Leave it in its original military condition and if you shoot it, use light loads.
Until you read about the history of metallurgy, you just don't know how little they knew in the 1890's. By the time you get into the 30's metals were well defined and understood.
Double and single heat treat Springfields were made from steels that today are used as rebar. As mentioned in another thread, WWI era M1911's were not even heat treated!
Your rifle was made in 1895 or there abouts. No matter how precise the metal work, beautiful the bluing, the metallurgy on that rifle is 1895. Without writing a history on metal development, let me say airplanes were 7 years in the future, the discovery of stainless steels about 20 years, in the mid 1890’s “nickel steel” was considered rocket science. I heard shock impact testing was not accepted until the 1910’s. The process controls and the quality of the steel in these rifles is too iffy to put my face behind it for an extended period of time.
A gun bud that I used to work told me of his experience with a M1895. He was given an 1895 Mauser to shoot. Do not remember if it was customized or stock, but he would not shoot a rusty dangerous thing. I do remember him showing me how he stuck his pinky in the chamber to see if there were any obstructions. He was real careful about risking his face, so I suspect the ammo was factory not reloads. On the first shot the receiver ring took off to parts unknown. The gist of it was the rifle looked fine, no corrosion, ammo was fine, the bore and chamber were not obstructed, and yet the receiver shattered. No injury to the shooter. If that metal had gone into his head we would not have been talking about it.
These things are old. There is just not a lot of margin if something goes wrong in early guns.
If you want a hunting rifle, get a nice, new, modern action. It will be far safer.
This article has an article on a lever action failing through metal fatigue.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/taylor/blowups.htm
