30 Govt 06 Winchester 1895
- Thread starter Drm50
- Start date
Jim Watson
New member
Uh, there wasn't a .30-06 cartridge batween 1895 and 1906.
Jim Watson
New member
Do you think Winchester made any .30-01s?
30/01?
I don't know about a 30/01, I did spend several hours on my butt with a dail-
caliper and a 20mm ammo can full of 30/06 match brass from Camp Perry. I
don't know how many brass were in that can, thousands! I found 63 cases that
were long enough for my gun. I'm very careful to keep them separated from my
other 06 brass, they are to hard to come by.
I don't know about a 30/01, I did spend several hours on my butt with a dail-
caliper and a 20mm ammo can full of 30/06 match brass from Camp Perry. I
don't know how many brass were in that can, thousands! I found 63 cases that
were long enough for my gun. I'm very careful to keep them separated from my
other 06 brass, they are to hard to come by.
Jim Watson
New member
I don't understand. What would make brass long enough for an 1895 '06 scarce? There have probably been several barge loads of .30-06 shot in .30-03 '95s.
Shooting '06 in a '03 chamber
Wouldn't there be a potentially dangerous headspace problem shooting .30-06 cartridges in a .30-03 chamber? The .30-06 has a longer neck, with the shoulder pushed further back than the .30-03. I would be concerned about head separation. Fireforming '06 brass in the '03 chamber should be simple enough, as well as reforming .270 brass.
Wouldn't there be a potentially dangerous headspace problem shooting .30-06 cartridges in a .30-03 chamber? The .30-06 has a longer neck, with the shoulder pushed further back than the .30-03. I would be concerned about head separation. Fireforming '06 brass in the '03 chamber should be simple enough, as well as reforming .270 brass.
barnetmill
New member
The gun is marked
which indicates that it is intended for the 30-06. Some may have been made in the 30-03 round, but the makings certainly indicate this one is not. Also the OP does not make clear that this is not a replica which were all 30-06. If the gun is original I would make that the headspace is still good. Some of these rifles were damaged by firing 8mm mauser ammo in the 1920's by people not knowing any better. The basic rear locking design does make increased headspace possible over the space of a hundred years of use.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
FWIW: Info on the .30-'03:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-03
Looks like the only change to '06 was the neck length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-03
Looks like the only change to '06 was the neck length.
barnetmill
New member
Neck length is what I remembered also. Most of the original rifles in the 100,000's were made for Czarist Russian in 7.62x54 for WWI use.
Thanks for the link; I thought that the cartridge length was the same but the '06 shoulder was moved back so that it would have a longer neck than the '03. I thought that is why the original '03 barrels were set back and rechambered, because the '03 chambers were too long for the '06 cartridge. I guess they are but the barrels were set back to reduce bullet free bore?
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Yup. Excessive free bore = lousy groups. 
(But I wish I hadn't taken the profit on a 95 saddle-ring carbine, .30-'03 with GI markings, NRA 90%.
)
(But I wish I hadn't taken the profit on a 95 saddle-ring carbine, .30-'03 with GI markings, NRA 90%.
)I have seen a 95 marked..
.30 ARMY, that supposed to be the 30-40 Krag.
The 30-03 used the 220 bullet of the krag cartridge with the rimless case [based on the Mauser pattern].
The 30-6 used the 172 gr M1 bullet and the shorten case.
After WWI the 172 was phased out to the M2 150gr.
.30 ARMY, that supposed to be the 30-40 Krag.
The 30-03 used the 220 bullet of the krag cartridge with the rimless case [based on the Mauser pattern].
The 30-6 used the 172 gr M1 bullet and the shorten case.
After WWI the 172 was phased out to the M2 150gr.
Jim Watson
New member
No.
The 1906 load was the 150 grain flatbase spitzer.
The M1 173 grain boattail came along around 1925 based on WWI doctrine for long range machine gun fire. They went back to M2 150 grain bullets about 1939. There are various excuses given. I have heard of longer range shooting out the end of range danger spaces, recoil, cost, and changed tactical doctrine.
The 1906 load was the 150 grain flatbase spitzer.
The M1 173 grain boattail came along around 1925 based on WWI doctrine for long range machine gun fire. They went back to M2 150 grain bullets about 1939. There are various excuses given. I have heard of longer range shooting out the end of range danger spaces, recoil, cost, and changed tactical doctrine.