Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
I have been thinking about getting one of the new Jap 1895's in either 30-06 or I have even seen them in .270 (One of my favorite deer hunting calibers)
Plus I have a ton of once fired .270 brass
I think the 1895 would be perfect for deer hunting out here in the West, do you?
My main questions are:
What do you think of the new 1895's?
Can you get rid of the rebounding trigger much the same way as the 94's?
Best peep site for this rifle and how is it mounted?
salvo wrote:I have been thinking about getting one of the new Jap 1895's in either 30-06 or I have even seen them in .270 (One of my favorite deer hunting calibers)
Plus I have a ton of once fired .270 brass
I think the 1895 would be perfect for deer hunting out here in the West, do you?
My main questions are:
What do you think of the new 1895's?
Can you get rid of the rebounding trigger much the same way as the 94's?
Best peep site for this rifle and how is it mounted?
That would be the Lyman or Williams for the 71s and 86s and I think the Winchesters are drilled and tapped. The trigger fix requires BROWNING parts, I think... We had/have a topic on the other site, but...
Sincerely,
Hobie
"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Me and this "Old Dog" have taken a lot of white tail. bought it when I was still in college. Has a Redfield D&Td into the receiver.
95's will always be my favorite Browning design.
jasonB " Another Dirty Yankee"
" Tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?"
Good luck finding one of the 95s in 270. They were the least favorite caliber that the modern 95s were chambered in. They sold poorly and the few that did get out were targets of conversion to other cartridges like the Hawk series, or 35 Whelen, or even 405 before the 405 was a factory option. In fact they sold so poorly that the warehouse was bulging with them that the distributors did not want. Winchester management finally swallowed their pride and and admitted that they were never going to sell, so they returned all the warehoused 270s they had to Japan, the barrels were pulled and replaced, so they wound up being the seed of the first production run of factory 405s. In the end, the 270 may one day be a collectable as there are fewer of them that will survive than any other caliber.
That is interesting! The .270 option really peaked my interest. I agree one would not think such a chambering would be found in a levergun, but it sure makes allot of sense to me
I have stumbled on to one, but the 30-06 is just fine also.
If the 270 makes sense to you, you and a few others are in a definite minority . I see little sense in a high speed 300+ yard cartridge in a gun with open sights. It will never happen because of NIH (not invented here) but the most practical cartridge that they could have chambered the 95 in (other than what they already have) would be the 35 Whelen. 200 yard elk,moose,bear power with a 200 yard point blank trajectory in a rifle equipped with 200 yard sights. The 35 Whelen is also loaded mild in the factory loads (in defference to the pumps and autos that also chamber it) so it would not beat up the 95 action. Alas, it is a Remington invention and Winchester will never chamber a Winchester rifle in a Remington cartridge if they think they can increase sales of Winchester cartridges by chambering in one made by Winchester ....voila, the 270 WINCHESTER.
I remember seeing one in .270 Win and wanting it, but not having the money. When I did have the money, the .270 Win Model 95s had completely vanished.
I honestly believe that I (for one)will never be able to make use of the .270 Win's superior balistics with open or peep sights, as compared to a 30-06, which I did buy.
Having said all that, I still am confused at the negativity the .270 gets in the Winchester 95 Rifle. Many people in these very same forums love their 1896 Swedish Mausers, and would never think of scoping them. The two rifles, in their respective cartridges are very similar in use, and lack of recoil with hand loads assembled from very common components. The Swede gets endless praise, and the .270 caliber Model 95 Winchester still gets nothing but criticism, except for its rarity and investment value. For some reason it just rubs a raw nerve for alot of people.
I bought the modern 95 I was looking for; the SRC in 30-06. It is a beautiful rifle. I do not know if the rebounding hammer can be retrofitted. I kind of doubt it. There are just not enough spare half-cock hammer parts out there to make it practical.
I have not shot mine enough to get a feel for the trigger, but I hear there are ways to minimize some of the worst problems with it. The 2006 vintage 95's are dilled and tapped for a peep sight; the 1995 vintage ones are not. Neither are the 1980's vintage Browning label rifles.
I have owned three 95's. My first one was a Winchester Japan model in .270 with the rebounding hammer and the top tang safety. Like others, I really wanted a bigger caliber, and I had problems with the 270. It did not feed very good, the points of the bullets would stick on the feed ramp, If I remember right. I eventually sold it, at a gunshow.
Later I found the same gun in 30-06, and decided to take another chance and bought it. It was a good gun, and shot quite accurately, I added Ashley Outdoors receiver sight and post front sight to it. But has luck would have it, I later found an older Browning 95 in 30-06, without the rebounding hammer or the top tang safety, and the action was a lot slicker. I purchased it and ended up selling the Winchester 30-06.
On the Browning I left it as is, except for changing out the rear sight for a Winchester pre-64 model 94 open sight. I have always like the pre-64 model 94 sights. This gun is the best feeding and slickest handling of the three and it is in no danger of getting traded off. I prefer Winchester 220 grain round nosed Slivertips in it.
I do really like the new SRC model 95 that is out now, but I have about swore off of those rebounding hammers and extra safetys, perferring instead to comb the gunshows and internet auctions for older models, even if I have to pay a premium to get them. But I might make an exception for that SRC model if I though I could get rid of the rebounding hammer. I have had misfires with the 1886 reproductions with the rebounding hammers.
I like to be able to use cast in a pinch and the 270 is not the greatest for that, at least not for hunting. My main complaint is that the 270 has no historical connection to the 95 what so ever. Yes, neither does the 35Whelen but at least it is more practical than the 270 for what I would use it for. No one is ever going to (SAAMI) resurrect the 35 Winchester so the Whelen is the closest to it. I suppose the 270 would be fine for eastern folks but not for my uses.
Historical propriety has importance to many of us, especially with lever guns. I remember how I waited not so patiently for the Wyoming centennial rifle to come out. We all were placing bets on what it would be; an 86, a 95, maybe a 73 clone but nooooooo..... a stupid Browning single shot in 25-06. Now WTF was that about? Who the H--- would want a buckhorn sighted, cresent butt plate, octagon barrel 25-06? Well it turned out no one did. They couldn't give those stupid things away. The last of them went for $300 less than the same rifle in 25-06 that could mount a scope, which is proper for the cartridge. What a waste of a centennial.
The M95 270s are just like the 25-06 centennial. Nobody wanted them. Nothing wrong with the cartridge at all, in either case. Just didn't go with the gun.
Ysabel Kid wrote:
Sweet! Mike - what load do you use in your 1895?
My hunting load for the 1895 is 47 grs of IMR 4895 pushing a 150 gr Sierra Game King sparked by whatever LR primer is handy. I usually use CCI 200s with a smattering of Winchester's and MagTech's thrown in.
I guess I understand the conection between the classic Win. 95 and the cartridge it is chambered in. We would all probably slap our foreheads if they decided to chamber one in 7.7mm Japanese, or 7.92mm Mauser.
I never had any feeding problems with pointed bullets, although I could see it happening.
Now that you mention it, the 1995 vintage Win 95 I had did have a slightly tight action, not anywhere as slick as the 2006 vintage action. The 1995 rifle also had a dull bead blast finish, almost like a military rifle. The 2006 had a high polish.
Ysabel Kid wrote:
Sweet! Mike - what load do you use in your 1895?
My hunting load for the 1895 is 47 grs of IMR 4895 pushing a 150 gr Sierra Game King sparked by whatever LR primer is handy. I usually use CCI 200s with a smattering of Winchester's and MagTech's thrown in.
I hate all the extra safety "junk" as much as the rest of you but, in truth, the new M95s are the least obnoxious of the "lawyered" Winchester replicas. My 405s trigger pull is just as good as my 30-40 Browning (which is good). The action is no harder to operate so the mainspring is not making things stiff from being excessively heavy. The gun goes off first time, every time, so no weak primer strikes. The 95s just don't seem to have all the ailments of the 92s and 86s. Granted, it's just a bunch of worthless extra parts that can possibly fail but at least they don't keep the rifle from working properly.
Well, if you "have stumbled onto" a 95 in 270, you might want to buy it! As Leverluver has pointed out, they are becoming rare, and that means collectible on down the line.
I agree that the reason the 270 sold so poorly was the fact that it was a "non-traditional" caliber for the 95. That said, it is a fine caliber in any arm.
I tend to be pretty pragmatic. I don't get a lot of gas pains over such things as rebounding hammers and tang safeties. For hunting and shooting, I like fine, accurate, well made arms, and the Miruko made Winchester 95s are all of the above! FWIW, I have both the Winchester and Browing versions of the 86 and the 95. The new Winchester 86 and 95s will out shoot my Brownings.
For collecting, I buy original Winchesters.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a Vet! COMNAVFORV, Vietnam 68-70
NRA Life, SASS Life, Banjo picking done cheap!
If you are shooting an original 1895 you would want to keep the pressure below 47K PSI. Not to say that I haven't fired factory ammo and milsurp stuff in my gun, it's not something that you would want to do on a regular basis.
Many .30-06 caliber '95s have suffered from bolt peening and have serious headspace issues. If anyone is considering a used '95 have it inspected by a competent smith. They are fine if in top mechanical condition. I don't care what the outside looks like, I just want the gun to be safe to hunt with.
. I see little sense in a high speed 300+ yard cartridge in a gun with open sights. It will never happen because of NIH (not invented here) but the most practical cartridge that they could have chambered the 95 in (other than what they already have) would be the 35 Whelen. 200 yard elk,moose,bear power with a 200 yard point blank trajectory in a rifle equipped with 200 yard sights. The 35 Whelen is also loaded mild in the factory loads (in defference to the pumps and autos that also chamber it) so it would not beat up the 95 action. Alas, it is a Remington invention and Winchester will never chamber a Winchester rifle in a Remington cartridge if they think they can increase sales of Winchester cartridges by chambering in one made by Winchester ....voila, the 270 WINCHESTER.
