Why didn't the '95 sell better?

[MrMurphy]

Considering the following:

1. Winchester, in the 1890s......just about everything they sold, sold well. Even their failures (lever action shotguns) still sold "okay".
2. Teddy Roosevelt liked it.
3. Texas Rangers liked it.
4. Chambered modern ammo and could kill anything on the planet depending on chambering.
5. Imperial Russia even adopted it (their version with stripper clip feed is still my favorite)
6. The US Army adopted it in limited numbers (Phillipines)


Why didn't the Winchester 95 sell better? These days, you see replicas of every Winchester ever made, including some that apparently weren't.

You don't see any '95 Winchester replicas made, not counting the Browning/Winchester repros.

Why? Why didn't the 95 do better in the market at the time? The levergun was "the" gun of the time, modern ammo meant better range and performance. Bolt actions didn't truly start to encroach on the wild selling spree of leverguns from 1860-1917 or so, until after World War 1, though it probably first started making serious inroads after the Spanish American War with the Krags.


Of all the leverguns out there, two that I'd actually buy would be an 1886 in .45-70, and a 1895 in .303/.30-06/whatever I could find it in.

Discounting the standard .30-30 in a Marlin or Winchester.

Thoughts on why it didn't sell better? I understand that aside from the Russian models, loading the magazine isn't as easy as say a Mauser, but that shouldn't kill off the idea all by itself.

[walks with gun]

I'm thinking there were so many guys coming home from the service that were used to high powered bolt action rifles it marked the end of the weaker 95. And with the protruding magazine, they just don't carry as nice as the 94's. In fact the 95 Winchesters were such bad guns, those who have them should box them up and ship them to me before you have trouble with them. Just trying to be helpful.

[Ray Newman]

My SWAG (Scientific Wild Arsed Guess) and based on handling one or two:

1. It is hard to carry -- the magazine is right at the balance point where the hand would naturally go.

2. The magazine cannot be reloaded without the bolt our of battery. With the 1886, M94 and M92, etc., a Shooter just pushes in rounds via the loading gate while the bolt is in battery and a round in the chamber.

And I bet that it is far to easier to load an 1886, etc., while looking at the target than a M1895 and trying to look at the target or game.

[MrMurphy]

For 1. It's no different than many bolt actions. I "grew up" on Mausers and Lee-Enfields so I guess I'm just used to it.

For 2......same thing. You can't top off a bolt gun without opening the action unless you have a Krag. It hasn't stopped sales for a century.

[C. Cash]

Maybe the cause was less of the 95's drawbacks and more of how good the Model 94 was/is. The 30/30 was a sizzling cartridge for the time as well.

[vancelw]

I think the availability of bolt actions had a lot to do with it.
It was new enough it didn't have the appeal of "grandpa's gun" that 86s, 73s, et. al. probably had.
Guns were less of a necessity and more luxury in a time where lawlessness and wild injuns were all corralled on the Res.
I would be love to see a study/chart of guns sales per capita over the history of North America. I'm sure no accurate numbers could ever be compiled, but it would be interesting to see if sales tapered off (again, per capita, not total) as time went on.

[DPris]

I think there's something to the awkward mag location idea, myself.
It's a primary reason I never had any interest in the 95, despite my affection for leverguns.

One thing that's always appealed about the classic Winchester levers has been their totability, with nothing in the way on the frame at the natural balance point.

Given roughly equivalent power levels (.30-06 in an 03 Springfield & .30-06 in a 95 Winchester), I'd go for the boltgun if I figured on ground carry much at all.

Levergun could be faster to empty, but annoying to carry in-hand very long.
I suspect the advent of reliable and powerful bolt-actions was a substantial factor.
Denis

[MrMurphy]

I've always been a bolt action guy first given my background.

Always made me curious though. The 95's I've handled I didn't find that awkward.


That said, the BLR, which is more or less the modern version of the same idea, I never cared for. Complicated bolt system and the handling never felt right.


The 1899 Savage though, sold well for almost a century. Presumably, the internal magazine and smooth snag free exterior helped a bit there....

[DPris]

And I, despite the rep & following, can't abide the looks of those Savages.

Denis

[7.62 Precision]

First, I don't think anyone who says the '95 is hard to carry, or balances wrong, has ever carried one much. I have carried them all day, several days in a row, in the rain and snow, and found they carry just fine. I think every time I have heard someone complain about them being awkward to carry, and have asked if the critic had actually carried one, the response has been, "No, but I heard . . ."

The 1895 came in a bit of a transition period.

People were used to rainbow trajectories, fat, blunt bullets, and slow velocities. At around the same time the 1895 became available in .30-40 Krag, the 94 was already available in .30-30. Compared to the black powder cartridges it was making obsolete, the .30-30 was a high-velocity, flat-shooting wonder, and the '94 was not one of the more expensive Winchester models.

The '95 was cool and all, but remember that the original loading for the .30 Army was a 220 gr. round nose bullet going about 2,000 FPS. The original loading for the .30-30 in 1895 was a 160 gr. bullet going just about the same speed. In 1896, the same year that the '95 was first available for sale in .30-40, UMC added a 170 gr. .30-30 and Winchester added the short-range .30-30 (.30-6-100 was the designation, if I remember right?) It was a 100 gr. .30 bullet over 6 gr. of smokeless powder, kind of matching the .32-20 for small game hunting.

So for the average family, of whom a rifle purchase was a serious financial decision, the new 1894 shot a smoking-fast 160 or 170 gr. bullet, or could shoot light shot-range cartridges for hunting small game, and was not so expensive as the '95.

Today, many people consider the .30-30 as the bottom end for cartridges powerful enough to take a deer, but at the time it was considered a very high-powered cartridge and suitable for elk, moose, and brown bear.

The .30-40 Krag was considered more of a bear cartridge, and the .405 WCF, especially. Even in the days when the .30-06 began the be very popular, the old-timers would take a 220 gr. .30-40 Krag over the '06 for hunting bear.

So hunters had the choice between a rifle that was familiar to use and was chambered in the latest wildly promoted new cartridge of the day, a rifle that was fairly affordable and versatile as both a big game and small game rifle, that was nearly the same size and weight as the '92 Winchester, or a rifle that was one of the only sporting rifles chambered in the current military caliber, or in even more powerful cartridges, and was heavier and more expensive and seen as more of a luxury rifle for the guy who could afford it and needed the extra power of something like the .405.

Like the 1876, the 1886, and the Model 71, the '95s were very solid sellers, but not as popular as the consumer rifles.

As far as strength, that was not an issue with the .30 Army, since the Krag is not a strong rifle. The '95 Winchester was strong enough to handle any reasonable .30-40 load.

In the .30-06, with stronger rifles available like the Winchester bolt actions, '03 Springfields, and especially the 1917 rifles, people began loading hotter loads, but this was not really something that would make a big difference for sales of the '95. What would make a big difference is that with the 1903 and later 1917 rifles, the Krag became obsolete and large numbers began to be sold pretty inexpensively on the surplus market.

Now a shooter had the choice between a Krag rifle for a couple dollars or an 1895 for considerably more, both shooting the same cartridge, right during the time and just after the production of most civilian market rifles was halted, and this was during the time that the nation was heading into the depression.

So the sales of the '95 were about what should have been expected. People at the time of introduction and even when it became available in .30-03 and .30-06 were not looking at things the same way we do. They didn't say, "Oh, I need a new '95 Winchester 'cause I need something that shoots faster and flatter than the .30-30." They were saying, "Wow! This new .30-30 shoots so fast and what a range it has!"

[7.62 Precision]

Also, I already mentioned it, but the '95 carries just fine.

It has to be loaded from the top, but so does almost any bolt rifle, the Savage levers, the first semi-auto hunting rifles, the Garand, etc.

As far as difficulty loading, I have watched people struggle with it, but their technique is wrong. There is a way to load the '95 that is very fast and easy. Once you have the technique down, you can basically throw cartridges in.

There are replicas by Miroku for Browning and now Winchester. Other than that, there are none coming out of Italy. It is mostly cowboy action shooting that drives the clone market for leverguns, and the leverguns that are not used as heavily for that purpose are the last to cloned. The 1886 has only just started the be cloned by the Italians, as has the 1876. We have yet to see an 1894 or 1895. I expect they will come eventually, but will not be their priority, not by a long shot.

The '95 is a superb rifle that balances and shoots beautifully. But the market for clones today will still be mainly limited to hunters with a strong sense of tradition, which is a smaller market than the CAS market for '73 Winchester, for example.

[gamekeeper]

Interesting thread!

[guido4198]

IMHO....(since you asked) The model 95 is just plain UGLY.
My opinion has NOTHING to do with any of the practical points already mentioned such as handling, carrying,cartridge choice, etc.
I have been blessed with the ability to own pretty much any rifle I like.
With the world of choices available, in my collection are a Win 71 and and Savage M99 (.250 Sav. with "schnabel" forend.
THOSE rifles have lines that are just gorgeous, even sexy if I may.
I've been walking past Model 95's my whole life and never even wanted to pick one up.
Based on the history...I suspect a lot of folks over the years had a similar opinion.

[tman]

Mentioned above, the 94 30-30 was lighter to carry. Back before game grew tougher, a 30-30 was considered grizzly medicine. At hunting ranges, it was more than enough. Used to be that way with the 30-06, until it started bouncing off game, when they couln't give 338 magnums away.

[Pop Watts]

Her is another uneducated guess.
Were they more expensive than other lever or bolt guns available in their day?
I do not know the answer - just wondering.

Just want to add that I have only owned one 1895 and it was a military carbine in 30 US. The sights were not great but it was fun to shoot. Recently sold it to a good home and am looking for one in rifle configuration.

Hope I find one I can afford.

Pop.

[superchicken]

As 7.62 and of hers mentioned the success and utility of the 94 was likely the biggest reason. The fact is the 95 was likely just different than they were used to. As far as the whole comfort thing goes, I've tried to like the 95. I've always been a big fan of Teddy, but every time I've picked up his gun I've found it awkward. The comb of stock seems too high and the magazine does get in the way. The 94 on the other hand, just comes up on target for me and fits like a glove. I think most gun purchases of the day before gunbroker involved an in-store try on if you will, and the 95 seems to take a little getting used to for most folks. While the Savage 99 is also something different than people were used to, it doesn't feel as awkward to me.

Finally, I think the 95 suffered a bit of a timing problem too. Game populations across a lot of the country were at an all-time low and most folks would have had to travel to go after the bigger stuff like elk and moose. Only the rich could afford to travel. Joe public simply didn't need the bigger better mouse trap and couldn't likely afford it. Those that did want something different had a lot of choices like Krags, Savages, Mausers, Springfields, etc.

My $0.02. Don't spend it all in one place.

[BenT]

I just carried my 95 all weekend hunting deer. It balances fine , easy to carry , and points great just like most leverguns. But it is a full size rifle. It isn't a carbine like a most of the Win 94's were, thus their popularity. I would compare it to the 99 savage as far shooting modern cartridges and being a full size rifle. But when scopes started coming around the 99 wins out.

[Griff]

I think it was more that Winchester put their advertising $s in the 94. It is lighter, shoots a lighter cartridge, and was cheaper. Both to build and to buy. And to feed.

It came in 3 cartridges, (.32-40 & .38-55 were both well-known and understood cartridges, the .30-30 was enough like them) that were, and quickly became readily acceptable.

On top of the above, the 94 is MORE comfortable to carry... the 94 is also less punishing to shoot. There is a marked difference in the felt recoil from the mdl 94 and its family of cartridges to the mdl 95 and its loadings.

Plus, let's not forget that the mdl 94 is closely associated with the myth and mystique of the "cowboy"... it owes both its longevity and popularity to that association.

[BrentD]

I'll throw my 2 cents in, though I haven't owned one (so this is the "I heard category").

They might no be too hard to carry but certainly they were no 94 winchester in that department. I think the military Krags must have been no fun to carry also.

They have a really bad reputation for recoil - if it's not deserved it is still certainly true that is their reputation.

They were expensive for what you got.

For darn sure they are ugly.

But for my money, at that time, there just wasn't much use for them. Frankly, big game hunting was at a pretty low point in much the nation. In the Midwest, deer were extinct in many places or headed that way, and I believe elk were no doing so well in much of the West. So, there just wasn't much call for stuff like BIG, big-game rifles and the smaller 94s did fine for cleaning up what was left.

Well, that's all just speculation, but note that the Marlin 1895 (which is what I thought what this thread would be about), also suffered very poor sales. Like the Win 95, it had overly large cartridges, was heavier than necessary. BUT, at least it wasn't UGLY.

Both the Winchester 94 and the Marlin 93 sold well and for many many years. The heavy caliber guns were specialty items that weren't needed until the second half of the 20th century when some of the larger game like bears and elk became more abundant again and deer rebounded in record numbers and became far more bullet resistant (with the help of the late-20th Century gun writers of course).

[Streetstar]

The Texas Rangers sure seemed to like the increased range and power they offered, as evidenced by the many many examples of 1895's at their museum in Waco

[MrMurphy]

Everyone has their own ideas of beauty and fit.


For every Winchester 94 lover there's guys like me.. I can use one but a Marlin handles and shoulders better to me.

I thought the 95s I've handled felt fine. But I'm also used to bolt actions and shotguns and automatic weapons.

As to beauty I carry a Glock and and AR. There is beauty in every design to be found. Except the Chauchat, that committee should have been shot....


And here you guys thought I only comment in the black rifle threads...

[Grizz]

Maybe the cause was less of the 95's drawbacks and more of how good the Model 94 was/is. The 30/30 was a sizzling cartridge for the time as well.

I'm thinking this is probably close. And it was a different era. Most folks were in dire poverty compared to today, where the welfare 49% live better than 99% of the world's population and have lots of disposeable income.

Also, folks who live by hunting, as opposed to trophy sport hunters, are pretty conservative, trusted their firearms, and didn't see any reason to pay up for an expensive rifle to replace the one that fed them for the last forty years. I remember the first time I played with the 85 in a gun store. My impression was that it would be very distracting trying to shoot all 5 deer on the beach with a gun that disassembled itself on every cycle. It held no sway over my son's 1894 Marlin 44 mag that regularly made meat without fail.
Families weren't prone to disposing of the tools that work best and don't fail.

Most of the one gun hunters I knew had a .270 or 30-06. They were never hungry.

[MrMurphy]

True. My grandfather was a 1 gun of each category guy for decades.

I've only got one dedicated hunting rifle either... a 7mm Mauser (an actual Mauser).

[crs]

7.62 said "First, I don't think anyone who says the '95 is hard to carry, or balances wrong, has ever carried one much." Agreed!

Since my 1892 and 1886 carried well and looked good, I had no use for the 1895 repros.
Until, that is, I wanted a .405 lever gun and then the 1895 .405 was the bees knees. It does not carry the same as a 86, 92, 0r 94 and would be slower to reload in a firefight, but for me it is a natural fit and at appropriate ranges, a great hunting rifle; it just seems to kill everything that I aim at. Mine has taken critters from pronghorns to Cape buffalo and really flattens big feral hogs. It is now my favorite big bore rifle. My M70 .308 and M92 .357 are still used when appropriate, as is my 1886 .45-90, but the 1895 .405 is just plain fun to carry and shoot at big game.

[Booger Bill]

I have this 95 carbine in .30 Army. (30/40). It didnt have a rear site so a friend of mine gave me a buffington he had and we didnt have to drill. The handguard wont fit overt he site though.

[DPris]

I must have been doing it wrong then; admittedly have not carried one, but that's because those I did pick up & heft had the magazine in the way & that largely killed the gun off for me.
Denis

[Booger Bill]

Well, I will admit the balance and carrying on my 95 carbine seems more awkward to me than on my 94 carbine and others. And I have a few.

[Canuck Bob]

I drooled over a 303 version for quite awhile. Then I tried to handle a few. It handled like a Lee Enfield in disguise. It just might be me but nothing is as sweet to handle as a big game rifle as a Win 94 or a 336. When all other guns are compared they come up lacking. Also as much as I love the 303 Brit the one cartridge that really outshone the rest after WW2 was the 30-06. Tack driving 30-06 bolts and scopes dealt the 95 a death blow. It was a time when the military embraced the success of the bolt.

I often wonder this question as why did the bolt action magnum so surpass the lever action for a deer rifle? By extension I believe WW 1 and 2 ended the working gun lever Winchesters and Marlins grip on the market. Millions of North Americans came home bolt action fans. In Canada the Lee Enfield as surplus or sporterized was very accessible and cheap and a terrific hunting cartridge and rifle with a little more moose punch. Tough competition for an expensive gun.

[7.62 Precision]

Plus, let's not forget that the mdl 94 is closely associated with the myth and mystique of the "cowboy"... it owes both its longevity and popularity to that association.

The '94 Winchester was an incredible rifle. The rifle itself is the reason for the success of the .30-30 and the .30-30 is the reason for the success of the rifle.

With that cartridge and that rifle, you had a big-game cartridge in a rifle the size and weight of a pistol caliber levergun. While there were expensive options, the base models were intended to be affordable, and remained that way until the US production stopped just a few years back. Recoil is not bad, it's easy for both large adults and small children to shoot, is light and short, and meets the hunting needs of most hunters, if we ignore the gun media hype.

No larger rifle ever could compete with that, not the 1886, not the Winchester 1895, not the Marlin 1895, not the Winchester 71, nor were they meant to. I'm sure Winchester knew exactly what the market was for the '95, and they knew that the '94 was going to be their bread and butter by targeting the general populace. The '94 was their gun for everyone.


Edit: While the '94 was the gun for everyone, the '95 was more the gun for those who felt needed it. Like the 1886 and later the Model 71, a lot of '95s found their way to Alaska. If you look at old Gold Rush era photos, the '95 Winchesters are very prevalent.

[7.62 Precision]

I must have been doing it wrong then; admittedly have not carried one, but that's because those I did pick up & heft had the magazine in the way & that largely killed the gun off for me.

What I have seen is that most people avoid the magazine and try to carry the rifle in front of the magazine, which leaves it stern-heavy and awkward.

But if you carry it by the front of the magazine, your hand wraps naturally around the front of the mag and it balances nicely, though as a full size rifle it is not as light and handy to carry as a '92 or '94 carbine.

[DPris]

Mag in way. Not fit hand. Not feel good.
Denis

[Ben_Rumson]

More gun than needed.... cal 30-30 didn't need fixing... Most didn't need the 405

[7.62 Precision]

Mag in way. Not fit hand. Not feel good.
Denis

So what you are saying is the 1895 is to the traditional levergun what the Mosin Nagant is to the Mauser?

[DPris]

Well....... Close.

Actually, the Mosin's balance point (in full-length rifle configuration) is just about perfect in my hand for long periods of carry.
My hand fits just right, clearing the mag completely on the bottom & resting just behind the rear sight on the top. Circumference at that spot is very good, too, for my middle-sized hands.

On that looooong rifle, balance is far enough forward that the mag's no issue at all.

Comping the 95 to earlier Winchester leverguns is sorta kinda an unfair deal, anyway.
Except for the 94, those were pistol-calibered jobs with frames sized accordingly. Even the 94's longer .30-30 cartridge still allowed for a fairly short frame, and a fairly short lever stroke.
(Incidentally, I take issue with John Taffin over his belief that the Colt Peacemaker was a direct gift from God. It wasn't the Peacemaker, it was the Model 94 Winchester.)

Anyway....

The .30-06 demands a longer frame and a longer lever stroke.

I'm not knocking the 95, I actually quite like the looks of the critter, most especially in carbine form.
It's just that all 95s I've handled when I've run across 'em did not balance for me such that my hand cleared the magazine, they all had a longer lever stroke than I've gotten used to for so long in so many other leverguns, and none loaded as conveniently.

The Browning BLR suffers from something of the same situation, long stroke, less convenient loading.

Given a choice between a 95 Win, a BLR, and a trim Mauser, all in a "long" .30 caliber, I'd go with the bolt.

A while back when I came across a .30-40 Krag 95 Carbine ad (think it was on CDNN), I came VERY close to going for it.
Then decided I already had enough working leverguns in various calibers & had to pass on it.
Still periodically kick myself over it when I get to remembering, though...

Just my thoughts.
Denis

[barbarossa]

I ha ve one of the 95 carbine replicas in 30/06 and love it .I was hoping that Winchester would of released the 95 carbine again in 303cal ,that was a popular gun up here in Canada back in the day and there was a lot of buzz when Ruger made the no 1 in 303 a couple of years ago.That said I ve seen just about zero interest when one of the 95 replicas (especially the carbines) come up for sale and when they do sell they go for just about give away prices.It s kind of funny that when they first came out they lost out to the popularity of the military style gun of the day (the bolt action rifle) and now they kinda lose out in popularity to todays military style rifle the Black rifle.

[Mike Hunter]

Well, there was close to half a million 95s produced over a 45 year time frame.

Compared to the 1876 where less than 64, 000 produced, or the 1886 where there were only 160,000 produced.

Remember the 95 had to compete with bolt action rifles developed for smokeless cartridges: the 1888/89/90/91, then the Spanish 1893 up to the 1898. As well as the Savage 99.

Big time of transition.

So overall I believe that the 95 Winchester did pretty well.

[Lastmohecken]

I have owned three 95's and still own a Browning 95 in 30-06. I like the 95, but I think with the populations at the time, being still mostly in deer country, not BIG Game Country, the little Model 94, just carried better, and kicked less, and killed deer just fine at woods ranges. Pretty much the same for the 86 Winchester, they are both just heavier and more powerful then needed.

Now, if you need a 95 then you needed a 95, and I have noticed that when shopping at the bigger gunshows, one can often find a slick 94 Winchester, but try to find a slick 95 and the hunt will probably be long and expensive. The old 95's were used hard during their life, it's just that most people didn't need a 95, hunted less wild country, but still walked a lot and the little 94 just made more since.

My 95 is a good shooter, but I don't carry it much, because regardless of some people's opinions, they are heavier and more awkward to carry, and they are heavy, just like the 86 is also heavy. Good guns, but the 94 was just the perfect blend of power and portability and had more range then the old original calibers chambered in the 92, or the 73. The 94 put them all out of business, and that new fangled boltaction was beginning to catch on.

I would love to have a really clean 95 original carbine in 30/40 krag chambering, but I won't buy one of the new ones with the tang safety.

[Old Ironsights]

...
The 1899 Savage though, sold well for almost a century. Presumably, the internal magazine and smooth snag free exterior helped a bit there....

This. And when the "C" model came out, it took away the last of the "internal magazine issues" (though added another couple...)

Still, it is a dream of mine to someday get my tin-bending stuff running and make a 20rd magazine for the 99C...

[ehsa]

just saw this thread and have enjoyed reading it very much. i have a repo winchester 1895 in 405 a takedown model which i purchased not long ago for under $1000. i havent fire a round through it yet as i sent it to turnbull for some alterations. i remember distinctly how ugly i thought the 1895 was.then one day out of the blue i looked at one,just a photo and i thought i have to have one of those.although i havent fired it yet the carry and handling seemed fine and i look forward to getting it back for range time.believe me a year ago i wouldnt have considered buying one.something i really cant explain.i do shoot an orginal winchester 71 and a browning 71 carbine plus my marlin 1895 guide gun.i remember reading once that in the day you could buy two model 94s for the price of one model 71 so mabey it was that way with the 1895.anyway i will say i once picked up a savage 99 and i do believe that gun came to my shoulder and the sights lined up on a target more naturally than any gun i ever tried.my father in law had one tho he perferred his winchester 94.john

[Old Ironsights]

One of my "Really Want" guns is a 95 "Russian" in 7.62x54R. What's not to love?

[levers]

I like the 1895 src and the shorter barrel guns but in general, the 1895 is not a very pretty gun to my eye. The 28" barrels are definitely not to my liking and I have carried a few of them. There were quite a few made but, as I recall, about 75% were Russian military rifles. I think the commercial production was around 100,000 if memory serves me. I don't think they competed well with the other Winchester, or competing company, models. They aren't as popular with today's collectors either. I think they were just a design that didn't quite pan out as well as its brother models.

[ollogger]

growing up in Wisconsin my mentors were born from the 1890s thru the 1920s
guns & hunting was a big deal all the guys had Lever guns a 73 was the old timer then some 92s
94s & 99s one 351 SL cant recall a 95 in the bunch or ever seeing one as a kid
most of them had 3 guns, the Deer gun a shotgun & a 22, so its any ones guess as to why
most folks didn't go for them?

[buckeyeshooter]

Speaking for myself. I have a 95 carbine 30-06 and 30-40 and a takedown rifle in 30-06. In 94's a 30-30, 444, 307 and 38-55. In 1886 a 45/70 deluxe takedown and a Turnbull 50-110. Almost always, the 30-06 carbine is the first picked up, unless it's Brown Bear country or I am elk hunting. Then the 50-110 gets grabbed. The 30-06 with Nosler 220's would do the job just as well though.

[crs]

ehsa,
You may find the 1895 .405 more fun to fire offhand rather than from a bench rest. I love shooting mine offhand, but not so much from the bench. Since I settled on my preferred 300 and 400 grain hand loads, I have shot it offhand or off sticks only.

[tman]

When winchester came out with the .307, It kinda bridged the ballistic gap between early 06 loadings and the 30WCF. UN fortunatley, nobody liked it and it went away

[vancelw]

When winchester came out with the .307, It kinda bridged the ballistic gap between early 06 loadings and the 30WCF. UN fortunatley, nobody liked it and it went away

The .307 begged the question, "Why?"

But I still want one. I just haven't wanted one bad enough to pay the price I've seen them for.
Got a box of ammo in the closet just waiting........

I was drawn to the 95 late. I currently have the 35 Whelen and 405 Win. Sold my .30'06 and 30/40. Those last two rounds are more appealing to me in a bolt gun. But if I find a nice 30/40 military carbine I probably won't be able to resist Or the holy grail, a Russian musket.

[KirkD]

But if you carry it by the front of the magazine, your hand wraps naturally around the front of the mag and it balances nicely

I have hunted with and shot and owned a Model 1895 38-72 with a tapered octagon barrel. To be quite honest, I had no problem at all carrying it and naturally found myself carrying it as described above.Recoil is dependent upon the momentum of the bullet and the mass of the rifle. I never noticed recoil with one significant exception ... the 405! That, however, is no fault of the 1895, it simply comes with the territory of a 300 grain bullet leaving the barrel at a hefty clip. I really like the '95. The only complaint I have ever had with it is that I could not mount a tang sight on it due to how far the bolt comes back. That, however, was rectified by the receiver peep sight. The '95 is a great rifle and why it has not been more popular in recent times is probably due to the fact, in part, that it was not used in Westerns.

[BrentD]

Recoil is dependent upon the momentum of the bullet and the mass of the rifle. I never noticed recoil with one significant exception ... the 405! That, however, is no fault of the 1895, ...

As measured in pounds and ounces, perhaps. As measured by rotator cuffs, collar bones and cheeks, not so much. I can give you two rifles with the same chambering and load and you will feel quite different about shooting them. I'm sure you have experienced the phenomena. Some rifles have bad reputations for recoil, and that is a sign of inappropriate designs for the cartridges they were made to shoot. Lever guns of most any type tend to have that reputation in general. The win 1895 has it to the greatest degree of any of them. Whether it is true or not, I don't know as I have not shot one but I would not buy one without testing it for this, simply for this reason.

[7.62 Precision]

Recoil is dependent upon the momentum of the bullet and the mass of the rifle. I never noticed recoil with one significant exception ... the 405! That, however, is no fault of the 1895, ...

As measured in pounds and ounces, perhaps. As measured by rotator cuffs, collar bones and cheeks, not so much.

Wait, when did I say that?

You are correct here - stock design can make a huge difference on FELT recoil. And felt recoil is what matters in the end, after all.

I have mentioned it before - the most painful rifle I have ever fired is a beautiful little Winchester Model 70 Featherweight youth-model carbine . . . chambered in the bone-crushing .243 Win.

[ehsa]

crs thanks for the heads up about recoil.actually because of your work about the 1895 and the 405 i was drawn to that caliber.i had read about your work with 300 and 400 grain bullets.i shipped my rifle to turnbull and will have the safety removed a front sight to work with the williams fp receiver sight i put on it before sending the rifle.also a red silvers pad(perhaps not the best choice) also the original winchester red finish for the gun plus sling swivels-on the front a barrel band swivel.i ask them about lengethening the throat and apparently they dont like to do that.actually the said they might ream it a little.anyway crs without extending the throat can i shoot 400 grain bullets just with less velocity.thanks john