Is it safe to fire a 1920 Winchester 1894 carbine?
- Thread starter hqmhqm
- Start date
- Status
woof
Member
No. The .30 wcf is not the same round as the .30-30. I suggest you have it looked over by a professional. You may want to sell it as a collector's piece and buy something else. Edit... I should add that it "is" the same round dimension wise but a rifle that old may not be up to the pressures created by modern .30-30 ammo.
jaholder1971
Member
?????
bhk
Member
That rifle doesn't even qualify as being old. In good shape, it is perfectly safe to shoot with 'modern' ammo.
Th 94 was designed specially for the 30-30, and mordern 30-30 has the same pressure as always.I would use it and enjoy using a well made firearm. If you take care of it I don't thing you will lose that much value. It's a hunting rifle, to be used and enjoyed, heck thats half the fun of owning a old firearm, Yes, you can hang it on the wall, but in my opinion that would be a waste.
Cosmoline
Member
Yes it is. The .30 WCF is the same round as the .30-30. There was never any upgrade in pressure. It has always been a smokeless round. It was the ORIGINAL smokeless round in this country.
Unless there is something hugely wrong with the rifle or a bubba hacked on it, there would be no reason you cannot fire modern factory ammo and standard handloads out of it. You should do a standard check for function of the cartridge elevator, lock of bolt, function of magazine, and condition of mainspring. If you know what you're doing you can take it apart for a complete cleaning, but only do that if you have the right screwdrivers and can put it back together. You enter the mind of a genius with you strip a 94, and most of us are quickly over our heads. There's a set method to taking it apart and putting it back together.
The .30 WCF was the original name of the cartridge when it was developed by Winchester. When Marlin started making a rifle chambered for this round they did not want to put Winchesters name anywhere near it, so they added the -30. It stands for .30 caliber and the standard load (back in 1895) of 30 grains of powder. Also known as 7.62x51R.
Im sorry but it is truly sad that people speak of the .30-30 and know nothing about it. Ironically, the cartridge is 113 years old this month and is still going strong.
Bobarino
member
.30 WCF and .30-30 are the exact same thing. Marlin didn't want to put the name "Winchester" on their 1893 so they renamed it the .30-30. its perfectly safe to shoot. have fun with it!
Bobby
Bobby
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,370
Welcome to THR. Knowing what you're talking about is not a prerequisite for talking about it here.
Hmm. Maybe time for me to take a break...
280shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 707
I have a 1949 model 94 -30 wcf.
I have shot that for years,lots of deer with it,I always shot 30-30 ammo,Yes its the same as 30 wcf,who didnt know that? lol seems a few on here,
I have shot that for years,lots of deer with it,I always shot 30-30 ammo,Yes its the same as 30 wcf,who didnt know that? lol seems a few on here,
P-32
Member
Whew, I bought some 30WCF dies for my Marlin 30-30.
Harve Curry
Member
old terminologies:
30WCF = 30-30
44WCF = 44-40
38WCF = 38-40
30WCF = 30-30
44WCF = 44-40
38WCF = 38-40
JesseL
Member
jkingrph said:
I think it was .30-40 Krag that was also called .30 US (and .30 Army).
Gator
Member
My 1918 94 handles modern .30-30 just fine.... after all, that's what it was made for!
Cosmoline
Member
Well names get confusing, as we see:
There was an evolution in the name from what I've seen. In the seminal article "An All-Around Cartridge for American Big Game," Lieut. Whelen called the .30'06 the ".30 caliber U.S. Government model 1906." The .30-40 was called the ".30 Krag" to distinguish it. By 1915, Allyn Tedmon was referring to the '06 as "...the .30 cal '06 Springfield." Charles Cottar called it the ".30-06" in a 1914 article and the ".30-'06" in a 1916 article. At some point folks just stopped with the dashes and the "US." I believe this happened in the teens, which is why we use the archaic term for zero--"aught." We don't say "thirty zero six" or "thirty o six" We say "thirty aught six" because the folks who coined that term did it long before we were born.
Anyway I digress. But let's ease up on Woof. This stuff is *incredibly* confusing.
As JesseL pointed out, I also got mixed up. It is "aught."
There was an evolution in the name from what I've seen. In the seminal article "An All-Around Cartridge for American Big Game," Lieut. Whelen called the .30'06 the ".30 caliber U.S. Government model 1906." The .30-40 was called the ".30 Krag" to distinguish it. By 1915, Allyn Tedmon was referring to the '06 as "...the .30 cal '06 Springfield." Charles Cottar called it the ".30-06" in a 1914 article and the ".30-'06" in a 1916 article. At some point folks just stopped with the dashes and the "US." I believe this happened in the teens, which is why we use the archaic term for zero--"aught." We don't say "thirty zero six" or "thirty o six" We say "thirty aught six" because the folks who coined that term did it long before we were born.
Anyway I digress. But let's ease up on Woof. This stuff is *incredibly* confusing.
As JesseL pointed out, I also got mixed up. It is "aught."
Last edited:
Harve Curry
Member
We're going to get off topic but the term ought for saying zero is interesting and seems to have gone away except for horse shoe sizes, the 30-06 and the 25-06. I was wondering when this last turn of the century happened if anyone was going to start using ought.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
.30WCF is the original name for the .30-30.
1920 safe? Dunno why not.
Anecdote: I was given an old Model 94 that had been brought back from Mexico. Rust bucket. 1902 manufacture. .25-35, but somebody apparently had run an arc-welding rod up inside the barrel and zapped it.
No luck on finding a .25-35 barrel. So, after de-rusting everything, I found an el-cheapo used Type 2 barrel and stuck it on. It never did fit up really tight. I "created" a rear sight, from my wild-animal box of miscellaneous gun parts.
I put on a heavy work glove, stuck the gun around the corner of the house, and pulled trigger. No big deal; it merely did the usual Bang! like it was supposed to.
I went to the benchrest. Bless Pat, the sights worked, and it was dead on at 100 yards! So, I patted myself on the back for one more instance of survival of my own folly.
IOW, I wouldn't worry about one of those new 1920 critters.
1920 safe? Dunno why not.
Anecdote: I was given an old Model 94 that had been brought back from Mexico. Rust bucket. 1902 manufacture. .25-35, but somebody apparently had run an arc-welding rod up inside the barrel and zapped it.
No luck on finding a .25-35 barrel. So, after de-rusting everything, I found an el-cheapo used Type 2 barrel and stuck it on. It never did fit up really tight. I "created" a rear sight, from my wild-animal box of miscellaneous gun parts.
I put on a heavy work glove, stuck the gun around the corner of the house, and pulled trigger. No big deal; it merely did the usual Bang! like it was supposed to.
I went to the benchrest. Bless Pat, the sights worked, and it was dead on at 100 yards! So, I patted myself on the back for one more instance of survival of my own folly.
IOW, I wouldn't worry about one of those new 1920 critters.
JesseL
Member
To veer further yet off topic, the word used in the verbalization of .30-06 is aught, rather than ought.
Don't forget the 0, 00, and 000 shot sizes.
Harve Curry said:
Don't forget the 0, 00, and 000 shot sizes.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
JesseL, you're correct, but years and years of usage have meant that either spelling is commonplace.
Dunno why the "n" got dropped from that word for zero.
"There ain't many troubles that a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six." -- Lindy Wisdom (Jeff Cooper's daughter)
Dunno why the "n" got dropped from that word for zero.
"There ain't many troubles that a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six." -- Lindy Wisdom (Jeff Cooper's daughter)
- Status
