As a left-handed shooter who hunts in terrain that requires short range shots, I prefer lever actions rather than left- or right-handed bolt actions. Before I handled a used Japanese made Winchester 1895, I thought it would be the vehicle for hunting where I am, as well as where I fantasized I would hunt "some day." The reality of the 1895's action compared with my Rossi 92s and a Browning 71 I traded for a Freedom Arms 97 demonstrated that it was unsmooth and unquick.

However, I downloaded a YouTube video several years ago that is a real eye opener. The host had a used an original 1895 30-40 Krag rifle. He plunged the action into a wheel barrow filled with mud. Using a shovel, he slopped mud all over the action (loaded magazine, action closed, hammer down). I mean he really did the messy. He retrieved the rifle and wiped off the mud with his hands. He did not try to clean it up. He then fired the magazine of ammunition without any issues. Winchester 1892s, 1894s. 1886s, 71s and Marlin 1894s are comparably sealed except for their partially sealed loading ports. Mauser based bolt actions and most others are, by comparison, much more open actions.

For shorter ranged sport hunting, for people subsistence living in less hospitable back country — my town is surrounded by three-plus million acres of rough,vertical forest — and unincorporated Alaska that probably makes where I live seem to be Ipanema beach, would well sealed lever actions be a perhaps more practical rifle choice than a bolt action more open to crud? So long as shot range is reasonable (I use tang sight at rear, globe sight with hanging insert at front), that impressive YouTube demonstration video appeared to demonstrate reliability that could be superior to any bolt action over the long haul. An action that is sealed from crud inherently requires less routine maintenance than an easy to disassemble action that needs that more routine maintenance?

I am certain that I do not possess the complete picture of bolt and well sealed lever actions' sustainability. One facet I did not mention is to understand that I am not comparing actions intended for war.

Comparing a 95 action to any other, for smoothness, is a bit unfair, because of the way they lock and unlock, and the strength. Which is why you can't put a 30-06 in any other lever action.
So, you pay for the strength and the box mag, with a less smooth action. Nothing you can do about it.

I have always felt that the impressive thing about the Winchester lever actions is that they are so reliable, so rugged, so trouble-free, in spite of their complexity. I have seen Model 94's which were abused almost beyond belief yet still functioned well enough to take game. The same with all the other models. One model 92 which stood in a corner of the barn 365 days a year was still counted on to kill a marauding fox (kill a fox, save a chicken). Those old lever actions were amazing mechanisms. Regards, Bill.

Firstly, I want to make it clear that I am a huge lever action fan. And I am not saying that any of them are un-reliable.

But a mud test is not a reliability test. In terms of reliability, susceptibility to mud is but one aspect of a much larger picture.

For example, my Rossi 1892 copy breaks firing pins of dry-fired. It is my only rifle that does so. Also, bullets often get pressed deeper into the case in the tube magazine if they are not heavily crimped into a cannelure, and when that happens they are difficult to feed into the chamber. Thus from that point of view, it could be considered un-reliable (although part of the blame for the second problem must go the the .44-40's thin case walls), whereas the correct course of action is to know your rifle. Know what it can cope with and what it can't, and use it within it's performance parameters.

Mud tests are interesting, but I can't really see a situation where it would be relevant to me and the way I use my firearms, unless a civil war breaks out here, and even then it is unlikely as I live in a relatively dry area.

Im with Bill L on that, I have two that are in the 3 diget 4 diget catagory, first year of production serial numbers with barrels that look like the interior of a tramp steamers pipes, pitted and black, one shoots into one inch with irons at 100 and the other into 2.5" at 100, both are more than exceptable they don't look much better on the outside, both lived in a saddle scabbard most of their life, My grandads Ranger guns..Won a ton of turkeys, bacon and hams not to mention the dollars of nay sayers and thats always open to their challange..They still function 100% and if I could only have one gun it would be Saddle ring trapper 30-30 ser. # 2124..

When a 94, 92 or 71 gets headspace just replace the bolt in the rear and its fixed,,Wisner makes them in two or 3 sizes and they can all be hand fitted if you must..

I also had a mod. 95 Saddle ring carbine in 30-06 an it was a dandy, shot well, but the 95 is sorta awkward to carry with that low clip, and its definately an iron sight propersition and the 94 under those conditions in 30-30 suits me as well as a 30-06, both are a 200 yard gun or thereabouts..and the 94 fits me better..

those old gun don't break and slow to wear..

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Comparing a 95 action to any other, for smoothness, is a bit unfair, because of the way they lock and unlock, and the strength. Which is why you can't put a 30-06 in any other lever action.
So, you pay for the strength and the box mag, with a less smooth action. Nothing you can do about it.

Tom did you forget about the Browning BLR???

I meant traditional ones; the BLR is a bolt action that happens to be lever operated.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I meant traditional ones; the BLR is a bolt action that happens to be lever operated.

You weren't explicit, you change the rules in the middle of the game. You did say "other lever action".

Ok, you got me because I forgot about the blr. My mistake for not thinking past 1900.
The "rules" however, were set by the OP; the comparison was made between 19th century type rifles; 92/94/86/71 and Marlin 94s.
As I read it.
Anyway, I know nothing about a BLR; way too modern. So, I care nothing for it no matter how smooth it is.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Ok, you got me because I forgot about the blr. My mistake for not thinking past 1900.
The "rules" however, were set by the OP; the comparison was made between 19th century type rifles; 92/94/86/71 and Marlin 94s.
As I read it.
Anyway, I know nothing about a BLR; way too modern. So, I care nothing for it no matter how smooth it is.

I wasn't trying to get you Tom, LOL. Just thought it was a challenge to try think of another strong smooth lever action.

Reckon the OP isn't familiar with the dirt/mud handling qualities of the SMLE bolt rifles and their bolts are fairly smooth too! Of course that is an assumption as he may very well be familiar with it.

Another medium bore cartridge that was chambered in that 95 Winnie that was fairly powerful, more so then the 30-40 Krag, right there and maybe little more then the 308, and just kicking at the heels of the 06....was the 7.62x54R Russian. Too bad they don't bring that caliber back in the Japan model 95.

That actually is a great idea.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
That actually is a great idea.

Well Tom maybe after all the crap is over in this country with the virus and election, we can all write a letter or email to Winchester and ask them to make it. I sure would love to have one and I know you would too.

I own and shoot Winnie centerfire levers Models 1886, 1892, and 1895 .
All seem smooth to me. Of course the 1892 is over 100 years old and well worn, the 1886 action was slicked up when new and hunted a lot, and the 1895 action was smooth and easy when new.
IMHO, all good accurate and effective rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Ok, you got me because I forgot about the blr. My mistake for not thinking past 1900.
The "rules" however, were set by the OP; the comparison was made between 19th century type rifles; 92/94/86/71 and Marlin 94s.
As I read it.
Anyway, I know nothing about a BLR; way too modern. So, I care nothing for it no matter how smooth it is.

I am with you. I think lever action, I never think of the BLR. They don't excite me at all.
In Winchesters I have a 66, 94's, 95's, 86's and really want a 64 and 71. I have marlins in 94, 336 and (336) 1895's. The first gun I will reach for is a lever action. I have never had a Savage 99 but would like to have one too.

I've had one 99 Savage; they are very strong, but clunky and not smooth to operate with a very long lever throw. Just not right after you are used to Winchesters, especially the early ones and a 92. Might as well get a bolt gun, it seems to me.
And yes I would love to have a 95 in 7.62. I might have to build one. I always made them 405s....always going on the bigger is better concept.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I've had one 99 Savage; they are very strong, but clunky and not smooth to operate with a very long lever throw. Just not right after you are used to Winchesters, especially the early ones and a 92. Might as well get a bolt gun, it seems to me.
And yes I would love to have a 95 in 7.62. I might have to build one. I always made them 405s....always going on the bigger is better concept.

I never liked the Savage 99 for appearance only. That has nothing to do with whether it is a good rifle or not, as I believe they are.

Yeah good idea Tom start making 7.62x54R 1895's!!! Be nice if you could manufacture the entire rifle.

" that impressive YouTube demonstration video appeared to demonstrate reliability that could be superior to any bolt action over the long haul."

No 1895s was never as reliable as a boltaction the Russians used them as a wartime emergency buy many of them broke and very complicated to make spareparts to.

As a lefty i have a LH Tikka t3 its more reliable and accurate in the field than a BLR 81 i had. I`m still thinking of getting a 1892 as a short distance hunting rifle righthanded friends also can use.


1895 history by C&Rsenal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...b_channel=C%26Rsenal