M-92 vs. M-94 Winchesters

[Lone Star]

In the curent, "Shooting Times," Layne Simpson says that the early .30/30 was popular quickly in part because it recoiled less than a .44/40 and shot flatter.

I imagine that he's right, but it raised in my mind the issue of how much relative recoil a .44/40 M-92 would generate vs. the same style, carbine or short rifle, in .30/30.

Assuming the same style of buttplate (the crescent type hurts more than a flat "shotgun" butt)and the same weight range, maybe six or 6.5 pounds, what would be the recoil energy of each rifle or carbine?

Anyone know?

Thanks,

Lone Star

 

[thatguy]

I have 94s in 30-30 and 44 Mag and the 30 recoils more. Don't know why a 92 in 44-40 would recoil more than a 30 cal rifle. It is a tad lighter but the 30 cal should have more felt recoil. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

[20cows]

I think the popularity was due to the relative ballistic supriority of the .30-30 over any of the pistol cartridges the 92 was chambered for. I don't think relative recoil was really an issue.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It's difficult to imagine that recoil would be an issue in either a Model 92 in .44-40 or a Model 94 in .30-30. there might be people with medical conditions that make them especially sensitive to recoil, but I was shooting the .30-30 when I was knee high to a grasshopper and didn't consider that it "kicked."

 

[thatguy]

I am just responding to what Lone Star posted. Read his original post again. He says Simpson wrote the 44/40 recoiled more than a 30-30.

 

[Lone Star]

Yeah, the issue is what Simpson said, not whether I can handle the recoil of either.

He also said that the M-94 was cheaper than other lever-action Winchesters.
Was the action just cheaper to machine? Does anyone have access to a Winchester catalog of the era, 1895-1940, I guess?

I could ask Simpson, I guess, but he never replied to a letter on another issue sent a couple of years ago.

Lone Star

 

[Skofnung]

Was the action just cheaper to machine? Does anyone have access to a Winchester catalog of the era, 1895-1940, I guess?

I've an old reprint of a Sears & Roebuck catalog from 1902, and I've done some research using Motgomery Ward catalogs from 1895.

According to my 1902 catalog:

1892 Round Barrel 24" 6 3/4lbs 15 shot .44-40 = $11.55

1894 Octagon or Round barrel .30 Caliber Winchester Smokeless (.30-30) 26" 10 shot 7 3/4 lbs = $14.75

The same 1894 in .38-55 would set you back $11.55

Bear in mind that $.05 back then is roughly equals $1.00 back in 2002... Maybe coming off the gold standard wasn't such a good idea after all...

 

[Jim K]

I think that the money ratio from 1900 is more like 40::1. In that case, the $11.55 Model 94 would be $462, almost the exact MSRP today.

Some real quick calculations show that the .30-30 with a 150 grain bullet has about half again as much recoil as a .44-40 with a 200 grain bullet, given the same weight rifle. As to the .30-30 not kicking, I agree to a point, but suspect most folks have not fired one with the old thin rifle buttplate. IMHO, they kick! Maybe the actual recoil is mild, but that darned "perceived recoil" hurts.

Jim

 

[Gordon]

Another gun writer shooting from the hip! I have a 92 44-40 and an old 94 30-30 and I ASSURE you the 30-30 has more(but negligable) recoil. 200 grains at 1300 versus 170 grains at 2100 !!!! The guns weigh within a pound of each other.
My .44mag Browning B-92 DOES recoil a little more than my Wrangler II 30-30 if used with 300 grain hot loads!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I agree to a point, but suspect most folks have not fired one with the old thin rifle buttplate.

When I was a boy, I used to carry a .30-30 on the saddle all the time, and killed a lot of deer just hunting up missing cattle. Our foreman (who was about 12 years older than me) would borrow that rifle, and admired it. He finally found a .30-30 in a pawn shop -- an old 3/4 magazine model with the crescent buttplate. He and I shot that rifle quite a bit (he still kills deer with it, almost 50 years later.) I never found it uncomfortable to shoot.

 

[20cows]

My brother has a 94 cabine (20" bbl) with a thin "rifle" buttplate (not the crescent carbine plate, it's wider for a reason). His is in .38-55 and kicks like a mule with a 275 gr cast bullet at around 1700fps.

 

[Harve Curry]

The older cowpunchers (not cowboys they say) around here that grew up in the 1940's through the 1950's say that they had 44-40's, "the ones with the brass bottom", and couldn't use them because at that time 44-40 was against the Game & Fish reg's for hunting.
They couldn't wait to get rid of the old '73 Winchester 44-40 to get a pre '64 Win model '94 in 30-30. They could buy a 44-40 for $10-$20 but a Win 30-30 was $50.
I've seen some of the saddle worn 73's & 92's with the wood worn way way past the finish, to where they looked like a part of a weathered 2x4 board. Worn from going though brush and the leather scabbard wearing on the rest of it from trotting.
As for '92 vs. '94 Win. I don't see the comparison. Unless you are loading the 44-40 HOT, it don't kick. The 30-30 does kick.

 

[AH-1]

I have been shooting a 92 44-40/94 30-30 and 38-55 for years.while my shoulder isn't calibrated the 30-30 with 170 gr loads boot me more than the 44-40 with 200 gr loads,imho which is worthless as I am not a high rolling gun writer.
pete

 

[Onmilo]

I don't know about all that.
I do know several old timers that would keep a .32-20 or .25-20 Model 92 for small game and varmint shooting and a .30/30 Model 94 for shooting Deer and Bears.
.44/40s were never all that popular in my part of the country, even in the good old days.
Lots and lots of .32-20s around here, most of them very well used.
.25-20s were popular too but not so much as the .32
Winchester 76s and Marlin 1881s were the deer guns of old, .30-30s and .32 Specials were bought enmasse when they came out and replaced the old stuff quickly, .250-3000 Savage guns were, and are, popular around here still. The old rifles still stayed popular up north when Illinois switched to shotgun only season.