What the heck?

[The Trinity Kid]

Okay, I was just reading a firearms reference book, and it had a picture of Gary Cooper in the movie Dallas.  The caption says he's holding a Winchester '76, but the rifle in his hand has vertical lugs, and none of the side plates that the '73 and '76 have.  I looked closer and I'm certain it is a '92.  Haven't had the time nor energy to look up the movie yet, but can anyone tell me if I'm correct?

--TK

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

This is the usual database, but no luck;

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Category:Movie

[Blair]

TK,

My primary reason for not liking the Winchester M-'92's and '94's is that many are so miss used within the film industry.
Not to say they were bad or poorly made, only that they were miss used by the film industry.
Of course, they are, as a model type, very late within the time period.
My best,
Blair

[Advertising]

[The Trinity Kid]

I hate how they are so misused in the movies.  Of course, me pride and joy is my original 94 from 1928.  One of my other peeves is how they say "1860's, and I have my Colt Peacemaker and Winchester '73(actually a '92) and both are chambered in .45!"    Drives me nuts!

--TK

[The Elderly Kid]

The '92 was industry standard in film because it would fire the 5-in-one blanks that were also industry standard. The '73 would also fire those blanks, but they were already getting expensive in the early film days.  Lever action said "western" to audiences, so filmmakers didn't concern themselves with details. Really, It's only been since the 70s that filmmakers have made any real effort at authenticity when it comes to firearms. 

[The Trinity Kid]

But at least you'd think a reference book would get something that big right.  I can understand mistaking an '86 for a 71, or (slightly insulting, but understandable) a '92 for a '94.  But a '92 for a '76?  They are both lever action, and can have octagonal barrels, but in the picture, the vertical lugs are plainly visible, as is the hammer angle.  ALso there is a point of reference in that a Peacemaker (presumably 45 or 44-40, because of the 5-in-1 blanks) is being held to give a view of the top half.  Am I correct that the '92 is thinner than a 45, but that a '76 is nearly the same?  I'll try to find the picture on the internet, so's not to break a copyright law.

--TK

[PJ Hardtack]

All this talk about '92s and '94s caused me to haul out my pre-'64 30-30 and give it some TLC. I really ought to carry and shoot it more often. It has a Redfield receiver micro on it and hits rather well out to 100m - at least on steel. a target rifle it ain't but it t'waren't designed to be.
Sure carries well in the hand and has the right look for a deer rifle. When I was a kid, it was on my "I gotta have one" list and it's my second. I sold the first when I joined the Army. Somebody got a good rifle. I hope he enjoyed it as much as I did.

Can't think of much around here that it couldn't handle, Grizzlies excepted. But if it was what was in hand at the time, it would do .....

[The Trinity Kid]

I read somewhere that the 30-30 has taken every game animal on the face of the Earth, multiple times.  Somebody put up a statistic in an old book that the 30-30 (by the publish date of this book) had killed twice as many elephants in Africa as any other cartridge.   

I read another story in an old edition of Gun Digest (1977).
Apparently, some Joe Schmo decided he wanted to hunt grizzly bears up in Yukon Territory ( maybe Northwest territory, can't remember ) .  He was in the beginning of the hot-sauce bottle magnum era, but decided to prove that the 30-06 in a Springfield '03 was plenty for bears. 
    He got to the village up there where he was going to be staying, and was surprised to see everybody carrying a Winchester '94.  After some funny looks and explanations, he almost convinced them that his cartridge was superior to theirs.
     He went out hunting for three days before seeing something, and that was at 150 yards.  In order to prove that the 30-06 was better that the "little 30,"  He stepped from his sled, and went into a kneeling position.  After steadying his breathing, he triggered off a shot.  A tuft of hair puffed from the bears shoulder and it started to run.  Joe Schmo wasn't worried, and he calmly chambered another round. With the sights lined up, he hit the bear again, and again saw the hair puff.  Bear ran faster.  Schmo fired and hit the bear two more times, but still didn't drop.
    Puny American is frantically trying to pull icy-cold brass from his pockets and work them into the magazine, but he couldn't do it fast enough.  His native companion calmly pulls his rifle up to his shoulder and expertly adjusts the ladder sight.  A few seconds later and the gun popped.  The bear dropped dead at 310 yards.  upon later examination, all for 30-06 bullets had lodged in the opposite shoulder, hardly damaging the lungs in passing.  The 30-30 had gone through the back, between two ribs and destroyed the heart, and made large holes in both lungs.

Don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds cool.....

--TK

[Blair]

I think, and this is just my opinion, that when hunting large and/or big dangerous game, is to hit them hard (preferably) in a vital spot. This way they know they have been hurt!
Small caliber high velocity types of ammo will and do kill very large Game.
There is an old saying... "Sometimes you get the Bear and sometimes the bear gets you!"
The idea is to hit the bear (or big game) hard enough and with enough energy that he knows he has been hurt, and has nothing left in him to "get you".
My best to all and have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Blair

[The Trinity Kid]

Yup, pretty much sums it up.  Of course, we could get into a huge debate over ballistics, and all that, but.......

--TK

[PJ Hardtack]

I think you have the 30-30 and the .303 British rounds mixed up. That was said about the .303, as there is not a corner of the old British Empire where the .303 was not in abundance. Most of the game it killed was with FMJ bullets as the shooters knew where to place their hits.
The same is true of native and Inuit hunters who know game anatomy very well. The Hudson's Bay Company stocked a lot of 30-30 and .303 ammo in remote outposts. The northern Canadian Rangers carry the No. 4 Lee-Enfield to this day and there has been a lot of talk about replacing it with something more modern.
Nobody asked them what they want, so some bureaucrat in Ottawa will put it out for tender, followed by extensive testing and evaluation, resulting in an exorbitantly expensive rifle that will not be as effective.
It would be more cost effective to rebarrel the .303's to 7.62x51mm (.308) or buy the Ruger 'Scout' rifle in the same calibre. But that would be too simple ....

:)I read somewhere that the 30-30 has taken every game animal on the face of the Earth, multiple times.  Somebody put up a statistic in an old book that the 30-30 (by the publish date of this book) had killed twice as many elephants in Africa as any other cartridge.   
--TK

[The Trinity Kid]

I don't know.  This book was really old.  Pre-war, old.  And the 303 is very similar ballistically, the primary difference being that the 303 primarily uses spitzer and other pointed bullets, whereas the 30-30 uses primarily RNFP.  Correct?

I also think that both cartridges are very, VERY popular on both sides of the border. 

--TK

[PJ Hardtack]

TK - get thee a copy of "Cartridges of the World" (aka COTW) or a good reloading manual. Comparing the 30-30 to the .303 British ends after saying that they are both rimless cases.

The 30-30 uses .308 RN bullets whereas the .303 (.311/.312) evolved into a FMJ spitzer (military) from it's original RN 215 gr BP configuration, loaded with strands of Cordite. The .303 more closely resembles the US 30-40 Krag ballistically, except for bullet weight.

The .303 Savage was yet again different from the .303 British in that it uses .308 diameter bullets and is very similar to the 30-30 in size, shape and performance.

It gets rather bizarre after a while, trying to make sense out of some calibre designations. That's where reference books become essential.

[The Trinity Kid]

That being said, don't get a copy of the book America's Premier Gunmakers, which was the original point of this thread anywho.....

--TK

[PJ Hardtack]

Sorry, I thought you'd appreciate the clarification.

I have several reference books where the description of some guns is erroneous, usually printed in some third world country. The photography is excellent, but the technical descriptions lack.

That's why it pays to have several sources to compare. It also serves to prove that just because you saw it in print (or on the net) it isn't necessarily so. It's a 'coming of age' epiphany when this dawns on an individual for the first time.