Why did Mr. Browning change his design?

[Naphtali]

When one reads threads that discuss putting high pressure ammunition through traditional lever actions, such as 454 Casull, the only action that is identified as being satisfactory is Winchester's Model 1892. But when longer cartridges - smokeless powder cartridges - became available, Browning created lever actions with rear locking lug rather than continue using double locking lugs close to rear. A real head scratcher for me is the Model 1895, chambered for long high pressure smokeless cartridges. Is there some design feature of the Winchester 1886/92 design that precludes its use for such ammunition?

It appears to be extremely unlikely that the 1886/92 design cannot be adapted to a box magazine. And the design coexisted with the 1895 design for more than thirty years, so cost of manufacture cannot be the reason for change. So why did Browning make the change from 1886/92 to rear locking 1895 to function with 30 U.S. Govt, 30-36, et al. for box magazines and rear lock for tubular magazine 1894?

[Pete44ru]

.

The short/simple answer is that, while the 1892/92 is a short-action for pistol cartridges, and the 1886/86 is slightly longer than the Model 1892/92 for the .45-70 class of cartridge, the .30-06 cartridge length precluded the use of those actions for it.

Keep in mind the timeframe during which the 1892, 1886 and the 1895 were designed, the cartridges available at that time, and the mindset/perception of the "new" cartridges (like the .30-06) - all of which drove the design parameters of the late19th Century.


.

[marlinman93]

The 1895 Winchester really isn't much of a departure in design from the 1886 or 1892. It still uses rear locking lug, just a different style lug. The main design change was the box magazine to accommodate pointed bullets used in the 1895 calibers. It's actually considered by many to be a weaker design than the 1886 by many, and wont hold up well to a steady diet of modern higher pressure ammunition. It certainly isn't as nice looking as it's predecessors either. At least to my eyes.

[Pisgah]

I have always thought that although perhaps the 1886 could have been scaled up to handle something like the .30-06 it was already pushing the boundary of what was compact/light enough to be easily handled and carried. Scaling it up to handle .30-06 class length/pressure would have turned it in to a true behemoth. The 1895 ain't no pixie, but still more svelte than an '06-size '86 would have been. But, who knows? I am sure a mind like Browning's was constantly coming up with ideas of how to improve on even his most successful designs, and something better and at the same time arguably new would sell better than just a re-hash of an old design. And old JMB was nothing if not commercial-minded.

[Sixgun]

I agree with everything said before me.....my belief is the main reason was updating to a more modern look that could handle the high pressure pointed bullets that were becoming "in vogue". I suppose a spiral magazine like the Remington 14/141 could have been used but in addition to looking cheesy, it was not nearly as strong as the inner box mag. John could have had military sales on his mind and heck, the Russians were responsible for the majority of the 95's production.

My experience of over 40 years with th '95 has taught me to stay away from any '95 chambered in '06 that even has a moderate amount of wear. They all develop excessive headspace.----6

[HawkCreek]

I believe to turn an '86 into a box magazine would require puffing it's checks out like on the Big Bore 94 models. The Winchester 1895 is by far my favorite rifle, unfortunately I can't argue that it is a super strong action. Originally it was meant for the .30-40 cartridge and it excels there, by chance the 06 also fit the action. So far I have a few hundred rounds through my Miroku 1895 .30-06 with no signs of any problems but I can't say I don't worry about it at the same time either.

[crs]

Then there is the M1895 .405 WCF which operates at pressures less than 50,000 PSI.
I like mine so much that I bought a double rifle in .405 WCF. Takes the kick out of the 400 grain loads.
With bullets from 210 to 400 grains, what else does an old levergunner need?

[KWK]

It appears to be extremely unlikely that the 1886/92 design cannot be adapted to a box magazine.

I've not owned an 1886, but the drawings I've seen over the years indicate it would not work. Look at Figure 2 of the main patent drawing, U.S. number 306,577. The portion of the finger lever that connects the breech bolt to the locking lugs would be in the way of the rear side of a box magazine.

[marlinman93]

No doubt the magazine and pointed bullets was the biggest deterrent to using an 1886 design for the .30-06. I suppose they could have come up with some flat nose bullets heavy enough to not neuter the .30-06, but then somebody would have loaded an 1886 with pointy rounds and blow themselves up. I'm sure even then they wanted to ensure whatever they came out with would be safe, and not have to worry about the unfamiliar shooter's mistakes.

[KWK]

I took a little time to search for a suitable drawing of the 1886 internals. Here's one taken, I believe, from an old Winchester catalog:



Note the portion of the finger lever between the locking bolts and the breech bolt goes where the box magazine of the 1895 would be. It might be possible to change the shape of the finger lever to allow it to lay flatter under the breech bolt, perhaps allowing a box magazine with a slot down the rear to accommodate it's motion. However, this dogleg link might, at full stroke, now interfere with the hammer sitting just behind the locking bolts, and as it rotates back into position when the breech slides forward, it might not have sufficient angle to nudge down the next cartridge in the box magazine (I didn't take the time to make a scale drawing of it all, although that would be fun to try some day).

The 1886 would work fine as is with a .257 Roberts or .308 so long as round nose bullets were used (I even approached Turnbull about such a conversion--he wasn't interested).

[HawkCreek]

Here are some picture of the '95 just to compare with the '86 that KWK posted above.

[KWK]

Nice photo of a cut-away 1895!

In the past, I have wondered if a short action (.308 length) couldn't be made more like the 1886, with the lever pivoting on the locking bolt. One would still need to split the finger lever around the box but inside the receiver, as done in the 1895, but it would eliminate some of the mechanism the 1895 added to make for the longer bolt throw needed with the -06 length cartridges.

[Shrapnel]

Really the question hasn't been answered. Winchester was still caught up in the Lever Action world and Browning had already invented a full automatic weapon and had ideas way beyond the 1886 and 1895. He developed the 1895 with a box magazine to accommodate newer bottleneck, rimless cartridges and it also was made of higher carbon steels to handle the higher pressures of smokeless powder. Winchester forced him into the 1895, and it wouldn't be long until he and Winchester part ways due to their lack of understanding what the gun world had already turned into...

[crs]

Be all that as it may, I still like my Winchester 1886, 1892, 9422 M, 1895, M70, etc.