What are the good 30.06 rifles available in India?

[timmy]

My M1895 would keep holes within about 1.5 inches, horizontally, but string them vertically over 6" to 8" (at 100 yards). In other words, it was not particularly accurate. The ammo was factory Remington 180 gr round nose soft point and hand loads, although I cannot tell you what they were (this is 30 years ago). Mine was in .30-40 with a 28" barrel.

I have read that the .30-06 round was right at the ragged edge of the action's strength, but then, those were the days when any and every rear locking action was suspected of "stretching" -- that is, until the cheap Remington 788 proved to be very accurate. So on that point, you'll have to do some research.

The newer reproductions would have different steel. I recall that the barrel, at least, of mine was stamped "nickel steel" and of course, chrome moly is now the usual material for gun making. .270 can be a pretty hot round, so my assumption is that the modern reproductions are probably a bit stronger than e original, just like the RFI 2A is stronger than the original SMLE because of stronger steel.

[miroflex]

Does any member own or has owned or heard of anyone who owns a Winchester Model 1895 lever action repeater chambered for the .30-06 cartridge? I would be glad to hear from someone who does or has done so. Such rifles seem to be very rare.

Regards.

Winchester chambered the M1895 for both the .30-03, and then the .30-06, though I don't know what the production numbers were. When they re-introduced the rifle, the first chamberings were .270 WCF, a strange choice, and .30-06. Have to say that the trigger on the original was better, mine has a trigger pull that's several pounds heavier and rather gritty. Other than that, it's a M1895. And "Browning" was clever enough to provide the loading procedure for rimmed rounds in the user manual.

Thank you for your views Two Rivers. It is interesting and rather disappointing to note that the Model 1895 did not improve with age and its trigger pull became heavier and rougher. What is the year of production of your 1895 and what is the calibre? Do you find it accurate at medium ranges?

By the way, I have never seen a user manual for any firearm, other than for Lewis guns, and would be grateful for a copy.

Regards.

[miroflex]

My M1895 would keep holes within about 1.5 inches, horizontally, but string them vertically over 6" to 8" (at 100 yards). In other words, it was not particularly accurate. The ammo was factory Remington 180 gr round nose soft point and hand loads, although I cannot tell you what they were (this is 30 years ago). Mine was in .30-40 with a 28" barrel.

I have read that the .30-06 round was right at the ragged edge of the action's strength, but then, those were the days when any and every rear locking action was suspected of "stretching" -- that is, until the cheap Remington 788 proved to be very accurate. So on that point, you'll have to do some research.

The newer reproductions would have different steel. I recall that the barrel, at least, of mine was stamped "nickel steel" and of course, chrome moly is now the usual material for gun making. .270 can be a pretty hot round, so my assumption is that the modern reproductions are probably a bit stronger than e original, just like the RFI 2A is stronger than the original SMLE because of stronger steel.

Timmy, I am disappointed to learn about the accuracy, or rather the lack of it, of your Model 1895. It seems to be at par with that of my IOF .315. Was this usual with the Model 1895 or was your rifle an unusually inaccurate example?

Regards.

[TwoRivers]

The M1895, at least in the 28" barrel version, had the reputation for vertical stringing. It also throws the slower heavier bullets higher than lighter faster ones, with the same sight setting. Somewhat like the compensation of the SMLE Mk.III. A target rifle it is not.

[Safarigent]

TwoRivers,
I have never heard of this phenomena.
Could you explain this better or point me in the right direction.
Thanks

[timmy]

Miroflex:

In those days, I'm not sure people thought about bedding so much. The barrel is long and thin, and beyond a little toothpick style fore end, the barrel is left to flop around like a piece of spaghetti when the gun is fired.

What you would encounter with other M1895s, I couldn't say. Oftentimes when I was young, the gunshop owner (also a friend) would let me take a rifle out to the range and try it out before I bought it. That's the ideal way to buy, of course! But I realize it isn't very practical in most situations.

I don't know a good way to deal with an M1895's issues, other than hand loading and trying to find a sweet combination.

For your IOF 315, however, there are a number of techniques that are a well trod path, which were and are still used by SMLE shooters to address accuracy. It is true that you do not have the full length fore end or handguard, like an SMLE, or the means to adjust the tension on the barrel with an inner band screw (at least, I don't think so, or does the IOF have such an arrangement, too?), but I would think you might profit from fooling around with the draws and the tension of the fore end to the butt socket.

Have you looked into this? The British and Australians did a lot of work on these issues, and that's what makes the SMLEs into something fit for the range. I intend to mess with all of their techniques when I get my RFI 2A back together. Maybe it could help your IOF, as well.

[TwoRivers]

TwoRivers,
I have never heard of this phenomena.
Could you explain this better or point me in the right direction.
Thanks

A rifle's barrel vibrates as it is fired, especially a fairly thin and whippy one. These vibrations can be influenced by the receiver, the stock, and bedding. After the SMLE was adopted it was discovered that the rifle "compensated", that a bullet with lower muzzle velocity left the muzzle when the vibration angle was greater, thus throwing the slower bullet higher. Which meant that the SMLE at long range "compensated" for velocity variance of cartridges, giving remarkably less vertical spread than comparable military rifles at long range.

Whether this made any difference in combat is questionable. At Bisley it was a wonderful thing.

Very few rifles will shoot different bullet weights to the same point of aim. Usually the slower (and heavier) bullets hit lower. The long-barreled M1895 usually reversed that, with lighter, faster bullets having a lower point of impact.

Hope that helps.

[shiraz]

Hi well the 30.06 opinions will be difficult to change one half are firm believers in the IOF model but I own a Remington 700 .residing in mumbai and hunting being banned as well as having no shooting range for this calibre I have kept my remington more as an investment. Love to fire the weapon but the cheapest imported rounds are for 250 Rs each. You need to shoot atleast 20 rounds to enjoy the sport and that's an expensive option. So I am in a differant quandry here. As far as quality goes having a older weapon does not nessarily mean the rifling is worn or its a bell mouth barrel. That is just a sterio type opinion.obviously the person with this opinion has never seen a well looked after weapon.

[miroflex]

Does any member own or has owned or heard of anyone who owns a Winchester Model 1895 lever action repeater chambered for the .30-06 cartridge? I would be glad to hear from someone who does or has done so. Such rifles seem to be very rare. Regards.

Winchester chambered the M1895 for both the .30-03, and then the .30-06, though I don't know what the production numbers were. When they re-introduced the rifle, the first chamberings were .270 WCF, a strange choice, and .30-06. Have to say that the trigger on the original was better, mine has a trigger pull that's several pounds heavier and rather gritty. Other than that, it's a M1895. And "Browning" was clever enough to provide the loading procedure for rimmed rounds in the user manual.

I very recently saw a Winchester Model 1895 lever action repeater. It had a full length stock on the lines of the earlier Mannlicher pattern rifles and had details of various patents, bearing dates upto 1901 inscribed on it and bore the name of Manton & Co Calcutta. The calibre was marked as .30 Gov.

The dealer said that it was chambered for the .30-06 cartridge. This seems correct as Manton and Co, who were large scale importers and dealers for most of South Asia, are more likely to have dealt in the popular '06 rather than the short-lived '03 calibre.

The weapon seemed heavy for a Model 1895. Were they specially strengthened to handle the greater power of the .30-06 cartridge? How well did the rifle stand up the pressure? What about their longevity? Are these rifles generally accurate?

Regards.

[TwoRivers]

Chances are a Winchester M1895 marked ".30 Gov." is chambered for the .30-40 Krag cartridge, not (originally) for the .30-06. The M1895 was intended for longer more powerful cartridges, so regardless of what cartridge they are chambered for, it's the same action, but for the bolt face.
An M1895 with a full length stock would be a military, or "musket" version. If the rifle was imported/produced before 1906 it would be a .30-03, if before 1903 it would be a .30-40 for sure. If we had the serial number, we could find the answer.
Like any rear-locker, the action has some spring to it, but is amply strong for the cartridges it is chambered for.

[miroflex]

Chances are a Winchester M1895 marked ".30 Gov." is chambered for the .30-40 Krag cartridge, not (originally) for the .30-06. The M1895 was intended for longer more powerful cartridges, so regardless of what cartridge they are chambered for, it's the same action, but for the bolt face.
An M1895 with a full length stock would be a military, or "musket" version. If the rifle was imported/produced before 1906 it would be a .30-03, if before 1903 it would be a .30-40 for sure. If we had the serial number, we could find the answer.
Like any rear-locker, the action has some spring to it, but is amply strong for the cartridges it is chambered for.

Thank you for your post, Two Rivers. I believe a quantity of Winchester Model 1895 muskets chambered for the .30-40 Krag cartridge were delivered to the US Army at the time of the Spanish American war but these are unlikely to bear an inscribed reference to a patent dated as late as 1901.

Manton & Co imported weapons in popular bores in large numbers by South Asian standards and are unlikely to have ordered rifles in the short lived .30-03
bore which had gained little ground in India. The .30-06 is more likely to have been ordered by Mantons and the dealer is probably right.

I can ask the dealer for the serial number.

Regards.

[TwoRivers]

[quote=


Manton & Co imported weapons in popular bores in large numbers by South Asian standards and are unlikely to have ordered rifles in the short lived .30-03
bore which had gained little ground in India. The .30-06 is more likely to have been ordered by Mantons and the dealer is probably right.

I can ask the dealer for the serial number.

Regards.

But before 1906, how would one have known that the .30-03 would be short lived ? I would think that Manton & Co.would have ordered the new and powerful .30-03 chambering as soon as it became available.

[miroflex]

Hi Two Rivers,

I have just spoken to the dealer. He has given me the serial number. It is 409095. Can you glean some information from an appropriate source?

Regards.

[Vikram]

Hi Two Rivers,

I have just spoken to the dealer. He has given me the serial number. It is 409095. Can you glean some information from an appropriate source?

Regards.

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18299

From the Bluebook of gun values, your Model 1895 seems to have been made around 1923. That makes it possible that it was chambered in .30-06. JMO. I could be wrong.


Best-
Vikram

[miroflex]

Hi Two Rivers,

I have just spoken to the dealer. He has given me the serial number. It is 409095. Can you glean some information from an appropriate source?

Regards.

http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18299

From the Bluebook of gun values, your Model 1895 seems to have been made around 1923. That makes it possible that it was chambered in .30-06. JMO. I could be wrong.


Best-
Vikram

Thanks for the information Vikram. The dealer seems to be right. Manton's would hardly have ordered .30-03s in 1923.

Regards.