30 WCF

[stressrelief]

I have an older Savage 99 that gives 30 WCF as the Caliber printed on the barrel. Please enlighten me on this caliber.

[Mk VII]

.30-30

[jmr40]

That is the original name for 30-30. Same cartridge, different name. Apparently when some manufacturers started making rifles in 30 WCF they didn't like to put another companies name on their rifles. So they started calling it 30-30. The latter name became more common.

[OzeanJaeger]

.30 WCF is actually the original (correct) name. Sort of like .45 ACP...

[stressrelief]

Thanks again gentlemen. You always come through for me.

[NWPilgrim]

My grandad's Winchester 1894 from 1916 is also marked .30WCF. That was tge original designation for the cartridge we call .30-30.

[gb_in_ga]

Hmmm, was it Marlin who didn't want to put .30 WCF on their rifles, or Remington who didn't want to put .30 WCF on their ammo? I can't remember. But anyway, it is the original name for what we now call .30-30.

[Pathfinder45]

The original name is 30 Winchester Center-Fire. It's one of most under-rated cartridges of our time. In its early days it was revolutionary. With today's propellants it is even better than ever. It's one of the truly great cartridges in spite of what anyone says to the contrary.

[3Crows]

The 30-30 or 30WCF, if you must, is among the greatest all around, general purpose hunting cartridges ever developed. 3C

[Scorch]

It's one of most under-rated cartridges of our time. In its early days it was revolutionary.

Although I will agree that it is a great cartridge and vastly underrated, the 30 WCF was hardly "revolutionary" at the time of its introduction in 1895. It was a slightly modified copy of the 303 Savage both in performance and appearances. But it did introduce the American shooting public to smokeless powder, and helped to obsolete a whole bevy of cartridges and rifles virtually overnight. Suddenly 2,300 fps was the new ne plus ultra.

If you want revolutionary, in 1886, the 8mm Lebel was introduced to the world, the first smokeless military cartridge. In design and performance, it was much like the 30 WCF, not quite free of its black powder roots yet with its heavy rim and generous case body taper. A few years later, the 8X57mm was introduced, possibly one of the first truly modern cartridges both in design and performance (although it would later get even better). A flurry of rimless, smokeless cartridges followed during the next few years, including the 7.65X53 Belgian (aka Argentine), the 7X57, the 6.5X55 Swede, the 6.5X54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5X50 Japanese service round, and the list goes on. And eventually, the 30 Gov't of 1903. Munitions designers around the world were struggling with case design and rifle design and metallurgy.

And in 1894, the US Army adopted the 30 Army (aka 30-40 Krag-Jorgensen, even its name uses the earlier BP nomenclature), a modest step forward in design and performance at that time.

[Mike Irwin]

"Hmmm, was it Marlin who didn't want to put .30 WCF on their rifles, or Remington who didn't want to put .30 WCF on their ammo?"

Remington originally marked .30-30 Remington on their Model 8 rifles to designate the cartridge as the rimless .30 Remington.

However, that caused a lot of confusion, so the marking was later changed to .30 Remington.

The Model 8 was originally introduced as the Remington Autoloading Rifle in 1906, and designated the Model 8 in 1908.

It does appear that Marlin was the first company to adopt the .30-30 marking when it chambered the round in their 1893 lever action.



"Although I will agree that it is a great cartridge and vastly underrated, the 30 WCF was hardly "revolutionary" at the time of its introduction in 1895. It was a slightly modified copy of the 303 Savage both in performance and appearances."

I sincerely doubt that and I know of nothing in the historic record that supports that contention.

The two rounds were being developed at the same time. Winchester and Savage were competitors, and were working with different ammunition companies, so it's highly unlikely that either really knew of the other's work except in the most general terms.

Winchester began development of the .30-30 as early as 1891 in conjunction with Browning's initial designs for a rifle strong enough to take advantage of the new smokeless powders.

The first step in that process was the Model 1892, which led directly to the Model 1894.

Savage was also working on designing his lever action at the same time, with original prototypes in 1892 being chambered for the .44-40 cartridge.

Both firms knew of the .30-40 Krag cartridge, of course, which was adopted as the military standard in 1892.

In fact, the .303 Savage is closer dimensionally to the .30-40 Krag cartridge in certain aspects than it is the .30-30, while the .30-30 Winchester is dimensionally far closer to its two parent cartridges, the .38-55 and the .32-40.

Remember, too, that the .30-30 was originally intended to be a flagship cartridge for the Model 1894 on its introduction but difficulties in working with the new nickel steel required for the smokeless powder, as well as difficulties in obtaining sufficient quantities of smokeless powder to manufacture ammunition, pushed its introduction back by over a year and into 1895.

Savage also introduced the .303 cartridge in 1895 with the first production Savage lever action, which would later become the Model 1899.


Given the time lines, the lack of any documentation that would support Winchester copying the .303 Savage cartridge, and the increasingly rapid pace of cartridge development that was kicking off to take advantage of the new powder, I have absolutely no doubt that what happened is that the two companies arrived at similar designs based on parallel development.

[jmr40]

I certainly wouldn't call the 30-30, or 30 WCF revolutionary nor under rated. If anything it was a huge step backwards in cartridge development and is over rated.

Both the 6.5X55 and 7X57 predate the 30-30 by several years and are vastly superior rounds with similar recoil levels. Had it not been for the proliferation of "cowboy" movies from the 1920's through the 1970's both the 30-30 and lever action rifles would have died out after WW-1 and be a footnote in history books today.

[Mike Irwin]

" If anything it was a huge step backwards in cartridge development and is over rated."

You've really got to explain that.

In the commercial arena, which Winchester was addressing, it was a monumental leap forward in that it was one of the first two cartridges to introduce American shooters to smokeless powder in rifle rounds.

The .30-40 Krag, the 6.5x55, the 7mm Mauser, and the 8mm Mauser were all military rounds and were not available commercially for some years after their introductions.

The 7mm Mauser didn't enter the conversation in the United States until Francis Bannerman began selling Spanish-American War surplus in the early 1900s, and the 8mm Mauser didn't enter the conversation until after World War I for much the same reason.

The first commercially available .30-40 rifle in the United States apparently was the Winchester High Wall, in 1896 or 1897, a full 5 years after its adoption by the military.

[Jim Watson]

The first step in that process was the Model 1892, which led directly to the Model 1894.

You gotta 'splain that.
While the 1892 was certainly strong enough for smokeless, so much so that there were heavy factory loads labeled for the gun, I doubt there was any smokeless ammo when it first came out. And the 1894 had no mechanical relationship. It strikes me as kind of a kluge, although an ingenious kluge with the hinged floorplate, to get .38-55 length cartridges in a lighter gun than the 1886.

[COSteve]

Boy, has this thread gone sideways!!

1st of all, you guys need to understand a few things not discussed. I'm guessing that none of you are patent attorneys or gun marketing types or firearms history experts. I'm not either, however, I am an expert on patent rights so I'll start there.

The Winchester 30 WCF is the trademarked name of Winchester's design for what we call the 30-30. As such, if they didn't give anyone the specific rights to use the trademark, no one else could use it on their rifles or their ammo.

Also, as Marlin, Remington, Colt, etc. were in competition with Winchester back then, they didn't want to stamp the name Winchester or the initials WCF on their barrels and certainly didn't want the name Winchester or WCF on their boxes of ammo.

So, a generic designation for the 30 WCF was decided upon by the other makers. As the 30 WCF used smokeless powder, it wasn't directly appropriate to use the cal-grn of black powder approach, however, as marketing types, they knew that their customers understood a caliber and power in those terms so they decided to use the equivalent. Hence, the 30-30 designation was decided upon and used on their products.

Winchester finally stopped using the 30 WCF designation in the 20's (I believe) as most customers now understood the 30-30 caliber and the 30 WCF designation now seemed antiquated. Again, a marketing decision, not a technical one.

As to the argument about the term 'revolutionary' with respect to the 30 WCF, it short it was as it was the first US caliber produced specifically for smokeless powders. While it's true that calibers like came before it, they all were black powder based, including the 303 Savage.

As to the statement about the '92 leading to the '94, that is true. The '94 evolved from the '92's design directly as a larger action to accommodate the 30 WCF's size, however, the '92 was an evolution of the '86, a completely new design from the '73 to handle the increased power and larger size of the 45-70 class cartridges, but in a smaller, pistol size set of calibers with the 44-40 being the largest.

Finally, arguing about stuff you don't understand is pointless and generally makes you look stupid. I try very hard not to and I'd suggest that some of you consider it in the future.

[Mike Irwin]

"1st of all, you guys need to understand a few things not discussed. I'm guessing that none of you are patent attorneys or gun marketing types or firearms history experts."

You really haven't been around here for very long, or at least paying attention, I'd say.

All of what you say has been discussed, in depth and detail, in many threads at TFL over nearly 20 years.

Just because it doesn't show up in this thread and that you've not been around to see it doesn't mean that it isn't know and hasn't been discussed.

So chill out, drop the snark, sit back, and maybe you'll learn something.

[Jim Watson]

As to the argument about the term 'revolutionary' with respect to the 30 WCF, it short it was as it was the first US caliber produced specifically for smokeless powders. While it's true that calibers like came before it, they all were black powder based, including the 303 Savage.

As to the statement about the '92 leading to the '94, that is true. The '94 evolved from the '92's design directly as a larger action to accommodate the 30 WCF's size, however, the '92 was an evolution of the '86,

As above, the .30 WCF was the first US SPORTING caliber produced specifically for smokeless powder. The Krag Jorgensen had been speced out by 1892 although it was a good while before it was actually on issue.

I have never heard the .303 Savage mentioned as a black powder development. (I have seen claims that the .30-30 and even .30-40 started in black, but figure that is just a misunderstanding of the nomenclature carryover.) It came out the same year as the Winchester and was offered as a military rifle but the bolt action had that job sewed up by then.

Unlike the obvious 1886-1892 heritage, I still can't see any evolutionary linkage between an 1892 and an 1894. Is that kind of like the 93% DNA match, chimpanzee to human?

[Mike Irwin]

"ou gotta 'splain that.
While the 1892 was certainly strong enough for smokeless, so much so that there were heavy factory loads labeled for the gun, I doubt there was any smokeless ammo when it first came out. And the 1894 had no mechanical relationship. It strikes me as kind of a kluge, although an ingenious kluge with the hinged floorplate, to get .38-55 length cartridges in a lighter gun than the 1886."

When Winchester contracted with Browning for development of the Models 1892 and 1894, they did so with one thing in mind -- to make designs that were capable of employing the newly developing technology of smokeless powder.

No, there wasn't commercial smokeless ammunition available when the 1892 was introduced that was a few years down the road, just as there wasn't when the 1894 was introduced.

What Winchester was doing, however, was betting on the future of smokeless powder technology being a success, and the wanted to have designs that were ready for it by guns that were stronger, more durable, more reliable, and more robust than the earlier designs like the 1873 and the 1876. They were fine for black powder pressures, but they would never hold up to the potential offered by smokeless powder.

Starting in the late 1880s, when the first suitable smokeless powders for use in cartridge firearms (as opposed to shotshells) started appearing in Europe Winchester began investing the equivalent of millions of dollars in research and development, not only in rifles and shotguns but also in the development of cartridges specifically designed for the new powders.

[Jim Watson]

I get all that, what I was questioning was the idea that the 94 was any way related to the 86/92 design.

Wasn't it great when the gun companies were run by "gun people" with an interest in making money by improving the product instead of cutting corners.

[Mike Irwin]

"While it's true that calibers like came before it, they all were black powder based, including the 303 Savage."

Uhm... no.

Savage and UMC designed the .303 Savage to use smokeless powder because the intent was for it to be a potential military cartridge.

There are some indications that Savage and UMC used an early version of what would later become known as Hercules W.A. 30, a powder developed specifically for cartridges in the .30-40 Krag class.

Commercially, however, the .303 was offered in black powder loadings for those who didn't trust the new technology (preceding the .32 Winchester Special by 7 or so years).

Per Doug Murray, in his book "The Ninety-Nine, A History of the Savage"

"In 1895 the first Savage brand cartridges were made by the UMC Comapny. AT that time, only the .303 Savage was being manufactured, in both smokeless and black powder loadings..."

You may be thinking of the .303 British, which as originally developed, used a compressed pellet of black powder until the early problems with Cordite were ironed out.

[Mike Irwin]

"Winchester began development of the .30-30 as early as 1891 in conjunction with Browning's initial designs for a rifle strong enough to take advantage of the new smokeless powders.

The first step in that process was the Model 1892, which led directly to the Model 1894."

You're reading too much in to these paragraphs.

I never claimed, or meant, and the two rifles were mechanically related. In fact, I have virtually no concept of how the 1892's action works, and not much more about the 1894's.

What my statements mean is that Winchester was embarking on a conscious decision to procure and manufacture new designs that were capable of fully harness the power of the new propellant.

NOT that the designs are a linear progression.

[Jim Watson]

I have an 1892 and the little sucker is right complicated. I have looked at the 1894 and think it is worse.
Mr Browning was a great designer but I don't think he had any thought of the user being able to disassemble and reassemble his (commercial) guns. We frequently read about how hard it is to get a Pocket Hammerless back together. My neighbor the gunsmith got in more cigar box A5s than any other design.

[Pathfinder45]

Contrary to what COSteve posted, in the original post, Stressrelief, has an older Savage 99 marked, "30 WCF". Winchester also continued to mark their model 94 barrels, "30 W.C.F.", at least until WWII. I am looking at one right now, #129XXXX, one of the so-called, "war-time", cabines with exactly that marking.
I mentioned that the cartridge was revolutionary. Of course there were other developments that preceded it by several years, but most of that happened in the Old World. In our modern world of jet-propulsion and electronic information, it's easy to forget how great a gulf there was between Europe and the Americas back then. Back then, people only dreamed of flying, and the difference between different grades of gunpowder was measured by the number of f's that preceded the G. Smokeless powder was futuristic, science-fiction-becoming-reality. In that context, the advent of the 30 W.C.F. was truly revolutionary in America.

[Jim Watson]

I think the introductory load was a 165 gr bullet at 1950 fps.
Powders were improving fast.

[ThomasT]

Hmmm, was it Marlin who didn't want to put .30 WCF on their rifles, or Remington who didn't want to put .30 WCF on their ammo? I can't remember. But anyway, it is the original name for what we now call .30-30.

I believe it was UMC who first used the 30-30 moniker on their version of the 30 WCF.

I have an 1892 and the little sucker is right complicated. I have looked at the 1894 and think it is worse.
Mr Browning was a great designer but I don't think he had any thought of the user being able to disassemble and reassemble his (commercial) guns

I never thought the 92, 94 or the Remington nylon 66 was hard to take apart or put back together. Even the first Ruger 22 standard model only took a few seconds of looking to figure out how to take apart. I admit putting it back together puzzled me until I understood how the plunger on the hammer was supposed to go in to the backstrap where the main spring is.

They are great youtube videos that show how to take these guns apart. My vote for the hardest was the model 94.