Tell me about the Winchester 94, please?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, I enjoy Cosmoline's posts.

I've got a 94 in .44 Mag w/ 20" barrel and it's been one of my favorites since I bought it new around '01. It came w/ one of the ridiculous crossbolt safeties, but as mentioned above that was easily done away with, thanks to simple instructions on some cranky old guy's website. I replaced the dovetailed rear sight w/ a receiver-mounted peep and can actually kind of hit with the thing.

Beyond 150 yards or so the .44 starts dropping like a softball, but up to that point it's packing slightly better than 30-30 ballistics with a nearly 50% greater bullet diameter. Mag capacity is 10 Magnums or 11 Specials, and with a little practice you can get pretty quick at the follow-up shots. If they ever manage to do an end run around Heller and ban semi-autos, you can expect to see a sudden resurgence in appreciation for lever-actions.

Since I started reloading for .45 Colt, I'd love to pick up a Puma 92 in that caliber. That's an even lighter and handier little rifle, from what I've seen of it, and I'm continually surprised they're so little known and hard to find in America. I was amazed at how small the 20" 92 felt-- very compact.

To the original poster: you didn't say where you'll be in the US, but if you're anywhere near the San Francisco Bay Area I'd be glad to take you shooting. If not, you can probably still find some members of this board who'd be glad to meet up with you in just about any state. Good luck.
 
Class action or change of owner ship ends liability of the m 94

1982 was the date when USRAC bought out the firearm making part of Winchester. When a company changes hands, the new owner is not libel for injuries/problems of the previous owner. Example> http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/052606.CFD.Collins.pdf See page 8 "exceptions apply." Another process is the "Class action Lawsuit" such as Remington used on the barrels.
Remington even took the novel approach of agreeing to class certification so that it could settle over nine million claims of defective shotgun barrels that had the potential to explode in the process significantly diminishing its attendant liability exposure.
Click to expand...
Yes, i remember this one also. Link to it> http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/articles16.asp its abut 3/4 down the page. As you can see there are ways for a company to no longer be libel.
 
Last edited:
When a company changes hands, the new owner is not libel for injuries/problems of the previous owner
Click to expand...

I wish! The doctrine of successor liability is actually a good deal more complex than that. You cannot escape liability by simply reorganzing or selling corporate assets.

As far as settling with a class, that only applies to the class and only to the particular problem at issue. I'm not aware of any such mandatory class being created or settled for pre-crossbolt Win 94's.
 
Never had a 94 in .30-.30, but I have two 9422's without rebounding hammer or crossbolt safety. As I see it, the only potential for AD/ND is when manually lowering the hammer from full-cock to half-cock. (In other words, when returning the rifle to safe condition from ready-to-fire condition.) As long as you make sure the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction when performing this operation, there really is no problem.

Just get a good grip on the hammer with your thumb. Depress the trigger to release the hammer from full-cock, and let the hammer drop forward, maintaining a firm grip with your thumb to control the hammer's motion. Let go of the trigger as soon as the hammer has passed forward of the full-cock position. The hammer will then lock in place when it reaches the half-cock position. New owners of older 94's should practice this with the unloaded rifle until they are comfortable with the procedure. Sure, anyone can slip, but as long as the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction, a slip will not be catastrophic.

No matter what kind of safety devices are put on rifles, there is always a point at which the rifle can potentially fire. At that point, the safety between the user's ears is the only one that matters. I always wondered why the lawyers were so hot on mechanical safeties on the bigger 94's and never bothered with the 9422, which were made with only the half-cock safety right up until they were discontinued in 2005.
 
Hanging With the Old Timers at the Gun Club today

When i brought up the subject of the "Most Dangerous Gun Ever" . Ranging in age from 63 to 84 they gave there accounts of hunting with the M94 pre-64 30WCF (30-30). Of the 8 guys, 1 personally had an accidental discharge as a young hunter, cold hands was the reason given. The other 2 were in different hunting parties at the time of there seperate accidental discharge events. Luckly, no one was shot. They all agreed that a model 94 with no safety should never be given to a new hunter.
 
Any rifle is unsafe if the user is careless. An extra external safety does nothing to fix that, since it can simply be left off. Would you want a safety on double action revolvers as well? Your finger can slip on those hammers, after all? What about single actions? Should we have crossbolt safety for those? This sounds like a lot of hogwash intended to sell new rifles.
 
The cross bolt safety was the worst decision ever made by a major firearm manufacturer. Took the beautiful, nostalgic lines of the 1894 rifle and punched an ugly hole right in it's side. Remembering the first one I saw, staring in disbelief, mumbling to myself " why? oh why, would they do that?" There must not have been a sole left at the corporate level who gave a rats--- about the history of Winchester, so sad.
 
If safety were an issue, there would have been a recall such
as Win. 100 firing pins, Rugers addition of a transfer bar,
and many such other safety recall. Own two pre 64s and a
70s one. The post 64 metal finish on the receivers is
terrible and must have been a metal materials change and
the blue is not as durable like the pre 64 or the later angle
eject. Also the post metal fit in comparison is rattlely in
their actions. Most likey operate and shoot good as the
bettter of the two:D
 
experience has shown me that, as a 10 y.o. boy and given that massive SRC of my dad's and told to hit that can at the fence post, that not too many rifles could be as reliable OR safe.

This was a pre-lawyer rifle, BTW. And that was more years ago than I like to think about, to be sure. :)

But my dad took me to the side and explained to me the ins and outs of how to use that rifle safely.


Now I am NOT trying to discredit 243winxb's statements. However, I DO feel that if everyone received the same kind of dedicated, BASIC, instruction that myself and many other received, then foul accouterments like cross-bolt safeties and tang safeties would be unnecessary. Of course, you could just give everyone a common-sense test...but then that would be a whole 'nother can of worms to open. :)

BACK to the OP...

the only negative thing about the Model 94 is cleaning it. Be sure to have lots of Q-tips on hand like I do as I prefer not to disassemble the old girl after a day of shooting.

story time...

I had 100 rounds of 180 gr. LFN using 3031 powder...mild loads, probably around 1500 fps as I hadn't chrony'd them...went to Crockett with the brother in-law and his kids to go shoot up some tannerite and scare the trees. I shot one magazine tubes worth out of that rifle. The rest of that 100 rounds of ammo went downrange via his oldest boy. He owns a Marlin 336 he got from his dad chambered in 30 WCF. He now knows why I prefer a M-94 over that 336. DON'T get me wrong...I think a 336 is a great rifle...but there IS only one Model 94. He, much like me, thought that it was just easier to handle, aim, shoot, and get a follow-on shot with a 94.

Put it this way...when I finally have a child and he/she is ready to go learn to shoot they will see me loading the 22 and the 94 in the truck. :)
 
I just did a complete teardown and cleaning of my recently obtained 1942 barrel date Win 94. It's a real piece of art inside as well as out. The fit of the old gun is superior to any of the 94's from the past few decades. I remember the first time I stripped one of these I got into serious trouble by not doing it in the right order. There are on-line instructions now that make it easy. As long as you go in sequence, then reverse the sequence, you're fine.
 
Having taught firearms safety for some years in GA(I live in TN now),I am an advocate of the cross bolt safety.These are young hunters mainly. Even if the hunter is experienced in handling the 94 (which I feel is the greatest rifle ever made),one more edge of safety is good. Bolt action rifles have a cross bolt safety (Remington 700). It is not advisable to walk around with that safety off.It is identical in concept to the 94 cross bolt safety. Anything that can be done to prevent accidental discharge and save a life is worthy.
Byron
 
There's already an external safety on the Win 94--the half cock hammer. Bolt actions need a different safety because they have no external hammer. One more "edge of safety" is not what you get with a crossbolt. What you get is one more thing to screw up and forget. It also gives a false sense of confidence. If you're worried about slipping on the hammer, simply cycle the round out. Speaking as a lawyer, I can tell you these devices emerged from COURTROOMS as a LEGAL TACTIC. They did not emerge from any real world safety issues. If you are careless and reckless, you can shoot yourself or another with a Win 94 whether it has the crossbolt or not. The difference is they lawyers will have a much easier time defending against a claim if there was a crossbolt, because they can just ask why you didn't engage it.

Links to disassembly instructions:

post-64:

http://www.castbullet.com/misc/tdown.htm

Pre-64:

http://www.nrapublications.org/TAR/Winchester94.asp

Post and pre are similar but some slight variations in screw type plus a major difference in the mainspring.
 
My point was not to make a legal issue but simply to save a life. I understand the ways of suits,juries and lawyers. If the life is saved,then there is no need to go to court. Fatal gunshot victims are never forgotten by the one who did the accidental shooting. This will haunt the shooter.My comments are simple to use every method possible to prevent an accidental discharge. If a shot attempted in hunting is blocked due to the cross bolt safety,then there will be other hunts. Byron
 
Cosmoline--your description of the .30-30 is exactly my thoughts.
In regards to the orginal question, AFTER 1964 Winchester changed the manufacting to include more stamped parts.
The new, sorry there are no new ones, shoot as good, but lack the 'quality' feel of one like Cosmoline has.
 
I believe so. I've had a 94 that was early 80's and one that was late 60's. The one from the 60's had a weird glossy receiver that didn't seem like normal steel. The later one was standard blued steel as far as I could tell. I've heard that some of the innards remained MIM though.

Over on the old Paco Kelly Leverguns forum someone posted a chart that tracked all the changes to the 94 over the decades. I wish I had copied it down but now that forum has moved. They'd know over there at any rate.
 
"...don't know what to make of this..." Quite possibly a BP cartridge rifle. Uberti makes several models made to shoot BP cartridges only.
A .30-30 lever action isn't a 'cowboy' rifle. The 'Wild West' was gone by the time it came along.
 
A sure fire way to know if it's a pre-64 or a post-64 is the ecjection if it's angel ejection it should on the barrel "Model 94AE"which is post-64 and if it's pre-64 you will be able to tell 'cause when you eject the shell it'll come straight out the top hope this helps
 
The angle eject is both post 64 and post USRAC purchase. But there are a bunch of them from 64 to the 80's that had no angle eject. So all angle ejects are post 64 but not all post 64 are angle ejects. Same with the external safety versions.
 
Winchester Model 1894s between 1964 and 1968 used a sheet metal cartridge lifter. The ones made before 1964 and since 1968 use a cartridge carrier made of machined steel which is a more rugged and quality manufacture.

1894s made before 1964 all showed a lot of hand fitting and polishing and are just fitted and finished smoother than any of those made after 1964. But finding a sheet metal part in the 1964-1968 Thurty-Thurty was just disillusioning. Had something to do with Winchester being bought out by Olin and Olin cutting costs by sacrificing quality.

I grew up on lever actions with the half-cock safety only and find the additional buttons or switches distracting and annoying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SG1
  • Locked
Looking for info on a Winchester 94
Replies
9
Views
678
Norseland
N
R
  • Locked
Please recommend a Winchester 94 'smith?
Replies
3
Views
475
Chuckulator
C
S
  • Locked
Winchester 94 value/desirability
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Iggy
Iggy
R
  • Locked
Winchester 94 and backing out primers
Replies
8
Views
720
Cosmoline
C
mgmorden
  • Locked
Winchester 94 vs Marlin 336 Price Discrepancy
2
Replies
44
Views
9K
Newtosavage
N
Back
Top