Hi Guys,
I was just looking at a combo that should be done fairly easy.
Using a Dremel belt sanding attachment (I just got one, its sweet) you could open up the sides of the 1895 Magazine about 30 thousands of an inch (15 per side) and then it looks like a cake walk to chambering this thing for 9.3x64.

Now the 9.3x64 is a real Man of a 9.3 and would take the 1895 to a whole new level.
My question is:
Why hasn't this been done before?

Now I don't own a Win 1895. If I did it would be torn apart on my work bench to find out. I just had the idea hit me.

Cheers, John

Now I am a big fan of the 9,3x74R double rifle... I have taken a lot of game from bobcats to giraffe, cape buff and elephant...

I also have an 1895 in 405...

So, in the 1895, how much better would the 9,3x64 be than the 405 WCF???

I've seen a lot of people argue that the 9.3x64 Brenneke will out perform the 375 H&H. So it will easily out range and out penetrate the 405. The 405 is no slouch either.
It caught my attention when the Russians brought out thier super cheap Brown Bear ammo in 9.3x64. Its only good for NON Dangerous Game or plinking, but at 10 rounds for 10 bucks its cheap enough.

Cheers, John

And Why not a 9,3X62?

Why not a 375 Whelen or 375 Whelen AI?
Cases would be easy to come by, bullets are plentiful.

Jim

Phatman,
Here is a link to a thread on Leverguns.com which discusses the Winchester 1895 in 9.3x62.
Some of the points raised in your thread are addressed in the thread I refer to.
http://www.levergunscommunity....t=38441&hilit=9.3x64

You may be able to PM the author who owns the 1895 in 9.3x62 and discuss your ideas.
Good luck.

Maybe it's just me but if I had a 95 I would leave it as is.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Maybe it's just me but if I had a 95 I would leave it as is.

I guess it all depends on what "leaving as is" means. I've seen it written that even shooting an 1895 in '06 will wear it out for some reason--I think because it is a rear-locking action.

Having said that, I've scoped mine, put on sling swivels, and wish I shot it more than I have of late (but in 15 years my major distraction will be off to college).

If I were to put a fire-breather in a lever action, the 95 would be in the running. It is certainly the big brother of any other levers I've shot. But I'd be hesitant to put a 9.3X64 in without having some assurance pressure would not be an issue. I think I could live destroying my $800 rifle. It's my million-dollar face I'd be worried about. (it is worth significantly less to others, I've been told)

I have been very happy with my 1895 Take down in 405.

It is a Lever Action and thus not as strong as a bole rifle.

So if I had one in 270, 30/06, or a custom one in 9,3x62, I would just not load it up to bolt rifle pressures.

What possible difference in the field will 150 fps make, in those calibres?
Your rifle, and your brass will last longer.
The animals will be just as dead.

an 1895 src in 35 whelen would be real cool.
...tj3006

I bought a Browning 95, 30-06, with the intent to convert it to 375 Whelen. Money was scarce so I played with it in it's original caliber. With a 208 grain cast bullet, a mold from Mountain Molds, it's such a fine shooter I'll leave it alone and buy an other rifle.
While searching for a used 95 for conversion I found a Winchester in 405.
Having another mold made by Mountain Molds in .411 I'm doubting that I'll make that 375 Whelen 95.

Jim

I can not figure out why they frst made the new 1895's in 270 and not the 35 Whelen and the 30/06.

I just do not see the 270 in an ironsighted gun.

It would have been near perfect in the 35Whelen.
The 9,3x62 would be a great choice as well.

However all things considered, I like my 405 WCF 1895 best. I doubt I would ever shoot at an animal over 200 yards with iron sights.

I especially like the fact that mine is a Takedown.

I wish mine were a takedown as well.

Why .270? That is right up there with the following:

*Why do new standard grade Winchesters (I have seen) come with stocks with less figure than a wheelbarrow of kindling? And I've bought paintbrushes with better finished wood.
*Why add the shotgun safety when it is well-neigh impossible to win a lawsuit against makers of clearly unsafe rifles? (Example: Remington 700, multiple decades thereof plus a documentary)
*Who wants a medallion in the stock of their shootin' iron?

Actually, for the .270 question, it is likely because the market for .270s is much larger than any likely caliber over .30. On my own questions, I bet H.L. Mencken answered it when 1895s were in their first production run: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”

If you want to see a Model 95 in .35 Whelen, I have mine in the classifieds now. It is a sweet combination.

A 95 in 9.3 is a great idea; go for it. Pressure is not an issue; it will be less than hot 30-06 loads. The original 95s in 30-06 were known to set back headspace due to soft bolt faces; not because of action strength. I have put bushings in them to fix them. Modern actions do not have that problem, bolts being made of alloy steel. The new 95s came out in 270 caliber because no one in marketing or planning knew anything about guns or shooters or history, and thought it was a good idea.

DPCD--Thanks for that information!

I didn't know the headspace issue had been solved on the newer ones. I will feel better shooting my Browning now.

Definitely; the new ones have bolts made from 4140 steel instead of surface hardened carbon steel; originally, with cartridges with larger heads and lower pressures, no problem but with the 30-03 and 30-06, they tended to set the bolt face back. That doesn't happen any more.

Yeah, I've had a Browning 1895 same as the Win 95 for years in a 9.3x62, no problems at all with hot loads as the 3006 ,which it was frist made for has a higher psi. So no problem I think and I have a lot of levers the 1895's are the best levers.They are smooth and you can shoot SP's out of them nice levers,Kev