking bolts. In short, physics and geometry are against them from the outset. As mentioned above, the '94 AE suffers the further indignity of having the only strengthening metal available to it REMOVED to make way for the abominable ejection system.

The '86/M-71 and '92 Winchesters are by far the strongest of the "traditional" lever actions, with the nod going to the '86/71, with its square-to-bore vertical lockup, which situates the lugs about 2/3 the distance back from the breech-face as compared to a '94 or '95. The '86's receiver walls are robust and not chopped up or hollowed out as are those on the '94, in particular.

The new Browning/Winchester 1886 and Model 71 are virtually identical offerings, made of good, through-hardened steel, and will serve as the basis for some VERY powerful loading.

Be careful, and don't try this at home...

Regards,



Jayco


The OP is talking about WINCHESTER 1895s and not Marlins. The former is a much stronger action but I agree the 71 (86) is stronger
450Fuller,
I am unfamiliar with the John Taylor that you reference, but do agree with him that on some applications of the 300 grain .411 bullets for the .405 WCF.

That was one reason for my using 400 grain .411 Woodleigh bullets (actually only one bullet needed) to take my Cape buff. Another reason was that it was a fun project.

It worked out so well that I have now been able to transfer those 300 and 400 grain loads to my Simson Suhl .405 double rifle . It was regulated with factory Horndy 300 grain ammo at 2225 fps (and my 300 grain hand loads at 2250 fps) to sub moa R&L groups at 50 yards. Fortunately, my 400 grain Woodleigh hand loads at 2050-2060 fps also regulate well.

It would be fun to take the Simson and 400 grain Woodies back to Africa for hippo and ele. However, since my 1886 .45-90 is my ele gun, maybe some other beastie with the Simson! smile
Cr; I bought a good supply of the 405 designed 300gr North Fork solids for my 405 and based on what I've experienced, I have no doubt they will penetrate well enough to kill a buffalo or for that matter anything else, including elephant and rhino.
Hello Jorge!

Indeed!

Used my 1895 405 to launch a 300grain NF cup point solid on a large water buff and it hit the ground dead! All senses went into slo mo and I can still see the critters head bounce as it hit the ground. Bullet took out both shoulders and messed up all insides nearby.
I was going to use that load on my Cape Buff hunt but a couple of buddies talked me into the 400 grain game. One of them yelled "stop here" when I reached 2076 fps while load testing - it seemed that was his regulation load for his 450/400 DR that had taken multiple ele and buff in Africa. It worked for me too. smile
Don't know, do know I have a Turnbull 50-110 WCF built on a jap built Browning '86 action, with it and some RL-15 along with the 525gr Cast Performance bullets I built a safe load running them to 2150 fps over the chrono, rifle, action and Starline brass handled it all with ease, recoil on the other hand was horrendous with the crescent steel butt, I done that to check build and stock strength, testing completed.

I now run 700gr flat nosed grease groove bullets to 1240 fps with black powder, using the Smith ladder barrel sight and a sharpsguy copper penny front sight I can ring 400 yard steel at will, pretty cool to get to do that with a lever rifle! smile
This never ends for me. Maybe I am just slow and don't understand. I keep hearing the 1886 and 71 are the strongest actions and best built etc. Yet the Big Bore .356 I have is easily rated for 50,000 psi. My .348 Mirkoru Win. is being turned into a .348 Ackley Improved. But, my understanding 42,000 CUP is max for it and its twin tapered locking lugs.

So if we just use a cartridges SAMMI rating to determine action strength, neither the 86 or 71 are tops in that field. Since I have no way to measure pressure, I can only rely on a chronograph and case life and extraction to roughly determine "pressure" forget primers unless they fall out, since even the experts don't agree on using them as a measuring stick for a loads pressure.

It is obvious that the "experts" can't agree on the "strongest" action, no wonder I am confused. LOL

I can't remember who it was, maybe Waters that stated the Mod. 71 action is really a 50,000 psi action. If Waters said that I would believe him. Any of you remember him stating that?
I could never understand the one-upsmanship blabber about which action is stronger. They're both plenty strong for their intended purposes.

My heavily modified Browning 1895 scout has been pushing 41 caliber 350 grain bullets at 2300-2400 fps for over a half decade now.

The weak link so far: my shoulder and 6-48 screws on the scope rail. 8-40s are a must at this power level. 20 rounds max during target sessions. I have shot out to 400 yds. The strength of the action will never be an issue.

With the browning/win 95: plug a pressure trace on the barrel and do not exceed 53,000 psi with your hand-loads.

Find the powder that gives maximum velocity with the lowest pressure. For me, AA2230 does both very well in my 41 O&M wildcat off the 9.3x62 case.

If you want to exceed 53,000 psi: go buy a bolt action rifle.
Originally Posted by mainer_in_ak


If you want to exceed 53,000 psi: go buy a bolt action rifle.



Or buy a Browning BLR
Voting for your favorite action won’t give it strength. There is a reason the 1895 was able to handle higher pressures than the 1886. Rear lugs aren’t the defining factor for strength. If that was the criteria for strength the Remington 788 would fail, but it doesn’t.
Forgot to add:
The winchester/browning 95 is not an overly long action. Having no rear receiver bridge, it is shorter than a short action bolt rifle.

My 20 inch barreled browning 95 scout at 38.25" long, is shorter than my 20 " barreled savage 99 and BLR.

It is .25" longer than a 20" barreled model 94 winchester.

I dunno about this "long/weak" action bullsht. My experiences are counter to that.

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
With modern steel for both of these actions, any long discussion is beating a dead mule. My Model 71s in 348 Ackley and 450 Alaskan are original pre-war rifles and they
will take on anything in North America or Canada. Its accuracy and intended game that count.
First bull elk was shot decades ago near Mt Evans with an original 1895 in .405 WCF.

Heck-its the rifles not comparing them that counts. Ben Lilly ran all over NM, Az -CO and old Mexico with a Winchester 1886 nickle steel barrel in 33 WCF. He killed more
grizzlies and mountain lions than any modern hunter or guide has in a lifetime. He hunted on foot with hounds and ran bears and cats into the ground.
It is known that along the Mogollon Rim, Lilly wore out a set of boots about every two months.This occurred in the early 1900s.

As Elmer Keith pointed out-its the man behind the rifle that counts. That and the guts to face down bears at spitting range with a 33 WCF in a 1886 Winchester.
Originally Posted by 450Fuller
With modern steel for both of these actions, any long discussion is beating a dead mule. My Model 71s in 348 Ackley and 450 Alaskan are original pre-war rifles and they
will take on anything in North America or Canada. Its accuracy and intended game that count.
First bull elk was shot decades ago near Mt Evans with an original 1895 in .405 WCF.

Heck-its the rifles not comparing them that counts. Ben Lilly ran all over NM, Az -CO and old Mexico with a Winchester 1886 nickle steel barrel in 33 WCF. He killed more
grizzlies and mountain lions than any modern hunter or guide has in a lifetime. He hunted on foot with hounds and ran bears and cats into the ground.
It is known that along the Mogollon Rim, Lilly wore out a set of boots about every two months.This occurred in the early 1900s.

As Elmer Keith pointed out-its the man behind the rifle that counts. That and the guts to face down bears at spitting range with a 33 WCF in a 1886 Winchester.


450Fuller
Off subject but do you know the name of the 7mm cartridge that was made out of the 348 win?
If it reached any popularity at all, it should be in PO Ackley's Volume 1 handbook on wildcats. Its not in the Barnes Book.
Frankly, anything smaller than .348 on the 348 WCF case is not particularly reliable or efficient, unless you inherited a basement full of 338 FP bullets.
That would work well if they were Hawks, Woodleighs and such. A re-barrel effort might be worth it. The 348 WCF case is made for lever actions and larger bullets.
Every thing every one is saying makes sense and for the most part I agree with it. But, in this day and age, it is odd that we don't have better information as to action strength of the lever action rifles we like. Just because "Uncle Buck" has been doing it for years does not mean it is safe. One of my all time favorite lever guns is a Marlin 1895 in 45-70. Forever I have been running a heavy dose of H322 and 405 grain Kodiak bullets down it's tube. It is a octagon barreled version with a pistol grip I modified. I could care less if it is as strong as a Win. 1886 as it is plenty strong for my needs.

My Mirkoru Mod. 71 Win. in .348 is new to me and being made into a .348 Ackley Improved because I want to approach .35 Whelen ballistics with a 250 grain bullet. So yes, I do scratch my head as to why a supposed near perfect big bore lever gun is rated for less pressure then a Big Bore .356 Win. What makes it even more frustrating is a definitive answer on why that is. If it was a bolt gun the facts would be laid bare for all to see long ago.

I am like most of you, I use what I trust and push the envelope some times, so far so good. LOL
1AK shooter:

With rear locking lever guns, it's excessive case stretch as to why I prefer to keep down pressures down around 53,000 psi. I don't care if it's a savage 99, a winchester/browning 95 or a big bore 94.

Case stretch is not only hard on the brass, it can lead to sticky extraction. Whereras, a modern bolt action has no issue at identical pressures.

AK_lanche and I experienced this with our 200 grain 308 bison-legal loads. He with a kimber montana, and I with my 99 in 308 win. His brass was perfect and extracted like butter, mine would stretch and exhibit sticky extraction due to the stretch.

As to the idiot who wanted a 60,000 psi 454 casull in a lever gun, good for him. I'd much rather have a light weight model 94 in 450 marlin at a far lower psi or a model 92 in 44 mag.

The 348 winchester, with its intense case taper, I don't think it'd bennefit from pressures beyond 53,000 psi either. Neither the wildcat off the 348 case. With all that case capacity, plenty of power to be had at lower pressures.
I hear ya Mainer and this latest adventure of mine, a Mirkoru Mod. 71 Winchester Deluxe rifle I picked up to convert to a .348 Ack. Imp. is probably my last hurrah for a long time and it does not take long for the money to add up, LOL. I am going to treat this rifle as a 50,000 psi rifle and hope to get close to 2,500 fps mv with the ABW bonded bullet, Starline brass and H4350 powder and maybe Fed. 215 primers.

My Big Bore 94 in .356 and the 94 in .44 mag. and Dad's old Savage 99 in .300 Savage are not going to be hot loaded either.
If you want to load a lever to the gills, get a Browning BLR.
I don't want to load my lever or any guns to the gills. But, I do like knowing how much psi or cup my rifles actions are rated for. It helps me make intelligent decisions when loading ammo.
1akshooter,
Pick up ah pressure trace. How I afforded mine: sold a gun i didnt use much. Instead of hypothetical thinking out loud and theoretical voodoo, it teaches yah a quantifiable pressure curve. I don't care if it's a bolt action or a lever gun: plenty of velocity can be had at lower to mid 50,000 psi. Rather than your typical "quickload-rangers", you'll be in the know.

Also, extraction of a fired brass from a dirty chamber is far easier from a 50k psi handload, than 60k psi hand load. Test media: 50-70 mph silt storm on the upper Tanana river.
Excellent discussion here, thanks!

Personally I have found the winchester model 88 to be loaded to close to max loads. Hotter than a BLR or a savage 99. In .308.

My old 71 got sticky extractions had to stay mid book.

My marlin 1895 45/70 s seem impervious to the book.....I don't get it, they seem very strong.

I never tried to hot rod my win 1895 s.

My 356 ER did also well with top loads.

I will remember to not test my 94 356 AE for top loads.

BTW.....

The 30 U.S. or 30 Army is 30/40 krag

The 30 GOVT is the 3006 at least that is what I believe.
I have been running the same Alaska Bullet Works bullets with H322 for a long time. I like my Marlin 45-70 it is the one I would keep. I don't think I hot rod it. I think the bolt lines up very well with my shooting eye should things ever let go. Ouch!
The straight cased cartridges have a much smaller distance for the bullet to travel to relieve pressure I read in the book about the 45/70
Ihave 6 Model 71s including 450 Alaskan and 348 ACK Imp.The Browning versions with no tang lawyer safety is very strong. I would rate
the Browning 1886/71 about 5K stronger than the originals, and definitely stronger than the 1895, the new 1895s not that much stronger.
Rate the Browning 71 as stronger than a Marlin 1895.

Have owned 2 or 3 original 1895s in 405 WCF.

No rear locking lever action is going to protect you with a bad case or overloaded shell. Gas will blow by and you will visit the morgue or eye doc and lawyers office.Winchester
stopped the 30-=06 in the 1895 because people made mistakes with German 8mm ammo after WW l- Rather than pay law suit money, Winchester stopped chambering the 95 in 30-06-eventually.

You cannot push hot reloading practices in a lever action M-71 or 1895. Just re-chamber or buy a 340 Weatherby magnum and forget hot roddin a 71/1895.
___________________________________________________________
The American Indian gets reparations before anyone else. Wounded Knee and Pine Ridge impress me
more than riots and the Selma bridge. Most Americans are not history scholars. The Apaches under Geronimo
held off both the US and Mexican army. I like the San Carlos Rez. There are real American Apaches there in Arizona.
Ruger #1 spells strength, but ir is not part of the original question. wink
Totally agree about the number 1.

But I have never loaded a 1895 very much above mid book.

I couldn't get my model 71 up more than 75 % to top. book levels.

I got sticky on extraction
I enjoy these discussions.
A little reading to fire the conversation.

Edwin Pugsley wrote og the 1895 Winchester strength in the October 1945 issue of the Rifleman.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
This picture is of a .30-06 1895 which fired 1918 ammunition and suffered a case head failure.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
This one is from Kent Bellah and a 1957 issue of Guns Magazine.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
This is from the June1936 isue of the Rifleman
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
So what changes did Miroku/Winchester make to allow the current Model 1895 to handle the 30-06?
Better steel is the answer but....
If you want some fun read P O Ackley Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Vol. I pg. 203: Barrel Steel.
Its easy to use terms which describe steel and hard to prove it is better.
Loading for the .30-30AI with both a top eject and Angle Eject rifles I know the Angle Eject rifle will accept higher pressure loads (based on a sample of 1 top eject and two Angle Eject rifles) but I cannot tell you why. I can show you writing on the internet and possibly in a gun magazine or two where the writers describe the Angle Eject Model as weaker due to the cut in the right receiver wall.

I was discussing this with a friend and found this in my folder on Winchester 1895 stuff. From the same American Rifleman issue, October 1945 a second opinion on Winchester Model 1895 strength.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
All threads need a picture of an old hunter. Warren H Miller was a VERY interesting man.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
I second that. When looking at old photos of hunters/hunting it always makes me want to know the story around the photo.
Warren H Miler was a very interesting guy. Many of his books are available free on Google Books.
These include Rifles and Shotguns which this picture is the frontispiece
My scan is poor but the picture is readily available on the web.
Thinking on deer rifles and hunting was a bit different but a lot of it stands the test of time.
Miller was aware of many more modern rifles but chose the 1895 in .35 Winchester and had several good reasons for doing so.
In addition to many other interesting things he was a WWI destroyer sailor and in 1921 he sailed around New Guinea and Borneo in a Junk to gather stories for a series of children's books.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Notice the to Texas Rangers in the front row with sawn off 1895's! Caption with I got with the pic says the fellow in the glasses is Capt W.L. Wright. Probably 30-40 calibers, I wonder how big the fireball was upon firing!
38 inches is max rifle size that will fit in my scabbard on my freight sled. I'm not a fan of barrels shorter than 20 inches on a hunting rifle.

At 38.25" with 20 inch barrel, The scout-scoped browning 1895 was an easy choice as a scabbard gun. No short action bolt rifle, blr, nor savage 99 could match that length.

It is a smart design. Of the modern lever guns I've owned, the browning 1895 is the simplest and easiest to clean in the field. A plug screw and a pin: the bolt is out for a deep clean of receiver and bolt.

4000 lbs of energy and trajectory flat enough for a 400 yard shot, I ain't hurting for power or trajectory for anything here in Alaska.

Feeding: The nose of the spitzer bullet is about .45" into the chamber before the case head is released from the fixed magazine feed-lips. That straight-line run to the chamber is a smart design, and very trouble free. I wish I could've said the same for my blr and savage 99. They were finicky with certain bullets.

As my travels get more remote by dog team and canoe, a gun cabinet full of guns is about useless. I've paired down to one rifle, one shotgun and one handgun. The browning 1895 made the cut.....


Not sure there is a lot of difference in strength between a modern Win 95 and a Modern Win 1886. Rear lock up is similar, I would think.

I have long been interested in a 450 Marlin in a Browning BLR. 2200fps with 400 grain bullets would be possible at 50,000PSI in a front locking action. The front locking makes a big difference in real world action strength. Though the BLR is lacking a few style points I love the 71 in 348 as it is, and so few of them were made even in the Browning version it seems a shame to modify to 450 Alaskan. In the mean-time I am not very handicapped with my 95 in 405 Win that will get 300 grain bullets to 2400fps.
North61,
Thanks for the 1895/405 nod. You are the third person that I have documented to be shooting 300 grain bullets at 2400 fps. Imagine the penetration of a North Fork at that velocity. However, in my 1895 .405, 2250 fps with NF solids has been very effective on water buff and such.

Even at just under 2100 fps, the .411 Woodies are good on Cape Buff.

The 1895 is a great hunting rifle.
The .405 in a double is fun too!
[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]
Originally Posted by william_iorg

This is from the June1936 isue of the Rifleman
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


This is crazy. My name is J. Shults. I am also left-handed.

A few of my relatives settled in southern Oregon after coming from Kentucky after settling there from Germany in the 1800's. I have to be related to the guy discussed in the article. "Shults" is an uncommon spelling.
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Originally Posted by william_iorg

This is from the June1936 isue of the Rifleman
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


This is crazy. My name is J. Shults. I am also left-handed.

A few of my relatives settled in southern Oregon after coming from Kentucky after settling there from Germany in the 1800's. I have to be related to the guy discussed in the article. "Shults" is an uncommon spelling.


The Campfire is a Small World!
Originally Posted by crshelton
North61,
Thanks for the 1895/405 nod. You are the third person that I have documented to be shooting 300 grain bullets at 2400 fps. Imagine the penetration of a North Fork at that velocity. However, in my 1895 .405, 2250 fps with NF solids has been very effective on water buff and such.

Even at just under 2100 fps, the .411 Woodies are good on Cape Buff.

The 1895 is a great hunting rifle.
The .405 in a double is fun too!
[Linked Image from jpgbox.com]



Well I did round it up. I have 300 Hornady Spires at 2380fps in a 24" barrel Miroku Win 95 loaded with Benchmark. Hodgdon lists the load at 42,200 PSI and it gives less case expansion than the RL 7 load from Ken Waters that I used to use. I have now now stopped using RL7 in the 405 as it may be over pressure according to the Hornady guide (though never gave a problem). I don't trust a margin of error in these traditional levers and one needs to be a bit cautious.

H4895 is getting the nod with 300 grain Woodleighs at 2270fps. The 300 Barnes TSX is down at 2150 with RL15 but the accuracy is tremendous. Unfortunately it hits 6" lower on the target. Interesting round! Love to see you using it on big stuff.
In my previous post, I may have failed to mention that I shot my Cape buffalo with a 400 grain Woodleigh at just under 2100 fps. It seems that is plenty fast enough with good shot placement ; bullet entered just behind rearmost rib on left side, passed through innards, heart (hole of 1 inch diameter +) and out between the front legs.

I had planned to use my NF FPS 300 grain load at 2250 fps, but buddies talked me into going for the 400 grain shot. I had a proven powder recipe using TAC and it worked, but I have since attained the same velocity with VV N133 at pressures under 40,000. Its all good!
Originally Posted by crshelton
In my previous post, I may have failed to mention that I shot my Cape buffalo with a 400 grain Woodleigh at just under 2100 fps. It seems that is plenty fast enough with good shot placement ; bullet entered just behind rearmost rib on left side, passed through innards, heart (hole of 1 inch diameter +) and out between the front legs.

I had planned to use my NF FPS 300 grain load at 2250 fps, but buddies talked me into going for the 400 grain shot. I had a proven powder recipe using TAC and it worked, but I have since attained the same velocity with VV N133 at pressures under 40,000. Its all good!


N-133 is THE powder in the 405, thanks to you CR!. Before I used RL-15 and that worked ok, but 133 is MUCH better and MUCH cleaner. My load is 52.5gr for the Hornady, TSX, NFs and Woodleighs and 50.5 for the NF solids, all are right around 2250 and POI
Jorge, I tried N-133 and it is good but not as accurate in my rifle as the loads I listed above. Every rifle is just a bit different and it always pays to test a variety of loads.
Originally Posted by North61
Jorge, I tried N-133 and it is good but not as accurate in my rifle as the loads I listed above. Every rifle is just a bit different and it always pays to test a variety of loads.

Which loads? I did not see them listed other than powders. I'd like to try them.
I'll look through my records and send in a private message. I hate listing loads on an open forum as you never know how they might be used.
Okie doke.
© 24hourcampfire