Some Help???

[milton]

I find the following quotation on Mic McPherson's site;"ATTN: Owners of any newer "Winchester" '94 gun having a rebounding hammer. I will not work on any such "Ranger" gun for any reason. I may consider working on the 30-30 chambering version but don't count on it.

I find the former to be undependable and prone to breakage.

I find the latter to be impossible to smooth up to any reasonable degree."

Would someone please elaborate on this statement? Are these guns junk?

[J Miller]

milton,

I really can't elaborate on that comment. All I can say is that I have one and only one AE Win 94 that originally came with the rebounding hammer action.

The action is an abomination that never should have seen the light of day. I replaced mine years ago with an older half cock action.

As for this comment: "I find the former to be undependable and prone to breakage."
I'm hoping he meant the rebounding hammer action is prone to breakage. I've got well over 3,000 rounds through mine with zero parts breakage. Not one single thing has broken or worn out.

It might be a good idea to contact Mic McPherson and ask him to elaborate.

Joe

[Old Savage]

I have one I have had for almost 20 years and over 600 rounds and it has functioned flawlessly for over 650 rounds and the trigger is good enough to shoot 3/4" groups with a couple of types of factory ammo.

[milton]

Thank you for your reply's !I did not see a way to contact Mr.McPherson by email,maybe someone here knows how??
I have a Winchester'94 AE in .357 and though I hate the rebounding hammer set-up I have been able to work the trigger into a fairly good one and the gun is very accurate.I just wanted to know if there were some problems with these guns that "stood out" that caused him to say this.

[Griff]

I won't pretend to speak for Mic, but... being an opinionated ol' phart, yes, they do. The rebounding hammer is the primary source of the issue: for unlike the non-rebounding type, it has two forces acting on it, #1 pushing it toward the firing pin, the other pushing it away. Balancing these two for both to work is near impossible. You're just going to have to figure that it will do one well, and the other, well... less so. The trouble is, Winchester seemed to go for the rebounding part of the hammer travel to work everytime, and if you're going to make a gun that's safe regardless of what idiot is using it, they succeeded. Therein lies the numerous reports of light hammer strikes, inconsistent ignition, etc. And with the movement of the safety to the tang, the entire trigger group has changed again. 2ndly, the 94 action was designed for case lengths in the 2"+ range, .30-30, .32-40, .38-55 & .25-35; re-designing the feed mechanism to feed case length cartridges of over a ½" shorter leads to another set of issues. Stove-pipes, double feeds, etc. are among the few I've seen. Now the majority of these issues are among cowboy action shooters, where speed is an issue, and the 94 just ain't a fast action.

None of the problems are insurmountable, but I can understand his reluctance to work on them.

IMNSHO, any intended use of such a model would be better met with another model by one of the import versions. YMMV.

[86er]

I have a 94AE in 45 Colt. It works flawlessly and has done so for around 1000 rounds. The trigger is good but not great and it is accurate in spite of the mediocre trigger. We have a 94AE Ranger 30-30 at the ranch that has now had 600 plus rounds through it. A lot of that was 170gr Grizzly Cartridge loads, a bit hotter than standard factory loads. It too works well and shows no sign of wear and tear. As far as working on them, maybe it is a pain. As far as owning and shooting one, there is nothing wrong with them although not as smooth and simplistic as the older non-rebounding style action.

[milton]

So,the Model 94 AE in .357 mag has several things against it right off the bat !I do believe you answered my question about this model.I have a Puma and although it is not an exact copy and it has a few problems,I find that my particular carbine is a great work-gun!
Hey,nothing wrong with being opinionated,if we get past forty and don't have some well guided opinions we haven't done much or seen much!
Thanks Griff
86r-That's the problem with this gun;it is my first levergun and the first one I worked on.I guess I can always sell it if it begins giving too many problems!

[Old Ironsights]

So,the Model 94 AE in .357 mag has several things against it right off the bat !I do believe you answered my question about this model. I have a Puma and although it is not an exact copy and it has a few problems,I find that my particular carbine is a great work-gun!

That's because the Puma is NOT a copy of the 1894 AT ALL. It is a copy of the 1892... a short-cartridge gun. So right off the bat you lose the "action is too long" issue.

To top it off, the Puma 1892s are 1/2-cock, non-rebounding, often "safetyless" guns. Many more points in their favor.

So yeah... it works "better".

Hey,nothing wrong with being opinionated,if we get past forty and don't have some well guided opinions we haven't done much or seen much!
Thanks Griff
86r-That's the problem with this gun;it is my first levergun and the first one I worked on.I guess I can always sell it if it begins giving too many problems!

IMO it's not likely to.

The 92 (your Puma) is a MUCH more forgiving & strong gun. It's essentially the 1886 scaled down to pistol calibers.

[Pete44ru]

Although many Winchester 94's (and Marlin 336's also) were chambered in short, or pistol-length, cartridges; and many users have had zero issues with them - IMHO the Win 94 (or Marlin 336) action works smoother with the longer cartridges it was originally designed around.

I find it's generally better to keep short cartridge use relegated to short action rifles, like the Win 92 or Marlin 1894.

.