Suppose you were going to war...

[Bobson]

This isn't a SHTF, Zombie-Apocalypse, or TEOTWAWKI thread. Just a simple question.

Suppose you were put into a combat situation outside your control. You may very well be required to go on the offensive. You don't have a semi-automatic rifle, or the means to acquire one. Maybe you can pick one up from a fallen foe, but until then, you have limited options. All of those options are listed below (and in the poll). Ammo availability is virtually identical, whatever you choose. However, you do have to carry ammo for whatever rifle you select.

So which rifle do you grab? Consider the following factors:

1. Weight of 100 rounds of ammo.
2. Space 100 rounds of ammo will take.
3. You don't know the range of the enemy, or how he is equipped.
4. You may be fighting in an urban environment, in a forest, or in wide open spaces.
5. You will be on foot, and your comrades are as numerous as your enemies.

Options:

- Winchester 70 chambered in .270 Win. Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. No irons.
- Winchester 94 in .30-30 Win. No optic; iron sights only.

Which is it, and why?

 

[hipoint]

given the choice... I'd take the 94 any day. I hate owning guns now that don't have iron sights on them, much less in a "battle" sense. One good knock and a scope is toast, then the rifle is pretty much a bad stick. Even with my hunting rifles, I'll take a non scoped iron sight gun over a scoped non-sight gun any day of the week. Lost a deer once due to a knock on the scope and that won't happen again!

 

[Bobson]

That's something I hadn't even considered, but its a critical factor. Thank you for the valuable input.

 

[1911 guy]

Same reason. Having been on a few two-way ranges, I can say that rifles get handled pretty doggone hard. I'd rather take a small step back in the range and hitting ability than risk having zero range and hitting ability.

Now if the .270 had irons and I could remove the damaged scope with either a tool or a solid whack on some nearby object, I'd probably reconsider. But not by much. Inside 300 or 400 yards, rate of fire can be (almost) as important as pinpoint fire. After all, the average grunt is a far cry from a sniper.

I would consider a drop table plastered to the stock of my "94 a necessity, though.

 

[Bobson]

I've never used a lever rifle. Are they really that much faster than bolt rifles? Doesn't take long to throw a bolt...

 

[1911 guy]

Oh yeah. A lot faster. Working a bolt requires completely breaking your firing hand grip and disturbing cheek weld. Throwing a lever action, you merely push the firing hand downward and straight back up, the only thing disturbed is the thumb if you curl it over the stock. The trigger finger even remains inside the guard. Sight alignment is minimally disturbed.

Watch some of the Cowboy Action shooters, the old "Rifleman" show wasn't far off. Probably the only thing that might come close is the cock on closing Enfield.

 

[hipoint]

it isn't really the time as much as with a lever gun it is much easier to maintain a sight picture while cycling a round, as well as when the lever is brought back to position your finger is right at the trigger again...

now that said, one of my shooting buddies is a veteran and he gets low cost "sniper" training at the local base where he lives at (don't know the name of the base, he's in east/central alabama. He has recently been taught to operate a bolt gun differently, by using his middle finger as the trigger finger to make trigger pull easier as well as making it more "ergonomic" to cycle the bolt and be back on the trigger again quickly... it's a little awkward but he said it doesn't take long to get used to... he recently sent me a 5 shot group at 500 yards that you could almost cover with a coke can, so maybe there's something to it...

 

[DirtyDiesel]

With my Winchester 94 30-30 I can move that lever way faster then my bolt actions. Also holds twice the rounds in it

 

[hipoint]

didn't think about that diesel!!! the capacity of rounds in the tube... good call!

 

[Tennessee_Ted]

+1 for the 94. A lever is faster (at least to me), and you have the ability to top off the magazine without having to open the action and eject a round.

 

[rcmodel]

This isn't a SHTF, Zombie-Apocalypse, or TEOTWAWKI thread.

Maybe not.
But it sure as heck sounds like it's bordering on one!

BTW: I voted 30-30 Win 94.
It got fighting men who lived on foot, and horses, on both side of the law, through most of the late 19th, and early 20th century.

The Winchester lever-guns were the equivalent of todays Black Rifles back then.

Lever-guns don't ever run clear out of ammo in the magazine, as long as you still have some in your pocket, and a few seconds between shots to stuff another one or three in!

rc

 

[JEB]

i would almost always opt for a scoped bolt gun but with the possibility of urban (close quarters) engagements, a 3-9 scope could be a death sentence. the irons are more reliable (tougher) and the '94 holds more ammo with the ability to easily top off the magazine during lulls in the shooting. i would also much rather have to learn the bullet drop at longer ranges than have to deal with a powerful scope at bad breath distance.

Are they really that much faster than bolt rifles? Doesn't take long to throw a bolt...

some bolt guns are pretty fast, yes....but a leaver is even faster

 

[Bobson]

I like your style, rc. =p

Now to the serious question, for any of you with firsthand experience. Is the Win 94 worth the extra cost, compared to competitors? They sure are a bit pricier than other lever rifles. I wont even want to consider a Remlin, and the Henry Golden Boy is only made in handgun calibers. I know there's Rossi, but eh... Winchester made a fan out of me. I just never handled a lever rifle before, and its not like we're talking an extra hundred dollars.

ETA: And what of the pre-64 thing? I know their current bolt rifles are top notch. Are their lever rifles up there too? Or have they taken a plunge in any way, shape, or form?

 

[rcmodel]

I've never used a lever rifle. Are they really that much faster than bolt rifles? Doesn't take long to throw a bolt...

It does if you want to throw it 5 times, then stop and reload to throw it two more times.
And then keep throwing it every few seconds until you run clear out of ammo

A 94 Win carbine holds 6-1 rounds, and can be topped off while you are waiting for somebody or something to peek around the corner again.

With the hammer cocked on a live round & staring down the sights all the time.

rc

 

[rcmodel]

Is the Win 94 worth the extra cost, compared to competitors?

If you want to scope it no.
Marlin is the only good game in town for that.

But you can still buy a pretty nice old Pre-64 94 Winchester for around what a new Remlin costs.

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/11247...e-64)-mod-94-30-w.c.f.-carbine--3f-serial-num

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/11341...inchester-(pre-64)-winchester-94-30-30-pre-64

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/11374...r-action-rifle/winchester-winchester-model-94

If your eyes are young and still work good?
An iron sighted pre-64 94 is the way to go.

rc

 

[Tennessee_Ted]

My dad has a 94, and it's the only .30-30 I have experience with. I love the action on it—it's super smooth. That said, it's open on top, which limits your optics choices, if you are so inclined. I do have a Marlin .45-70, the action on which is very similar to the Marlin 336. It doesn't feel quite as smooth as the Winchester, but it does feel more solid, without that open top.

 

[lefteyedom]

A 270 with a scope and a back up set of iron sight (like the M24 had) would be the better of the two. The ability to engage a target out to 800 meters more than makes up for the 94 Winchester rate of fire.

The Winchester 94 while a great deer rifle, fails well short of the capabilities of other lever action, such as the Browning BLR, Savage 99, ect.

Of course a Uranium PU-36 Illudium radioactive space modulator would be the ideal weapon

 

[Auto426]

It sounds to me like you are searching for a new light, handy rifle, and prefer a bolt action. Have you looked at Ruger's Gunsite Scout Rifle?

 

[sixgunner455]

Without irons, it's hard to accept the bolt action as being a good idea. However, guys have carried them that way in combat. Irons can be added, though, and it does give you precision at range.

The lever action would seem to be the better choice for the way most rifle engagements actually take place - shorter, faster action, larger magazine, top off while in shooting condition, etc.

 

[sixgunner455]

Without irons, it's hard to accept the bolt action as being a good idea. However, guys have carried them that way in combat. Irons can be added, though, and it does give you precision at range.

The lever action would seem to be the better choice for the way most rifle engagements actually take place - shorter, faster action, larger magazine, top off while in shooting condition, etc.

 

[JShirley]

SHTF thread.