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?

If you do a search of the auction sites and historical rifle collector associations you will see "prototype" Winchester's by Browning that are 1886 actions with a box magazine.

I think, but can give no citation a lot of what turned out to be the 1895 was done so to allow the length of spire pointed bullets cartridge overall length, allow for one piece bottom magazine, and to lock the lever.

I am one of those folks that think the 1895 is strong enough. Modern 1895s have been chambered to 270 Winchester by the folks at USRA and Japan. However, I think everyone agrees there is not a lot of room to the action and magazine to spare, so by moving the locking bolts on back he gained that much more length to feed a spite point 2.45-2.5 inch cartridge.

Similarly, the 1894 is supposed to be as close in action size as possible to the 1892, but house what we know call intermediate length cartridges. So, by moving the locking bolts that much further back gave that much more room.

My thinking is that the quality of steel improved in that time period to make rear locking lugs more feasible. Lot of by guess and by golly in the old days.

Grizz

The much improved link (and magazine in the 95) systems of the 94, and the 95, over the 86 was the biggest improvement. The one piece locking block is stronger, and is not that far rearward from an 86. Weight of the rifle was another design consideration for the new designs. Of course they did make the 71 until 1950s and it is a very strong design as well. Is it stronger than a 95? Let's do some blow up tests and find out.

I am going to put my money on the 95, and no you can't use mine. The barrel contour on the USRA 1895 is lighter than an original. I think that is bc they were rebarrled from left over 270 wins. But I do not mind.

The barrels on all the new 95s are completely wrong. Even the Brownings are wrong; I have rebarreled many with the correct contour barrel. I think the reason is that the designers picked a Howa sporter barrel and slapped them on; no historical research was done. 30-40, 270, 06, 405; none is right.

Because they aren't perfect and corrent, you don't feel bad about re-barrelling one to 9.3X62. At least I didn't. What a fun rifle that is.

Jeremy

You have to remember that Browning wasn't making guns to sell. He was making patents to sell. Every time he created something new he created stumbling blocks for his competitors because they had to design guns without using his ideas. One of the problems that Browning had was that as he sold these patents, he also created stumbling blocks for himself. Once Winchester, Remington or FN obtained the rights, he could no long improve upon the old models or use the unique points of those guns in new designs. Those ideas no longer belonged to him and it would have gotten a LOT WORSE after the blowup over the A5 shotgun up with Tom Bennet at Winchester. After about 1900 Browning had also gotten side tracked with automatic operation which probably fascinated him a lot more that standard actions. Also, his work with sporting rifles pretty much ended after the start of WWl when the government began to demand more and more of his unique skill set. WWl was a machine gun war and he was Americas #1 specialist in those matters.

John Browning was 63 in WW1; old for the time, and he only lived 8 more years. I think he was just tired and had no more ideas in him, after the machine guns. Which we still use, unchanged today; each Abrams tank has one.

Pretty much everything we use today, outside of turn bolts, is based on his work. Even most modern automatic cannons still incorporate his ideas.

ADD NOTE: he was born in 1855 died in 1926