Does anyone have any experience or other opinion on a new manufacture Winchester 1895 in .405 Winchester? I handled one at a gun shop after work today and was considering bringing it home. It was priced at 1150.00 I believe, and they usually will talk down 5 or 6%. Is this price close?
.405 Winchester
- Thread starter quick68
- Start date
- Status
C.R.Sam
Moderator Emeritus
Don't know bout that price but I sho liked the cartridge.
Filled the pot with it quite a few times in years gone by.
Sam
Filled the pot with it quite a few times in years gone by.
Sam
Mike Irwin
Member
Don't know about the price, either, but if it has a stock like the original 1895s, hang on TIGHT when you shoot. And take some tylenol before hand.
The stocks on the original 1895s were thin and had a crescent buttplate (you could get a shotgun style stock that was a lot more pleasant).
I've shot several 1895s, including a .405 with a crescent stock. It was distinctly UNPLEASANT.
The cartridge is a good cartridge, but relistically it's overpowered for just about anything in CONUS. It's darned close to the power levels of the .375 H&H, according to Cartridges of the World.
The stocks on the original 1895s were thin and had a crescent buttplate (you could get a shotgun style stock that was a lot more pleasant).
I've shot several 1895s, including a .405 with a crescent stock. It was distinctly UNPLEASANT.
The cartridge is a good cartridge, but relistically it's overpowered for just about anything in CONUS. It's darned close to the power levels of the .375 H&H, according to Cartridges of the World.
Keith
Member
I know a couple of guys with .405's. The biggest issue they have is that the rifle is awkward to carry. That darned magazine projects out at the balance point of the rifle and it becomes very annoying when you try and carry it around in the field.
Keith
Keith
rajaniblue
Member
New 1895's in Grade 1 (blued receiver) should be priced at about $1,100 or less (a 1895 from the 2002 catalog went for $1045 and it did not appear in the 2003 catalog) and that is the suggested retail price. I don't know too many gun shops that actually sell at suggested retail so I wouldn't think you're getting much of a deal here, even with the discount.
If it is a high grade (white receiver with engraved game scenes), then yes, you are, because a new one of those will run you somewhere between $1,500 to 1,600 at suggested retail.
I have an 1895 in 30.06. Yes it is a different caliber than what you are looking at but at least from my experience in 30.06, the gun itself is a pleasure to carry and shoot.
New manufacture 1895's do not have a crescent buttplate so that should not be a problem. Also, most people have trouble with crescent buttplates because they position them wrong on the shoulder. If you put it where the arm meets the shoulder (so that the crescent runs from the top of the arm down to the armpit), you will find that the crescent wraps this area perfectly and will not hurt you when you fire the gun. I have a .50 cal flintlock muzzleloader with such a buttplate and have never had an unpleasant experience with it.
If it is a high grade (white receiver with engraved game scenes), then yes, you are, because a new one of those will run you somewhere between $1,500 to 1,600 at suggested retail.
I have an 1895 in 30.06. Yes it is a different caliber than what you are looking at but at least from my experience in 30.06, the gun itself is a pleasure to carry and shoot.
New manufacture 1895's do not have a crescent buttplate so that should not be a problem. Also, most people have trouble with crescent buttplates because they position them wrong on the shoulder. If you put it where the arm meets the shoulder (so that the crescent runs from the top of the arm down to the armpit), you will find that the crescent wraps this area perfectly and will not hurt you when you fire the gun. I have a .50 cal flintlock muzzleloader with such a buttplate and have never had an unpleasant experience with it.
Mike Irwin
Member
"you will find that the crescent wraps this area perfectly and will not hurt you when you fire the gun."
Wanna bet?
The .405 is FAR too powerful, and the buttstock FAR too thin, for a crescent buttstock to be used. The recoil is directed into the relative thin ends of muscle bundles, instead of the much thicker shoulder or even center bicept muscles.
The recoil also feels as if it is going to lever your arm out of the shoulder socket.
I can't imagine firing more than a couple of rounds a day with a rifle like this and not coming away with a really bad shoulder before long.
Wanna bet?
The .405 is FAR too powerful, and the buttstock FAR too thin, for a crescent buttstock to be used. The recoil is directed into the relative thin ends of muscle bundles, instead of the much thicker shoulder or even center bicept muscles.
The recoil also feels as if it is going to lever your arm out of the shoulder socket.
I can't imagine firing more than a couple of rounds a day with a rifle like this and not coming away with a really bad shoulder before long.
rajaniblue
Member
That's just the point. I don't think this caliber is meant to be fired shot after shot after shot, crescent buttplate or not.
Agreed that a crescent is probably not the best idea for such a heavy caliber (there are better ideas than a crescent buttplate for most ANY gun, as far as I'm concerned), but if that's the gun you've got, you are going to minimize injuries by positioning it properly. Firing it in the regular shoulder position might give you some better muscle mass for all that recoil, but it will be compensated by a very large very painful bruise that you won't soon forget. It's also your pain tolerance that can make a difference. I shoot SO much that it takes a good amount of firepower to start to hurt, even in the spot where a crescent butt should go, while I know other people have problems shooting even more than a few shots with something I would normally consider relatively lightweight.
The whole argument is moot anyway, because the initial post was regarding NEW manufacture 1985s. 1895s have not had a crescent buttplate for quite some time now.
Again, it's just my opinion.
Agreed that a crescent is probably not the best idea for such a heavy caliber (there are better ideas than a crescent buttplate for most ANY gun, as far as I'm concerned), but if that's the gun you've got, you are going to minimize injuries by positioning it properly. Firing it in the regular shoulder position might give you some better muscle mass for all that recoil, but it will be compensated by a very large very painful bruise that you won't soon forget. It's also your pain tolerance that can make a difference. I shoot SO much that it takes a good amount of firepower to start to hurt, even in the spot where a crescent butt should go, while I know other people have problems shooting even more than a few shots with something I would normally consider relatively lightweight.
The whole argument is moot anyway, because the initial post was regarding NEW manufacture 1985s. 1895s have not had a crescent buttplate for quite some time now.
Again, it's just my opinion.
Keith
Member
Actually, shooting those crescent butt-plates in stout calibers is not as bad as you'd think, if you shoot them like they did 'back in the day'.
The trick is to stand up straight and let the recoil move your shoulder back. It's mistake to brace yourself up on a bench as is commonly done at the range today.
Shooting them standing is still unpleasant, but it's not really painful. I learned that lesson playing around with reproduction Sharps rifles a few years ago. Your shoulder will be bruised when you get home, but the frontal "concussion" headache is a lot more painful than the shoulder...
Keith
The trick is to stand up straight and let the recoil move your shoulder back. It's mistake to brace yourself up on a bench as is commonly done at the range today.
Shooting them standing is still unpleasant, but it's not really painful. I learned that lesson playing around with reproduction Sharps rifles a few years ago. Your shoulder will be bruised when you get home, but the frontal "concussion" headache is a lot more painful than the shoulder...
Keith
rajaniblue
Member
The biggest gun I ever shot with a crescent buttplate was a handmade rifle that used .75 caliber roundballs. Relative to a common .50 caliber roundball, they looked like big bowling balls! While the recoil was pretty significant, it didn't end up hurting, but yes, you do have to let your shoulder take all the recoil as the previous post suggested.
It was probably the only gun I wasn't particularly fond of shooting a second time (although I did). After that, putting a couple boxes through my 30.06 felt like plinking with a .22.
It's all relative
It was probably the only gun I wasn't particularly fond of shooting a second time (although I did). After that, putting a couple boxes through my 30.06 felt like plinking with a .22.
It's all relative
Mike Irwin
Member
Ya know, maybe it's just me...
But, I was standing when I fired the .405 (I knew better than to try to fire it off the bench), and did have the buttstock positioned where it should be with a crescent, and it was STILL a son of a bitch. Three shots and I was done.
I've fired a LOT of heavy artillery over the years, including some of the really legendary thumpers such as the .416, .470, and .505...
Other than the .505 which was truly a tooth rattling experience but not particularly painful, by far the worst was a 1 1/8th ounce slug out of an Ithaca Model 37 featherweight.
But, I was standing when I fired the .405 (I knew better than to try to fire it off the bench), and did have the buttstock positioned where it should be with a crescent, and it was STILL a son of a bitch. Three shots and I was done.
I've fired a LOT of heavy artillery over the years, including some of the really legendary thumpers such as the .416, .470, and .505...
Other than the .505 which was truly a tooth rattling experience but not particularly painful, by far the worst was a 1 1/8th ounce slug out of an Ithaca Model 37 featherweight.
rajaniblue
Member
Ya know, I was just lookin' at this thread thinkin' after reading this, this poor guy that wants to buy the 1895 won't want to go near a gun that shoots anything bigger than a .22.... laughing
I think Mike, you have a really good point with the comment about the slug out of the featherweight. Light guns that you think are going to be a piece of cake can really surprise you when the loads are heavy enough. (It's one reason I wouldn't recommend a 20 ga. as a shotgun for someone who is recoil sensitive. I find that invariably, they seem to kick harder than 12 ga. with a similar load because of the reduced mass to absorb recoil).
Along that same line, my 14 year-old daughter, who has been accustomed to shooting a little Buckmark .22 pistol and only .22, shot a .45 acp for the first time this weekend. It was funny to watch her yelp between each shot in response to the much heavier recoil... but when asked if she wanted to shoot a second magazine, the response was a resounding "YES!" She ended up shooting that gun for quite a while, and had a really good time.
Guess it's gonna run in the family... yea!
I think Mike, you have a really good point with the comment about the slug out of the featherweight. Light guns that you think are going to be a piece of cake can really surprise you when the loads are heavy enough. (It's one reason I wouldn't recommend a 20 ga. as a shotgun for someone who is recoil sensitive. I find that invariably, they seem to kick harder than 12 ga. with a similar load because of the reduced mass to absorb recoil).
Along that same line, my 14 year-old daughter, who has been accustomed to shooting a little Buckmark .22 pistol and only .22, shot a .45 acp for the first time this weekend. It was funny to watch her yelp between each shot in response to the much heavier recoil... but when asked if she wanted to shoot a second magazine, the response was a resounding "YES!" She ended up shooting that gun for quite a while, and had a really good time.
Guess it's gonna run in the family... yea!
That 1895 is a slick looking beast. I passed on one in 30-06 that I should have bought.
I know the 405 was Teddy's "medicine" but I had no idea it was such a thumper.
I know the 405 was Teddy's "medicine" but I had no idea it was such a thumper.
Last edited:
I was intrigued with the idea of a .405 for many years, especially since there WAS one in the family for a while. Dad shot it when he was young, and reported it kicked hard, but was manageable. No idea if anyone in the family still has it.
The repro .405's showed up when I was in a pistol buying mood, and I have only ever seen one of them. They look nice, but not a $1100 worth of nice.
Now that people are admiting that modern 1886's can handle heavy loads, and also given availability of some really nice .45-70 single shots, I'm having a hard time getting motivated to buy a .405.
I suppose it might have a little flatter trajectory, but these aren't long range rifles, anyway. Anyone care to chime in as to why I should buy one?
The repro .405's showed up when I was in a pistol buying mood, and I have only ever seen one of them. They look nice, but not a $1100 worth of nice.
Now that people are admiting that modern 1886's can handle heavy loads, and also given availability of some really nice .45-70 single shots, I'm having a hard time getting motivated to buy a .405.
I suppose it might have a little flatter trajectory, but these aren't long range rifles, anyway. Anyone care to chime in as to why I should buy one?
Mike Irwin
Member
Well, the neat factor comes immediately to mind, but then there's the comparative availability of ammunition...
In 10 years, care to guess which is going to be more readily available? .45-70 or .405?
I know which one I'd put my money on...
In 10 years, care to guess which is going to be more readily available? .45-70 or .405?
I know which one I'd put my money on...
- Status
