Is this a headspace problem, or over pressure, or both?

[J-Bar]

A few years ago I inherited a Winchester Model 95, .30-'06, from an uncle. Serial number dates it to 1915. I had never fired it before today. Uncle Ralph took good care of his firearms, bore looked like new, action was clean. I bought a box of Winchester Deer Season XP 150 grain cartridges and took it to the range. The rifle functioned normally, no difficulties with closing the lever, extraction, or ejection. Trigger pull was horrible, about 12-15 lbs. estimated. I examined the first few cases and found the primer backing out a bit, and the firing pin indentation was rough, so I quit. One photo shows that the primer is backed out enough to cause the spent brass to tilt while standing next to unfired rounds. The other photo is the fired primer itself.

I know that a go/no-go gauge test is best for headspace, and before taking this one out again it will be tested by a gunsmith. But I am curious as to your impressions from the appearance of the spent primers. There were no neck splits and no splits in the case body itself from the rounds I shot. Accuracy was a 2" group at 50 yards, and my old eyes, iron sights, and the heavy trigger are responsible for a lot of that dispersion.

If it is a headspace problem, how difficult/expensive would it be to correct in a lever rifle like a Model 95? I don't expect to hunt with this gun, but I hate to pass a defective family heirloom down to following generations. Or was the factory ammo just too hot for this old timer?

Thanks for your analysis, opinions, observations, advice...

 

[troy fairweather]

Breech face does not look flush,

 

[Slamfire]

There is a whole bunch of unverifiable information on the M1895 and why it went away. But this sure peaked my interest:

The 95 Winchester and Modern 30-06 Ammunition

American Rifleman, June 1932

Because I am a bun on guns and ammunition, and velocities and energy, etc, I am writing to know if what I have will be of any interest to you.

I have in my possession an 1895 Winchester bored for the .30-06 Government ammunition. This gun is comparatively new, having had between 300 and 500 rounds shot in it. Last year the owner attempted to shoot a coyote and the gun blew up. The plates by which the frame is bolted to the stock were sheared off clean. The frame was bulged outward. Almost the entire back end of the shell was blown out. Fortunately the bolt did not entirely give way and remained fastened.

The victim was Jno. J. Shults, a California state vermin trapper. His only injury was a powder burn of his left eye. (he shotos left handed) He was 54 years old, and a seasoned trapper.-G.R.F.

Answer I am not at all surprised at the accident that occurred to Mr. Shults with the .30-06 Winchester Model 95 rifle. It is about what would be expected sooner or later to one using one of these rifles today and not completely understanding its weakness.

The Winchester Model 95 rifle was adopted to use the .30-06 cartridge at a time when the only cartridges of this size on the market were those loaded with 150-grain bullet and giving a muzzle velocity of 2,700 feet per second, and those loaded with a 220-grain bullet and giving m.v. 2,200 fps. These cartridges did not give breech pressures in excess of 46,000 to 48,000 pounds per square inch . A Winchester Model 95 rifle is safe with such cartridges.

Following the World War, all of our cartridge companies placed very much heavier loaded .30-06 cartrides on the market in response to the popular demand, these cartridges being intended only for use in Springfield, Winchester, and Remington bolt-action rifle which have receiver and bolt constructed of properly heat-treated alloy steel, and have two large locking lugs at the head of the bolt. These cartridges have bullets and velocities as follows:

110 grain bullet M.V 3,500 fps

150 grain bullet M.V. 3,000 fps

180 grain bullet M.V. 2,700 fps

220 grain bullet M.V. 2,450 fps.

The breech pressures run from 52,000 to 56,000 pounds at a normal temperature of 70 degrees; but when the cartridge has been exposed for a short time to a temperature of say 100 degrees on a hot summer day, these pressures may rise 10,000 pounds or so. Despite these high pressures, these cartridges are entirely safe in normal Springfield, Winchester, and Remington bolt-action rifles which have been made since the World War. No doubt Mr. Shults used one of these cartridges, for scarcely any of the older ammunition is now seen.

These new heavily loaded cartridges that began to appear on the market from 1920 to 1924 proved too heavy for the Winchester Model 95 rifle. The rifle was dangerous for them. Therefore in 1925, when the Winchester Repeating Arms Company placed on the market their Model 54 bolt-action rifle in .30-06 caliber, which was perfectly safe with these cartridges, they discontinued the manufacture of their Model 95 rifle in .30-06 caliber, and have not made it since.

Those having rifles should now use them only with the .30-06 ammunition made by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company and loaded with 150-grain bullet, M.V.. 2,700 f.s. The pressure of this cartridge is low, and it is safe in Model 95 rifles that are in first-class condition, that have not developed excessive headspace, and that have not had the finger leer catch filed to make them operate easier.

Note SAAMI was established 1926, but there was a previous group established in 1918.

I have read material that states the 1895 Winchesters were retired because of 8mm's being fired in the things, and I have no doubt that many M1895's were blown up with 8mm Mauser cartridges.But, and this is important, it appears the M1895's were neither designed nor built for "modern" 30-06 cartridges. I consider any WW1 or earlier action suspect because of the inferior metallurgy of the era. And then, to read the section about the actions being designed for a weaker 30-06, does not fill me with confidence in the things.

I believe you need to discontinue shooting factory cartridges in the thing. And I recommend that you have your rifle head spaced and examined for receiver stretch and bolt compression. I think you have one or both of those, and the fact that your cases are coming out of the chamber with that much misalignment just fills me with horror!

The "why are you not dead yet ?", sort of horror!.

 

[mustanger98]

J-Bar, I think the simplest way to put it is your rifle don't get along with that ammo. That primer says, to me, too much pressure. I'd be thinking of handloading 170gr LFP-GC's to lower speeds/pressures than this new "deer season" ammo.

 

[boom boom]

Based on Slamfire's post and what I know about lever actions that can stretch over time, I agree that firing today's commercial ammo over time has led to a headspace problem at the very least. There could also be issues with the locking surfaces such as peening and deformation and the various pins/screws/ etc. The problem with uncorrected headspace issues is that it can be gradual and lull folks to sleep if they only use new brass. Then it becomes suddenly exciting from parts breakage and/or hot gas from a cartridge being released into the action. If you visit a gunsmith who needs to be one familiar with old lever actions, be sure to take the box of ammo and the fired cartridges.

BTW, here is another source repeating what Slamfire posted above,
"The Model 1895's in .30-06 had some difficulties with bolt face peening & setback (sometimes resulting in excess headspace) when factory loads in .30-06 were upgraded & pressures increased. That is not true for the other chamberings. The modern reproductions/replicas - the Brownings from 1984, the Winchester/USRAC/Miroku models from the 1990's through the present - all do fine with the .30-06's, and the 1990's vintage .270 Winchester chambering."

And, "(2) There is not perfect agreement on what pressure a Model 1895 will withstand as a standard working pressure. Mattern, quoted by Waters, says 46,000 psi; Keith (1936) says 47,000 psi, but also that a lower figure is needed for regular use if headspace difficulties are not to develop. These are important questions for those who might want to establish safe maximum loads, if they should ever work with original 1895's, as opposed to the new versions. Phil Sharpe's great handloading tome (1953; 3rd edition, 2nd revision) has much more .30-40 data than present sources - doubtless because there was more use of .30-40 rifles (primarily Krags) then. I am NOT at all recommending using outdated loading data, but I do note that the highest pressures given were at 43,000 psi. That would have been for Krags as well as Winchester Model 1895's, and the latter are generally thought a bit stronger. Winchester did proof tests on the .30-40 Model 1895 at 60,000 psi, but that was, of course, not a service load. The modern Miroku-made 1895's, both Brownings & Winchesters, do fine with current .30-06 & .270 factory loads, many of which probably well exceed 47,000 psi."

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/model_1895.htm

 

[Slamfire]

Based on Slamfire's post and what I know about lever actions that can stretch over time, I agree that firing today's commercial ammo over time has led to a headspace problem at the very least. There could also be issues with the locking surfaces such as peening and deformation and the various pins/screws/ etc. The problem with uncorrected headspace issues is that it can be gradual and lull folks to sleep if they only use new brass. Then it becomes suddenly exciting from parts breakage and/or hot gas from a cartridge being released into the action. If you visit a gunsmith who needs to be one familiar with old lever actions, be sure to take the box of ammo and the fired cartridges.

BTW, here is another source repeating what Slamfire posted above,
"The Model 1895's in .30-06 had some difficulties with bolt face peening & setback (sometimes resulting in excess headspace) when factory loads in .30-06 were upgraded & pressures increased. That is not true for the other chamberings. The modern reproductions/replicas - the Brownings from 1984, the Winchester/USRAC/Miroku models from the 1990's through the present - all do fine with the .30-06's, and the 1990's vintage .270 Winchester chambering."

And, "(2) There is not perfect agreement on what pressure a Model 1895 will withstand as a standard working pressure. Mattern, quoted by Waters, says 46,000 psi; Keith (1936) says 47,000 psi, but also that a lower figure is needed for regular use if headspace difficulties are not to develop. These are important questions for those who might want to establish safe maximum loads, if they should ever work with original 1895's, as opposed to the new versions. Phil Sharpe's great handloading tome (1953; 3rd edition, 2nd revision) has much more .30-40 data than present sources - doubtless because there was more use of .30-40 rifles (primarily Krags) then. I am NOT at all recommending using outdated loading data, but I do note that the highest pressures given were at 43,000 psi. That would have been for Krags as well as Winchester Model 1895's, and the latter are generally thought a bit stronger. Winchester did proof tests on the .30-40 Model 1895 at 60,000 psi, but that was, of course, not a service load. The modern Miroku-made 1895's, both Brownings & Winchesters, do fine with current .30-06 & .270 factory loads, many of which probably well exceed 47,000 psi."

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/model_1895.htm

Again, great post!

I do not consider it safe to shoot modern factory ammunition in any vintage M1895 in 30-06. If it were like new, it is a reloading proposition only. And the pressures to reload for would be at the 43,000 psia range. These rifles were built and issued when the 30-40 Krag was the US service cartridge.

I did find in the WW1 era Arms and the Man, and now don't what issue it was, that WW1 Russian ammunition was loaded to a lesser pressure than the current stuff. Yes the M1895's were built and sold to the Czar, but the round was of lesser pressure than today, and the Russians were desperate They were experiencing around 80,000 causalities a month. Of that, about 23,000 fatalities, and the remainder in various states of disassembly. Given about 5700 dead per week, they could accept a little risk in the rifles they purchased.

(Incidentally, we have not been in a real shooting war in a long time. We have forgotten how bad they are, and and won't like it when we get ourselves into the next. By the end of the first six months, all the fun and excitement will be gone, and till the end, it will be only terror and horror)

The newly made Japanese M1895's, modern materials, modern engineering analysis, no problem what so ever in the cartridge they would have been chambered in by the factory. I remember when these were on the shelf, the M1895 rifle was heavy, the magazine was right at the balance and was uncomfortable to grasp to carry, and as I recall, they were not drilled for a receiver sight. The factory sight was a vintage buckhorn rear, which is about as poor a rear sight as can be imagined. The action was clunky in operation. And, it was expensive. Given better sighting options I might have purchased one, but, overall I can say, it would not have been shot much. Now I more or less regret not getting the M1886's, but those were also heavy and expensive. Lever actions are so inaccurate that CMP Talladega won't let you shoot with one past 300 yards, and to shoot at 300 yards with one, you have to prove that you can keep all your shots in the black at 200 yards.As a short range rifle the lever action is fine, but that lack of long range capability has always been an inhibitor for me.

 

[boom boom]

I have one lever action, a Marlin in the classic .30-30 but much prefer bolt actions. This is especially true as a degenerative condition affecting my nervous system that currently has me using voice recognition software for most of my work and posts. This is an after-effect of an autoimmune issue that is currently in remission but could return.

It is easier for me with the range of motion that I have to fire a bolt action rather than a lever (and a semi-auto better than either). I have developed an appreciation of the AR format as I can operate them pretty easily and handle the recoil compared with the bolt actions of yore. In a similar way, it is easier for me to fire semi-auto pistols, although I prefer revolvers, because the ergonomics of the semi-autos today are better than the revolvers unless I want to shoot them SA and single handed style.

For that reason, shooting much has been off the table during the last several years and reloading right now is at a standstill because repetitive motions involved are simply beyond me to do for more than a few rounds.

What I have done is restore quite a few old war horses to shooting condition and learned a bit from it and am doing something I thought that I would never do as making some wall hangers just because I want to learn about the mechanical actions from the ground up. For those, I rebuilt a GEW 88 and Mauser 71/84 and am rebuilding a Springfield Trapdoor and Lebel piece by piece when affordable bits of these rifles comes up for sale. An Allen conversion will be next probably if the other projects are finished. While I am restoring these to "firing condition", as parts rifles from that era, none of them will actually fire because while I dislike horrendous dewatting such as cutaways or boring holes, it is easy to make them unable to fire. The GEW for example lacks a firing pin tip and spring. Further down the road, the chambers of the rifles might get plugged with something like woods metal that could be reversed but not easy for the ignorant or I will break them up and sell them for parts.

As well, some old warhorses will be converted to using .22 LR or .22 shorts. During the years,various unserviceable or just plain ugly military bolt action receivers (pitting, etc. ) have accumulated along with barrels that resemble smooth bores that would be unsafe and unwise to fire high power rounds in. Thus, I have an Ishapore .22 LR converted receiver, .22lr bolt head/striker, and a genuine .22 LR trainer barrel is being relined/headspaced at the gunsmith for some single shot fun using a tired old training rifle stock set. I have all the parts now for a Springfield 1903 in .22 LR as well waiting for a gunsmith. Conversions of a Swedish Mauser and maybe a Krag might also happen sometime in the future. You get the same kick out of seeing strange looks at the range but without the recoil or cost. For a similar reason, the .22 Training Rifles of the various militaries have become an interest

Thanks to your informative posts, I have learned a bit about some of the old warhorses that I have rebuilt and been very safety conscious of what I do with them.

 

[Slamfire]

I have one lever action, a Marlin in the classic .30-30 but much prefer bolt actions. This is especially true as a degenerative condition affecting my nervous system that currently has me using voice recognition software for most of my work and posts. This is an after-effect of an autoimmune issue that is currently in remission but could return.

You are in my prayers. Hope your condition improves and is stable.

 

[Goosey]

The modern reproductions/replicas - the Brownings from 1984, the Winchester/USRAC/Miroku models from the 1990's through the present - all do fine with the .30-06's, and the 1990's vintage .270 Winchester chambering."

I kinda wonder how even those would stand up after a few thousand 65000 psi .270s. But I think not many will put a few thousand .270s out of their 1895.

 

[J-Bar]

Thank you all for your comments. I have the information I need.

 

[boom boom]

You are in my prayers. Hope your condition improves and is stable.

Thank you. Consulting with doctors to see my way forward, probably resulting in more operations.