Why was there no 30WCF in M95?

[Texan1650]

So, since the 30-30 (or 30WCF) was the first smokeless round, and the Winchester 1895 was the first rifle designed and built for smokeless powder, what didn't Winchester make a 1895 in 30-30? Yes is it a round nosed bullet (mostly) but a round nose should work fine in a box magazine. Thoughts?

[Bullshop]

Probably because the 30/30 already had a good home in the 94 and was selling well. Also because of the fact that the 95 was built for longer more powerful cartridges that may be loaded to higher pressure than 30/30.

[Texan1650]

When the 30-30 was first created it was for two BP cartridges. The 30WCF did not come out until 1895 and that was when the 94 started in the 30WCF..... there may not be a reason.......... just a head scratcher.

[1Papalote]

my guess would be that the 1895 was made for the 50K c.u.p. (read higher than 34K) cartridges.

1Papalote

[stocker]

The 95 was intended for much longer cartridges, higher pressures, more muzzle energy (ie: 35Win. and 405 Win) , spitzer bullets and there was quite an effort made to promote the rifle for domestic and foreign military use. Notably chambered for the Russian military who bought a bunch of the rifles, and also for 30-40 ,303 Brit, 30-03 and 30-06. Result was a heavier and larger rifle than should be considered necessary for the 30WCF . It was purpose designed for a class of cartridges that the 1894 action could not accomodate.

[northmn]

Like stated it was for a totally different market. Why buy a 95 in 30-30 when at the time you could gete it in a 30-40 For instance?

DP

[ReloaderFred]

Winchester did some rather clever marketing back then. If they had a firearm in a chambering that sold well, and they were bringing out a new model, they wouldn't chamber it to compete with their own firearm. A perfect example is the 1897 shotgun. It was selling like hotcakes in 12 and 16 gauge, so in 1912, when they introduced the Model 12 shotgun, it was only offered in 20 gauge at first, since they didn't want to cut into their Model 97 sales. It was only later that they built the Model 12 in 12 gauge, even though they continued production of the Model 97 until about 1957, but never offered it in 20 gauge.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[fouronesix]

I think everyone's nailed it. Why mess with the 30-30 when the the 95 was designed for more powerful cartridges. Then it was an easy decision to chamber the 30-40 not the 30-30 because the 30-40 was in-work and would gain name recognition in the Krag. The point about 20-20 hindsight when looking at some of Win corporate decisions seems odd now but even then the "market" or a best guess at the future market drove many of those decisions. Like- why have both the 30-30 and 32 Win Spl in the M94 at the same time??- Win knew some of the "market" then was hanging onto memories of larger calibers from the BP era. Quite a lot of 32s were sold. The folks owning them could then tell campfire stories extolling the superiority of the 32 over the 30.:) Today those same type stories are told about the 300 RUM over the 300 Win Mag. Or the short mag over the long mag, etc., etc. Or my tactical such and such ____ has X number of rails and yours only has one :)

[Bullshop]

What I was told about the 30/30 32 special debate was that the 30/30 was intended to impress the younger croud with its improved smokeless powder balistics while the 32 spl was to hold onto business from older folks that would reload with black powder.
The 30/30 was given a 1/10" twist while the 32 was given a 1/16" twist. The slower twist was thought better for black powder because it would catch less fouling. There were still old timers that would simply never trust the new powder so the 32 appealed to them. Smokeless powder ballistics in factory ammo is about the same shooting the same weight bullets at the same velocity.
At least thats the way I heard it.

[Kansas Ed]

From accounts I have read, the 1894 was the first rifle designed for smokeless, but plans didn't quite work out. From accounts, JM Browning designed the 1894 action, and when it hit the Winchester development dept. Chief Ballistian Merton A. Robinson already had the smokeless 30WCF waiting for it. Originally the 30WCF and the 1894 were to debut together, but problems in the ammunition production delayed introduction of the cartridge for another year due to the finicky nature of the required powder. This created the first year production of the rifle with the old BP standards of the 38-55 and 32-40, until the ammunition plant could get up to speed with the newfangled smokeless powders.

Ed

[Don McDowell]

http://forums.handloads.com/uploads/Ranch13/2008-03-17_121147_32special.jpg

[jlchucker]

Imagine yourself "back in the day" (before WWI). The general store down the road has a few rifles in stock, and some single barrel shotguns. 30-30 and 32 Special ammo for sale, along with 38-55, 44-40, 38-40, and a few others. Most guys trudging in (dressed in old red/black or green/black woolens) buying a box of ammo for hunting and general farm use for the only rifle in the house, probably once every 4 or 5 years or so. All of the hunting done by these guys was primarily on foot. Dragging done by a length of rope, and by hand, by yourself, if you didn't have a buddy in the area with a work-horse willing to help you tow out your buck.

With that mental picture, you, as a shopper for a rifle new or used, would be looking for something on the shelf, easy to carry into the woods, and handy to carry while dragging out a big buck. Your typical choice in the general store would probably be a Winchester 92 or 94, or a Marlin, with no small consideration being factory ammo available, off the shelf, at the aforementioned general store.

Now go to a gun store today (modern times) and heft a new (or if you can find one, used) Model 95. You'd have a gun in your hand that by the end of the day's hunting, 1910 style, something that would feel like it weigh a heck of a lot more than it actually does while you dragged the typical 1910 buck out of the woods by hand. Especially while lugging that big 95, with its big magazine, just forward of the trigger guard.

My own theory is that they didn't chamber a 95 in the popular 30-30 because the 94's were not only cheaper to produce, and Winchester and Marlin were both selling lots of 30-30's, already. The 30-30 customers were buying utility guns that they could lug around easily and could do the job for which the 30-30 had been intended. Dependable, affordable, and above all, handily. The 95's were more specialized, with bigger cartridges, for hunting bigger game under diffferent conditions. These people represented a different market were after guns in the calibers that the 95 was chambered for. They weren't one-gun-by-the-kitchen-door farmers, and probably already had a bunch of guns, 30-30's included. A 95 in 30-30 wouldn't have interested this latter group, and I expect that the marketing folks at Winchester knew it.

[hickstick_10]

Im sure theres a more useless ammo and rifle model combination, but Im hard pressed to think about one.

[Don McDowell]

I've found the common knowledge about how big a PIA the 1895 to carry during a long days hunting, to be like most other wivestales/urban myths,,and actually the thing carries very well , and much better than a bolt gun or even a savage 99.

[izzyjoe]

i'd think it would be like have a 1 truck with a 4cylinder engine, useless!

[Ragnarok]

Same reason they didn't chamber the 1886 in .44-40...they didn't need to

[StrawHat]

The 30-40 was adopted in 1892 and Winchester chambered it in the 1885 Single Shot. Prior to that, Springfield was testing smokeless in the 45-70 for use in the Springfield Single Shot rifle (trapdoor). Winchester marketed wisely and rarely overlapped cartridges in rifles. The only overlap I can think of, in lever action rifles, were the 1873 and 1892, the 1892 used the same cartridges as the 73.

As for the idea of a more useless combination, consider the 40-60 in the Winchester 1876, small cartridge, huge rifle!

I thought the delay in introducing the 30 WCF in the Winchester 1894 was due to the barrel steel not bieing strong enough to handle the pressure? The nickel steel barrels were introduced in the year 1895.

[northmn]

The 32 Special was likely made in its configuration with the 1-16 inch twist because they wanted to use the same tooling and a few 32-40 barrels. I have heard that there was some reference to BP use but not a lot. The ads claiming that it fit in power beteen a 30gov and the 30-30 were the most common reference. Even the 95 wichester had some BP style cartridges available but was generally purchased for the smokeless. The 405 was legendary, and the rifle was sold mostly for power.

DP

[KCSO]

The 95 action was designed for larger and more powerful ctgs. Putting a 30-30 in a M95 would be like chambering the 1886 for 32-20. The selling point on the M95 was going to be the 405for large game and the 30-40 for deer and moose. The other 95 ctgs were frosting on the cake. The 303 and 7.62x54 rifles insured that they could sell to the foreign markets. It is unfortunate that the M95 came along at the end of the levergun era, by 1920 the lever gun was in decline and the bolt gun became king.

[jlchucker]

I've found the common knowledge about how big a PIA the 1895 to carry during a long days hunting, to be like most other wivestales/urban myths,,and actually the thing carries very well , and much better than a bolt gun or even a savage 99.

The one I carried (just once)--a full length Krag, was indeed a PIA, no wives tale, and my Savage 99 was a lot better. In my rural area, until recent years, most locals old enough to have known better, Winchester or Marlin leverguns, Savage 99's, or Remington pumps. The few that owned 95's left them in the closet. I guess everyone's got an opinion.

[Don McDowell]

The one I carried (just once)--a full length Krag, was indeed a PIA, no wives tale, and my Savage 99 was a lot better. In my rural area, until recent years, most locals old enough to have known better, Winchester or Marlin leverguns, Savage 99's, or Remington pumps. The few that owned 95's left them in the closet. I guess everyone's got an opinion.

Yessir and some have the experience to back that opinion up.:drinks:
This was the 2nd of 6 elk I took with my 95.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f358/Ranch137/4053lk375.jpg

And here's a pic of a few of the leverguns that call this place home.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f358/Ranch137/Hunting2010004-1.jpg

[Kansas Ed]

Don and I are in agreement on this topic. I've carried a '95 more than I've carried any other rifle. All over the eastern edge of the Idaho mountains, and Missouri. The '95 doesn't carry like a '94, '86, '92....not worse, not better, just different. Do I like 'em...you bet....my stable indicates that. 405, 40-72, 38-72, 35, 303...

Ed

60813

[TXGunNut]

1895 may be a useles PITA but I still want one or two. It's unlikely I'll drag it thru the woods all day or even shoot it much but there's something I like about it. And no, I won't miss the 30-30 on the list of available cartridges. Thinking one in .405 would be pretty awesome.

[fouronesix]

The 95 carbine in 30-40 makes for a nice package. So nice that there are simply no thoughts of "why no 30-30". Either 35 Win or 405 Win in a 95 are plenty potent lever gun options. One thing not mentioned, unless I missed it, is how smooth and reliable the feeding is in the 95 compared to all the tube magazine lever guns. The cartridge on deck in the magazine sits there lined up ready for the bolt to push it straight into the chamber. Nose profiles from spire point to wide meplat- no problem.

[Don McDowell]

. Thinking one in .405 would be pretty awesome.

:mrgreen: It is.8-)

[StrawHat]

... Thinking one in .405 would be pretty awesome...

Have to agree with Don, mine is also!

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc194/StrawHat/b918972a-3d72-4f0e-aaa2-9dc0114b753e_zps8218544c.jpg

[TXGunNut]

Ya'll quit! Every time I see one I like it's in 30-06. I need another -06 like I need another hole in my head. Come to think of it I need another RIFLE like I need another hole in my head. Don't get me started on 1892's and 1886's.

[fouronesix]

I'm cautious of original 95s in 30-06 but the repros are supposed to be fine.
Here's three originals just for a little more nudge over the cliff.

SRC in 30-40
Rifle in 405 Win
Rifle in 35 Win

[northmn]

Can't help but notice the recoil pads on the big ones. The 405 was legendary in reputation for recoil with the curved buttplate. A repos of Rooseveldts rife shows a shotgun plate.

DP

[HangFireW8]

Can't help but notice the recoil pads on the big ones. The 405 was legendary in reputation for recoil with the curved buttplate. A repos of Rooseveldts rife shows a shotgun plate.

DP

Roosevelt ordered his Winchesters with shotgun buttplates, he noted that in his books.

HF

[Kansas Ed]

After over 2 decades with the .405, I'm convinced that the rumors of recoil attributed to this cartridge are far overblown. If you can handle a 12ga with buckshot it's about equivalent. Personally I'd rather spend a day on the bench with my .405 (with crescent buttplate), than an hour with my wifes pre-war 71. It's even much more tolerable than the 1886 45-70 with full blown loads. I load mine with IMR 4064 and 300gr bullets at 2100fps...have for years.

For some strange reason, the 2 38-72's I've worked with, recoiled harder at 265gr @ 1900fps. The .35 WCF is a piece of cake.

I've always felt that Roosevelt being a thicker gent did better with the shotgun buttplate. While I have no evidence to back this up, I've always thought that the crescent plate was an advantage to the slimmer build, where the buttplate could conform to the shooters shoulder. If a feller is thicker in that area the shotgun butt is more appropriate. The borderline starvation of the average person in the 19th century IMO created a majority of shooters which worked better with the CB. As mechanized farming evolved in the 20th century and food become more plentiful, people filled out and the SB became more standard. Just my own thoughts on that sideline subject.

And fouronesix, those are some really nice condition rifles. The sling swivel attachment on the .405 is a neat bonus.

Ed

[fouronesix]

Kansas Ed, the theory about the crescent butt, at first seems odd. But, after thinking on it a little, seems to make sense. Also you have an eye for detail- the factory sling swivel eyes may have been special order so were a bonus on this rifle. The SRC is 1899, the 35 is 1903 and the 405 is 1904.