Hi everybody 8-)

I am interested in military weapons and history and I was wondering if someone could help me out with some questions I have.

I have been searching information about the Winchester 95 for a long time now, but I have failed to find out how come it had such a limited acceptance as a military rifle? Maybe I haven’t been able to collect the correct kind of information but it looks like a soldier’s dream to me. I understand that it appeared early enough to make good sales in the international market (if not in the US army), it was a modern clip loaded weapon, which could receive powerful cartridges, without the problems of the earlier Winchester models, it was the fastest shooting military repeater ever, plus the civilians who bought it were very happy with it. Obviously the conditions of hunting have little resemblance to the war in the trenches but I have failed to run into a reference on complains of Russians about its trustworthiness. Was it a delicate rifle after all? Did it present any defects in the service? What was wrong with it? Or at least, what is wrong with me?

Also, could it be redesigned to receive a box magazine or at least a larger clip of ammunition?

And what about the Lee 1895 6mm cartridge? Even in those days, people understood the value of small diameters. The world was full of 6.5mm rounds. The economy on money, material and energy, the accuracy and penetration, the softer kick back during the shooting and the lighter weigh, were already considered virtues by many nations. So, what about this pioneer cartridge that obviously appeared half a century earlier of it’s time? Is it primitive metallurgy, ballistics or some other reason that doomed it?

I know that I am becoming an after Christ prophet here, but it looks a little strange to me, because opinions are formed by factors and 100 years ago people were not just stupid. So, what was the problem?

Thanks for bothering to read this.

Welcome to the board, Niko - glad to have you here and hope you'll join us in the discussions on all the other forums.

I'm moving this down to the military firearms forum, as you'll probably get a lot more responses there from some of our most expert members.

Thanks for posting.

The 1895 came after the bolt guns were well-established, IMHO, probably what hurt it the most. 15 or 20 years earlier, would have been a real breakthough. That, and the U.S. was really the world source for leverguns, most other nations really didn't consider them seriously.

Not sure how many of them made it over to Russia, anyway.

Back then, small bores tended to cook barrels, pretty badly. We have a lot better barrel steels today. And the 6mm Lee was a real pipsqueak, coming on the heels of the .45-70! Probably too radical....

Just a few thoughts / opinions.

The problem that the 6mm Lee Navy cartridge had was 1. powder and 2. corrossive primers.
In 1896 there was no powder available with a slow enough burning rate to utilize the potential of the cartridge. In the 1940's, slower powders became available.
In 1896, priming compounds produced salts that attracted moisture (called corrosive priming)- the moisture helped the bore rust if not cleaned promptly. Corrosive priming was common thru the 1940's also. Small bores like 6mm and 6.5 tend to get eaten up by corrosive priming pretty easily.
A factor to consider re the 1895 Winchester is cost. I believe the rifle cost a bit more than a Mauser bolt of the same time period.
It's worth noting that the US army chose the Trapdoor Springfield single shot right after the Civil War. Partly, because it was cheap to produce- cheaper than a Sharps, Spenser, or Winchester repeater.

I think the 6mm Lee was simply ahead of its time, somewhat like the Canadian Ross and the .280 Ross. Smokeless powder technology was still very new, and the availble powders were too fast for top proformance in such a small bore. Straight pulls never did well among the major combatants, either. The Austria-Hungarian empire was the only major power to use straight pull rifles with some success. the canadians abandoned the Ross for SMLEs, and the Swiss sat out the war.

I think some 95 Winchesters went to the Phillipines for trials, and were not terribly popular with the troops. Levers are hard to work from the prone position. The Russians were so short of rifles that the Winchester most have seemed like a Godsend, compared to Berdan I and II rifles many of the troops still carried.

Thanks a lot everyone! Very interesting posts indeed.

Now if I am not mistaken the Japanese were using a chromium coat or something, to protect their barrels, a method that the Russians eagerly copied. If that is true, wasn’t this a good enough solution for small bores? If not 6mm at least 6.5mm? (I believe the 6mm Lee was not only the smallest but also by far the lightest round).

Of course I understand that people, particularly when it comes to military matters prefer to keep things simple.

The Japanese did chrome plate rifle bores.
Again, think $...chrome plating rifle bores is expensive- particularly if the country in question has to import the chromium.
Chrome plating would help the corrosion problems- at least until the barrel throat got some wear from extended use.

Good point.
Thanks a lot

Good point.
Thanks a lot
Way cool topic. I got to handle a Lee straight pull (civillian version) at the last gun show. My gun safe tells me it's time for a new addition. Now, if only someone would drop a kind word to Santa on my behalf...... :D :D :D

Shoot well, practice often, laugh much!