Why did the 1894 happen and NOT a 1892/1886 Mid Size

[348win]

I cant recall reading if the 1894 design came along to streamline production, cut costs on amount of pieces/labor, if it was a packaging issue of keeping the longer 30-30 a "short stroke lever" versus a Marlin.......

I got wonder why the 30-30 mid sized action was never developed. I know John Browning had a lot of designs and ideas going in a short amount of time, and I commend his skills, efforts, successes and am blessed to be able to hold and use such designs. They are truly one of my favorite works of mechanical art.

I muchly prefer the '92 and '86/'71 action versus a 94. They are solid and tight and strong.

I would be tickled and first in line if we could get a company like Big Horn Armory to step up and R&D this rifle in a marine grade stainless.
Just imagine 94 size package/weight, but in stainless, and dual locking action bolt design.

[kaschi]

It DID happen in the last couple of yrs when Pedersoli brought one to the market. So now you can have one! IDK what the quality is like but there are a few youtube videos on them. It's called the "86/71 Droptine" or something along that line.

While I'm no mindreader, John Browning probably thought about making an 86 action for the 30-30 class of cartridges. Maybe it wasn't feasable due to the pressures? Ask Jim, he'll know.

As for Big Horn Armory making one, send them an email and run the idea by them. The squeaky wheel gets the oil!

[348win]

I already run it by them

That Taylor's rifle is tang safety and M71 scale tho ain't it
No sense in having a 30-30 in that Heavy weight class large frame IMO

[Griff]

It's my understanding that Winchester was already developing the mid-size smokeless cartridge and wanted a smaller, lighter action than the 1886. A "new" action for a "new" cartridge, if you will. And quite obviously successful as it is likely the most popular long gun not adopted for general military use by any army in the world in history. You might want to read "John M. Browning: Gunmaker" by Curt Gentry & W.R. Betz for more detail and insight.

[348win]

Thank You for information

[yooper2]

A 86/92 action scaled to the 30WCF family of cartridges wouldn't be much smaller than an 86 due to the length of the cartridge (perhaps it could be made slightly narrower but the length wouldnt change).
The 94 got real rifle cartridges in an action about the same size as a 92. Having the works drop out the bottom of the action allows it to handle the length of a 30WCF in a comparatively short receiver. 94s have even been made in 444 and 450 Marlin which is a lot of power in a very compact rifle.


Eric

[Scott Tschirhart]

I don’t think Winchester was thinking about cost cutting. They probably wanted something lighter and handier for the low recoil smokeless cartridges they were developing.

[Pat C]

The 1894 happened because they wanted a lightweight rifle with a more powerful cartridge than the 1892.

[348win]

The 1894 happened because they wanted a lightweight rifle with a more powerful cartridge than the 1892.

Right

But I got to wonder why the design was changed so much, the '86 & '92 where:

"the guts don't come out when you lever it"

"no trigger block/interlock safety"

The 94 just ain't the same to me in that respect.

The round belly on '86 and 92' style actions carries SOOOO NICE

[348win]

In other words why didn't a STRETCHED or EXTENDED FRAME 92' come along. Plenty of real estate to house a 30-30 cartridge when it can house a 44mag/45LC dia. case, the 30wcf is much smaller diameter

But I realize the lever throw would increase substantially, and that would be a chain reaction of geometry problems that are above my knowledge level

[348win]

A 86/92 action scaled to the 30WCF family of cartridges wouldn't be much smaller than an 86 due to the length of the cartridge (perhaps it could be made slightly narrower but the length wouldnt change).
The 94 got real rifle cartridges in an action about the same size as a 92. Having the works drop out the bottom of the action allows it to handle the length of a 30WCF in a comparatively short receiver. 94s have even been made in 444 and 450 Marlin which is a lot of power in a very compact rifle.


Eric

Nicely worded

[LeverGunner]

The reason why, as already stated, is weight. The biggest complaint about the 86 is weight. Having the guts drop out of a 94 allows a longer bolt throw with a shorter length of action. Having the locking bolts in the 86 and 92 being parallel with the bore makes for a longer action and subsequently, a heavier gun. The 94 does the same thing (locking the bolt) with 1/3 of the space.

[JimT]

That Winchester made a good decision to go with the Model 94 is seen in the production records.

Model 92
Produced from 1892 to 1945
1,007,608 produced

Model 94
Produced from 1894 to 2006 ... then from 2011 to the present
7,500,000 + produced

The two models were produced together for more than 50 years. Which one was desired by the hunters and shooters was easily seen during that time.

Norm Flayderman (FLAYDERMAN'S GUIDE TO ANTIQUE FIREARMS AND THEIR VALUES ) said the Model 94 was "....a specimen of ultimate perfection in a lever action rifle..." (page 263) While that surely would be debated by those who love other models, the numbers of the Model 94 produced show that it certainly is popular.

[marlinman93]

A 86/92 action scaled to the 30WCF family of cartridges wouldn't be much smaller than an 86 due to the length of the cartridge (perhaps it could be made slightly narrower but the length wouldnt change).
The 94 got real rifle cartridges in an action about the same size as a 92. Having the works drop out the bottom of the action allows it to handle the length of a 30WCF in a comparatively short receiver. 94s have even been made in 444 and 450 Marlin which is a lot of power in a very compact rifle.


Eric

I'd honestly disagree that the action for the 1894 couldn't have been smaller in length and width had Winchester simply scaled down the 1886. Since the 1894 action is both smaller in every dimension there's no reason to not think an 1886 action couldn't be scaled down to the same size. Marlin did the same thing with their Model 1893 and the larger 1895 back in those years. Simply scaled the 1893 action up to handle the more powerful .45-70 and other similar base cartridges.

[Farmerjohn]

Hey Fellers, I would offer one more option on why. I'm certainly not a gunsmith but I personally have torn down both the 92 and the 94 honing rough parts, replacing broken firing pins, ECT. I'm very fond of my mod 86 BUT I would not attempt to do the same to it for several reasons, look at the parts schematic for the 94 vs the 86, I have watched a very competent gunsmith tear mine down and all I can say is you better have your big boy britches on! There are blind holes and parts in there, while well designed, that I could not begin to figure out. Some of you guys may be a lot more talented than me but it's a consideration to say the least. I think they wanted to simplify it for production.....Just an idea and MHO.... John

[marlinman93]

Hey Fellers, I would offer one more option on why. I'm certainly not a gunsmith but I personally have torn down both the 92 and the 94 honing rough parts, replacing broken firing pins, ECT. I'm very fond of my mod 86 BUT I would not attempt to do the same to it for several reasons, look at the parts schematic for the 94 vs the 86, I have watched a very competent gunsmith tear mine down and all I can say is you better have your big boy britches on! There are blind holes and parts in there, while well designed, that I could not begin to figure out. Some of you guys may be a lot more talented than me but it's a consideration to say the least. I think they wanted to simplify it for production.....Just an idea and MHO.... John

The 1894 Winchester isn't any quick, easy task to take down or reassemble either. Far more complicated than it needed to be, and one reason I never became enamored with them myself. I can takedown and reassemble a Model 1893 Marlin 5 times before a '94 Winchester was taken down once.

[Pat C]

Never owned an 1886 or 1893 Marlin but I always considered the 1892 and 1894 easy to disassemble and reassemble.

The 1894 encompasses the same old time features as far as safety and sear catch , hammer , mainspring as earlier 1873 and 1876 rifles. Removable tang.

About only thing in an 1894 that can cause trouble is cartridge guide screws. But if you take time to make the dog leg screw driver it's no trouble.