Cheaper than dirt and others has 307 Winchester from Hornady loaded with 160 grain FTX bullet. I bought 5 boxes in case I like it. If the ballistics are to be believed then it is knocking on the door of the 308 in a 30 inch barrel. Don't know how many people have a 307 but they must think there is enough to justify a run. It is a good bit cheaper than the Jamison brand.

I hope that ftx holds together for you. I used the gummie tips in a 308me on 7 deer and found they were varmit bullets. Broke up badly with shallow penetration and no exit. I used the barnes x fn in my 307 and found it worked well.

I wonder if someone can explain to me how such hot cartridges as the 307 and 356 were safe in an action that, having been cut out to allow side ejection, would seem to be weaker than the earlier Big Bore 94?

Is it just that they used heavier brass than the 375 Win?

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I wonder if someone can explain to me how such hot cartridges as the 307 and 356 were safe in an action that, having been cut out to allow side ejection, would seem to be weaker than the earlier Big Bore 94?

Is it just that they used heavier brass than the 375 Win?

They are not an open top like a Wi.n 94.Where would the spent cases eject to??They use the 308ME and 338ME in the 336 with no problem .Even the beefed up Winchester 94s had problems with the 307 and 356

So called pressure problems were resolved on the internet long ago. The bigbore 94's can and do handle the extra pressure of the .307 & .356 Win. just fine thank you. Besides the cutout for the angle eject isn't much.

If using the gummy tips just be sure to miss any bones, otherwise they will come apart and likely damage a bunch of meat in the process and won't give much penetration, not that a deer needs a lot to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I wonder if someone can explain to me how such hot cartridges as the 307 and 356 were safe in an action that, having been cut out to allow side ejection, would seem to be weaker than the earlier Big Bore 94?

Is it just that they used heavier brass than the 375 Win?

They are not an open top like a Wi.n 94.Where would the spent cases eject to??They use the 308ME and 338ME in the 336 with no problem .Even the beefed up Winchester 94s had problems with the 307 and 356

The 336 marlin action is also changed a bit for the ME rounds and the 450. The treads on the barrel are cut differently to give more strength and improve the amount of metal where the barrel screws in for added strength. I never worried about the big bore 94 strength, there was extra metal in the action and I did not try to exceed published load data or run at very top velocity. I generally, looked for the most accurate load that the rifle shot.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I wonder if someone can explain to me how such hot cartridges as the 307 and 356 were safe in an action that, having been cut out to allow side ejection, would seem to be weaker than the earlier Big Bore 94?

Is it just that they used heavier brass than the 375 Win?

They are not an open top like a Wi.n 94.Where would the spent cases eject to??They use the 308ME and 338ME in the 336 with no problem .Even the beefed up Winchester 94s had problems with the 307 and 356

Are we at crossed purposes, OLBIKER? I was asking about the Winchester 94 Angle Eject, but I suspect you're talking first about the Marlin rifle.

Not that I've ever held a Winchester AE, but I can't see any additional metal in the top from internet pictures, just the cut out and additional mount-screw holes.

I notice in your second sentence, however, that you say the beefed-up Winchesters (even top-eject?) did have problems with the 307 and 356 loads, though Cougarz says they did not.

What kind of problems do you recall occurring?

I.have a Big bore 94 Winchester in 444 marlin .They also made them in 450 marlin which is even bigger .Those are tough rifles .I wanted to make one in 375 jdj but it's not worth the effort .I can't wait to shoot my 444 Winchester will be a blast.I also have 375 Winchester in big bore 94 and they are very strong too .

The bigbore 94's have additional metal around the rear of the action where they lock up. It's very apparent in any photo of them. Winchester did make at least one bigbore "flat side" with the entire action thickened, but found it added nothing to the safety of the rifle at .307 & .356 pressures plus it wasn't very good looking. A photo of it is in Robert Renneberg's book "Winchester 94", 2nd addition, page 40.

The cutout for the angle eject is only a little over 1/8" top to bottom. When introduced Winchester also went back to a steel forging rather than the previous post 64 "mystery metal". This might have increased the strength of the receiver but I don't know that for certain.

Actually I at least think the angle eject 94's are pretty decent rifles especially if you can find a pre crossbolt safety version. They are much improved quality over the earlier post 64's and came in a bunch of variations & calibers not offered before. They also are very common and relatively inexpensive compared to a pre 64. Just about any pawnshop has stacks of them. I probably shouldn't have said that or people will start collecting them and drive up the price. I commonly carry an angle eject m94 Ranger in .30-30 as a truck gun.

Thank Cougarz,
at the bottom of it all, I guess I was wondering why the 356 seems to have so much more power than the 375 Win. Does the 356 have greater capacity or do they just cram more powder into it?

Yes, the reinforce around the lock-up obviously added strength but the old bugbear about rear-locking actions was receiver stretching between the the breech and lugs - and there is a still a long skinny section. The little bit removed to allow for angle ejection in the new model may not have take away any significant strength but, unless the metalurgy changed at that particular time, there's a chance it could have had some effect.

What say you, OLBIKER?

Sam: Looking at the SAAMI pressure data for the 307, 356 and 375 Winchester cartridges, the Mean Average Pressure for all three is 52,00 CUP. Surprisingly, the MAP for the 358 Win is also 52,000 CUP. I have shot a 356 Win for many years with factory and pressured tested handloading data to no ill effect. Your perception of the 307 and 356 being more "powerful" is due to increased case capacity if pressures are the same.

Case capacity:
307 = 54
356 = 57
375 = 49

I.loaded the 220 grain hornady with aa1680'powder to 2400 fps same speed a 3006 shoots that weight bullet .That was in a Big bore 94 .I loaded 300grain bullets to 2000 fps no pressure problems just loaded them single .The 375 can be loaded up in the Winchester big bore rifles not in Marlins .I shot every bullet I.could find between 200 and 300 grains in my 375 Winchester .It has almost a Freebore throat in it .The most accurate bullet I shot was the Speer 235 grain it went 2250 fps but it does not expand well at that speed.The hornady flattened out into silver dollars at high speed too fast for how high the jacket .I cut off a 270 grain.hornady bullet it worked awesome.It's about 245 grain cut off and pretty accurate 1.5 -1.25 groups at 100-yards and mushrooms awesome .Some people cut off Barnes bullets also.My 375 win big bores are the first model 20,000 mAde .You can use 38-55 brass Winchester quit making it .

Thanks guys.

I think the 307 and 356 may have been allowed an extra couple of thousand pressure, bobmn, but as you point out, they also have greater capacity.

Interesting experiments, dgr. A mate told me you can get more powder into the 375 by using .38/55 cases because they have thinner walls. Case life might be diminished, of course.

Regarding reloading the .356 it's common just to use .358 Win data since .356 info is getting hard to find.

Both the .307 & .356 Winchesters are nice cartridges but the buying public weren't into lever actions by that time. It was a bolt action world by then. Too bad, the .356 makes a great pretty decent elk rifle for hunting in the timber.

quote:

The little bit removed to allow for angle ejection in the new model may not have take away any significant strength but, unless the metalurgy changed at that particular time, there's a chance it could have had some effect.

They did change back to a forged steel receiver just as I stated in my previous post!

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:


They did change back to a forged steel receiver just as I stated in my previous post!

I did see that but was interested in knowing the exact chronology, wondering if the change may have occurred when the original Big Bore came out. Was that new steel by any chance to do with production moving to another factory?

Mine is the older, top-eject rifle, and IIRC someone pointed out that on the serial number it may have been one of the last from the New Haven plant (or some other test of authenticity).

I used to think that was a plus but now, despite it's claim to be Winchester Proof Steel, I'm reading hereabouts of 'mystery metal' and blue over plated receivers.

The change to a forged receiver happened in 1978 and was used across the board on all models. One big improvement to the forged steel was it took blueing well. The earlier investment cast relievers had an iron plating to hold the finish which was black oxide, they weren't blued then.

They also went to a coil mainspring, improved the trigger group and made all internal parts of forged steel. This removed the rattle people hated from the sheet metal lifter in the earlier models.

1978 was also the year the bigbore in 375 came out with the added metal around the area where the lockup occurs. They also beefed up some of the internal parts to handle the increased pressure. These first bigbores were top eject. In 1983 the angle ejects came out. All models of the 94 were made in New Haven until Winchester closed their doors in 2006 which was the end of the bigbores.

Thanks for that, Cougarz.

So, I take it that with the forged steel all the Big Bores were amply strong but the top-eject models may be even stronger because they lacked the cutout.

I'm glad to hear mine is not likely to have the plated receiver. I can't see the mainspring but the lifter has definitely been milled. Another forum had a list of serial numbers and thinks mine may indicate 1981.

They are fun little guns, good luck with yours.

Yes, it is a cute little rifle, all the more so compared with the new '86.

With another big bore for the boys to fight over, I've decided to leave the .375 to one of the daughters.