The rebirth of the Model 94 Winchester................

[J Miller]

Don,

The problems with the rebounding hammer actions is not the springs per sea, it's the roughness and lack of fitting between the four forks of the main spring strut and the hammer.

When all is working properly the mainspring propels the strut forward, the upper two fingers pushing on the hammer as it pivots forward. Somewhere around half way the lower fingers make contact with the hammer and actually begin slowing it down. Once the hammer strikes the firing pin, or the locking bolt pin the lower two fingers push the hammer back.
Now the problem starts with roughness which slows down the hammer strike, that is a given. Smooth anything that touches anything else and that takes care of that.
But sometimes the bottom fingers are too long. The slow the hammer down too much and it just does not impart enough impact force to the skeletonized lightened up firing pin.

This is also what happens with the 92s, 86s, 71, and yes the 95s that use this same action.

Not all of them suffer with this problem. But there have been many members here that have had this problem with both the Miroku and New Haven made rebounders. The problem does exist.

My 1985 vintage rebounder did not suffer this problem, but it's trigger pull was horribly excessive and that's why I ditched that lower tang and the idiotic rebounding hammer action.

Besides ignoring what their customers wanted, Winchester also ignored two other rules:

K.I.S.S.
~and~
If if ain't broke don't fix it.

Well, the old half cock action wasn't broke, so they fixed it till it was.

Joe

[RKrodle]

I think it's a sharp looking rifle and if I had the money I would make sure my name one on the list for one.

[Don McDowell]

Actually the idea that they would do the limited run thing isn't to bad. They'ld be high quality guns for sure. The first run would probably get snarfed by scalpers etc, but after that they'ld most likely be similar to the highwalls now. You can get one of the "limited " 85's from Davidsons for less money than you can buy one of the Italian knockoffs, and have the exceptional quality and winchester roll mark on the barrel. Not to mention get in on one from Davidsons now for about 1/3 less than the scalpers that snarfed the early runs are trying to get on gunbroker...... Sort of got the chuckles looking thru Davidsons last night at the M 70's out the door for 6ish, and thinking about the scalpers that were trying to snarf the "very last ones ever" were paying what, 1k? to get the cleanup off of dealers shelves.

Joe like I say I've not had a problem with either the rebounder 94's (matter of fact I'm almost happier with the rebounding hammer than the old style) nor the vial eevil tang safety ( that's totally ignorable) on my beloved 405. If I knew of an actual person that had the problem with the rifle, and not some cyber guy that may or may not even own a winchester..... I'ld be a bit more concerned.

[J Miller]

Actually the idea that they would do the limited run thing isn't to bad. They'ld be high quality guns for sure. The first run would probably get snarfed by scalpers etc, but after that they'ld most likely be similar to the highwalls now. You can get one of the "limited " 85's from Davidsons for less money than you can buy one of the Italian knockoffs, and have the exceptional quality and winchester roll mark on the barrel. Not to mention get in on one from Davidsons now for about 1/3 less than the scalpers that snarfed the early runs are trying to get on gunbroker...... Sort of got the chuckles looking thru Davidsons last night at the M 70's out the door for 6ish, and thinking about the scalpers that were trying to snarf the "very last ones ever" were paying what, 1k? to get the cleanup off of dealers shelves.

Joe like I say I've not had a problem with either the rebounder 94's (matter of fact I'm almost happier with the rebounding hammer than the old style) nor the vial eevil tang safety ( that's totally ignorable) on my beloved 405. If I knew of an actual person that had the problem with the rifle, and not some cyber guy that may or may not even own a winchester..... I'ld be a bit more concerned.

Well, Don, a lot of those faceless "cyber" guys are right here on this forum. But since you don't know them face to face I guess their experiences don't count.

I'm glad your guns work for you. Take care and good hunting.

Joe

[Don McDowell]

Joe, not so much don't count as, I'll put more credence to it if I "know" the person having the problem. Whether that be by extended knowledge of the person thru time and reading that persons posts, versus, some poster comes blasting along with a story that sounds mostly regurgitated stuff he/she has read somewhere else.
But no I won't put as much faith in what I read on the internet as I will to things I've actually seen, done, or personally know of someone to have done.
My god man if we were expected to swallow everything we read on the net, the 357 would be the only cartridge needed, a 30-30 won't kill nothing bigger than a church mouse at 30 paces ( and then only with the lucky head shot) and the 45 Long Colt has always thrown a 250 gr slobberlube bullet at 650 fps...... Or hows about there was never any need for them to develop the 44 special, there already was the 44-40 and the 44 magnum......

[HATCHETTJACK]

marlin 338 is my next rifle.... wont buy jap cra-

[Sixgun]

I have a Winchester 1894 30-30 rifle with a half round barrel, express sight and button magazine thats been "restored". It was made in 1915. You think these new rifles will make it worth more?

RR-7,
It does not matter what is re-introduced by whomever. There are only so many pre-war Winchesters and those babies will continue to climb at least 4-15% per year, depending on model & condition. (1886's went through the roof in the last 5 years )

pre-war SA Colts continue to climb mighty fast and look at all the "junk" that is floating around today.--But...........that "junk" (not really junk, just my description of anything made after the war) will be better than money in the bank shortly, as gold, guns, ammo, and food will be the only "items of trade" when the s*** hits the fan. ----------Sixgun

[.45colt]

I could live with the angle eject. but not the rebounding hammer. whoever tested and passed that design should have been run out of the industry. the Winchester Legacy I bought in 2001 was an absolute joke. with a trigger from Hell and springs so stiff one could hardly work the lever. never again. I'll buy a new 94 again when Uberti makes it.

[kaschi]

The rifles pictured do not look like they have tang safeties, so that's at least good. They need to get rid of the angle eject and make them EXACTLY like they were made in 1894 or no one will buy them. More original calibers need to be added as do variations like SRC's. The prices on "plain" rifles will definitely be lower once they finish the limited run I predict.

[Bogie35]

Here's my prediction on the tang safety air-brush job. Winchester is too cheap to make a proto-type, then spend money to change any aspect of it's design. So, they purposely air-brushed the tang safety out with the expressed purpose of deceiving potential buyers. As it was suggested earlier, this is most likely nothing more than a "parts clean-up" endeavor.

bogie

[J Miller]

If they were parts clean up guns I doubt they'd be marked
"Made by Miroku - Japan - - Imported by BACO, Inc. Morgan, Utah". The prototypes may well have used a tang safety receiver, but they are not New Haven guns.

Joe

[Buck Elliott]

I seriously doubt the "parts cleanup" theory.

These "new" '94s will be made completely in Japan, from new parts. Not even Winchester is dumb enough to try to match new parts with leftovers. (are they...?)

None of this brouhaha is enough to make me consider buying anything new from Marlin, either.

The Angle Eject feature does nothing positive for the rifle's design. In fact, it seriously weakens the right side-wall of the receiver. The offset ejector contributes nothing to the ease of operation, either. As for scope mounting -- I don't understand all the fuss and bother. A lever-action carbine does not NEED a 'scope sight, any more than a fish needs an udder... The addition of a 'scope completely negates the best reason for the little carbines: portability and ease of manipulation. You 'scope fanatics can argue until the (neighbor's) cows come home, but that is a plain, simple, unadulterated FACT. At 67 years, I'm tired, old ugly and ornery I reckon, but I can -- and do-- still use open, iron sights just fine. Besides I learned to HUNT, as well as shoot, and I know -- and accept -- my own limitations.

I don't mind -- too much -- the fact that they will be built in Japan. The guys we fought are not in power any longer, and I figger it's time to get something back for the Billions of $$$ we sank into Japan's economic recovery. That said, it would still be better if someone HERE could have been induced to build the new rendition of an American icon.

Unless and until Winchester can be convinced of the folly of their ways, I won't be buying one of the "new" '94s; not from anyone, and not at any price.

Besides, it's still just a '94...

[Hobie]

A lever-action carbine does not NEED a 'scope sight, any more than a fish needs an udder...

Truer words were never spoken.

[Blaine]

A lever-action carbine does not NEED a 'scope sight, any more than a fish needs an udder...

Truer words were never spoken.

And those color TVs and microwave ovens cause brain cancer

[J Miller]

Buck,

I'm 10 years behind you, but in total agreement about the AE 94s and lever gun scope use in particular. Never seen a need for a scope on a 94, to me they are mutually exclusive. A Williams or Lyman receiver sight with an appropriate front sight is just about perfect.

The strength factor of the AE receiver was and is a concern of mine, I'm surprised I've not read about cracked receivers yet.

Here is something I've said some time back and was flamed about it, no problem I lived in AZ and played in the desert during the summer, I'm used to the heat.
I refuse to buy the Japanese made Winchesters NOT because they are made in Japan, but because they are stamped Winchester. No way in hell are these Miroku made guns Winchesters. I had no problems when Browning had the 92s, 86s, 95s, made there and marked BROWNING. That's fine I'll even buy one or more if the money and opportunity coincides. But I will not buy a junqued up Miroku made rifle marked WINCHESTER.
(Junqued up = rebounding hammer, tang safety and AE.)

That is just me. I have nothing against quality Japanese made products. They are not our enemy any more. We whipped them soundly 60+ years ago and have basically rebuilt their system into what it is today.

Joe

[gak]

The rifles pictured do not look like they have tang safeties, so that's at least good. They need to get rid of the angle eject and make them EXACTLY like they were made in 1894 or no one will buy them. More original calibers need to be added as do variations like SRC's. The prices on "plain" rifles will definitely be lower once they finish the limited run I predict.

I agree completely. The predomant Pre War--and -I'll narrow it down to Pre Depression--offering should be the carbine (SRC)--in its most prolific (roughly 90%) form--carbine butt, saddle ring, ladder rear/front post sight, 20" round barrel. Basically the form Armi Sport/Chiappa (Cimarron, Taylors and now LSI) is making their 1892 SRC.

The problem is some folks here and elsewhere (probably including us!) won't ever be satisfied. Many will clamor for the 10% production run, "why oh why not the shotgun butt? Easier on the shoulder." And "...should've been ramped/hooded front sight," and then "ramped rear sight" and "Eastern carbine only, no useless saddle ring, clanks and receiver wear" blah blah blah.

I'm with you though, the most charming and main reason for them to reintroduce a NON AE gun is in its original 25-30 year run's form. Complainers can always remove the SR, add a different sight package. And add an over butt sheath/"pad", if the carbine butt bothers, etc. Otherwise, we've still got plenty of fine, regular pre-64s to choose from and, other than a spanking new gun easily available off the shelf, what's the point?

[Bogie35]

If they were parts clean up guns I doubt they'd be marked
"Made by Miroku - Japan - - Imported by BACO, Inc. Morgan, Utah". The prototypes may well have used a tang safety receiver, but they are not New Haven guns.

Joe

Good point. But leftover parts could easily have been shipped to Japan for assembly, and probably were.

Regardless, "the pre-64 quality" Model 94 will never again be manufactured if Winchester has anything to do with it. They apparently believe that their customers owe them huge profit margins, rather than reasonable profit margins. That's why they took a standard late production 94, spent $200 "dressing it up", and now are asking $1500 to $2000 for it. That's insulting, to say the least.

The Winchester name was special, but it never was THAT special. For now, I'll stick with higher quality products that are mostly made in America from companies like Marlin, Henry, and Remington.

bogie

[Buck Elliott]

Remember when L.C. Smith was taken over by Marlin? Or (probably too young...) when Winchester owned a contolling interest in Remington -- and vice-versa...? When Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacuring Company was the parent company in the Colt universe...?

We have to face the fact that Winchester isn't WINCHESTER any longer, and hasn't been for quite some time. Not since Olin 'outsourced' it to U.S.R.A.C....

BTW, cell phones, color TVs & micro-wave ovens only cause brain cancer in a selected few...

And leverguns & scopes don't mix well, regardless of one's perverted views to the contrary.

(where's Lee Jurras when I need him...?)

[Jeff Quinn]

I have to disagree with some of you gentlemen. A scope can be a real asset on a hunting rifle, and whether or not it is beneficial has nothing to do with the method of moving cartridges from the magazine into the chamber. If a hunter can place his shots more precisely with a scope-sighted bolt action, he can place his shots more precisely with a scope-sighted lever action. Most of my leverguns have no scope, but my vision is not very good anymore, and in early morning and late afternoon, when the Sun is set, but it is still legal hunting time, a scope sight really helps me. I hunt in the deep woods, and when game is most abundant, I cannot see that front sight. Many, many times, I have harvested game cleanly using a scoped rifle, when a set of open sights or aperture sights would have left me with no shot to take. I know it is cool to make such broad statements as "A scope does not belong on a levergun", but for most of us, it makes us better shots. Now, at the range, I shoot out past several hundred yards with open-sighted rifles, and make some hits, but on a live animal, in poor light, I want to place that bullet EXACTLY where I want it, and a scope helps me to do that. It gives me an extra hour of hunting per day, allows me better shot placement, and extends my effective range by several yards.

If this picture is repulsive to you, I can't help it. It is my levergun!

[J Miller]

Hey Jeff, just for today how about we agree to disagree about lever guns and scopes?

Now the only things that bother me about your picture is your finger is on the trigger and the muzzle is awful darn close to your big toe.
Other than that, you're right ... it's your rifle to do with as you see fit. No argument there.

Joe

[Don McDowell]

I don't understand all the furor over the tang safety. First off Jeff states "no tang safety".
But speaking from experience with both Winchester and the rifles made by one of George Soro's holding companies (Marlin) the winchester is fully visible at all times and can be flipped into the fire position, left and forgot about. On the other hand the cross bolt thingy put on the pieces of stuff now called rifles by the holding companies that control Marlin can get bumped just a twitty bit and when you cock the hammer draw a bead , instead of the satisfying bang flop, you get a twok, and a twok folks won't kill nothing, but it will cause you to loose the shot.

[DPris]

Waited till I could get more info before weighing in here.
The new 94 is made in Japan, the two commemoratives just introduced are not leftover parts guns just cleaned up for these.
With the old tooling & equipment at New Haven being worn out, new equipment was required to produce the 94 again. When the non-production agreement with the union was due to expire, four foreign sources were considered for production. It was deemed too expensive to manufacture the 94 domestically. Of the four potentials (one south, one European, and two Asian), the Miroku plant in Japan was selected for a number of reasons including the fact that it was already producing leverguns and quality is high.

FN/Winchester wants to keep the gun going, but production capability for it is somewhat limited at the Miroku plant, and the comm versions were selected both to give the re-intro a "special" presence, and to hold down demand.

I'm told other versions later on are "possible".
I've told a regular contact involved in the development of the Japanese 94s that their greatest market would be a workingman's version- 20-incher with utility-grade finish & decent wood, and without the rebounding hammer, tang safety, and angle eject.

The guns WILL have the rebounding hammer, safety, and angle eject feature.
There's apparently a mix of metric & inch parts on the two first ones, and right now parts interchangeability between the Japanese guns & the American guns is questionable & not recommended. A decision to determine interchangeability will be made at some future point.
Tolerances have been tightened up (another factor in interchangeability), and if there are any doubts about the quality levels, they'll be better than what the New Haven operation was producing prior to its closing.

Where the 94 will go from here is uncertain, but in the meantime it's being treated as a limited production high-end nostalgic replica in the same vein as the Miroku 86, 92, and 95 leverguns have been.

Looking at both sides of the coin, moving the 94 offshore is regrettable but understandable. Quality will be high, as will prices, but production will be low and variations limited. Miroku was an infinitely better choice than the other three.
But, it appears the venerable classic is unlikely to return to its days as an affordable and trim working gun.

I was looking forward to the 94 coming back, and had intended to buy one. Since the first ones out the gate are no working guns & I have no need for a pretty wall-hanger in .30-30, I'll pass on them.
I'm hoping the people making the decisions will produce a practical version, but even if they do you can kiss the days of the $400 Model 94 goodby forever.
Denis

[rangerider7]

Wouldn't they be rifles rather than carbines?

[Bogie35]

Waited till I could get more info before weighing in here.
The new 94 is made in Japan, the two commemoratives just introduced are not leftover parts guns just cleaned up for these.
With the old tooling & equipment at New Haven being worn out, new equipment was required to produce the 94 again. When the non-production agreement with the union was due to expire, four foreign sources were considered for production. It was deemed too expensive to manufacture the 94 domestically. Of the four potentials (one south, one European, and two Asian), the Miroku plant in Japan was selected for a number of reasons including the fact that it was already producing leverguns and quality is high.

FN/Winchester wants to keep the gun going, but production capability for it is somewhat limited at the Miroku plant, and the comm versions were selected both to give the re-intro a "special" presence, and to hold down demand.

I'm told other versions later on are "possible".
I've told a regular contact involved in the development of the Japanese 94s that their greatest market would be a workingman's version- 20-incher with utility-grade finish & decent wood, and without the rebounding hammer, tang safety, and angle eject.

The guns WILL have the rebounding hammer, safety, and angle eject feature.
There's apparently a mix of metric & inch parts on the two first ones, and right now parts interchangeability between the Japanese guns & the American guns is questionable & not recommended. A decision to determine interchangeability will be made at some future point.
Tolerances have been tightened up (another factor in interchangeability), and if there are any doubts about the quality levels, they'll be better than what the New Haven operation was producing prior to its closing.

Where the 94 will go from here is uncertain, but in the meantime it's being treated as a limited production high-end nostalgic replica in the same vein as the Miroku 86, 92, and 95 leverguns have been.

Looking at both sides of the coin, moving the 94 offshore is regrettable but understandable. Quality will be high, as will prices, but production will be low and variations limited. Miroku was an infinitely better choice than the other three.
But, it appears the venerable classic is unlikely to return to its days as an affordable and trim working gun.

I was looking forward to the 94 coming back, and had intended to buy one. Since the first ones out the gate are no working guns & I have no need for a pretty wall-hanger in .30-30, I'll pass on them.
I'm hoping the people making the decisions will produce a practical version, but even if they do you can kiss the days of the $400 Model 94 goodby forever.
Denis

Thanks for posting Denis. That's good info.

bogie

[DPris]

You're welcome.
Hate to see this happen to one of the greatest American firearms ever built.
Hopefully they'll reconsider their battle plan.
Denis

[Don McDowell]

I always get a chuckle out of the scopes don't go on leverguns bit. In the 1916 WINCHESTER catalog they spent 4 pages telling us how great the scope were and how much better they'ld make us shoot.
It don't get anymore genuine Winchester than that......

Excellent point Jeff.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

I don't understand all the furor over the tang safety.

If I had to have a safety, I'd much prefer the tang slider to the cross-bolt. I know it would mess up your chances of mounting a tang sight. I believe there was a Marbles version that would still work though ... not sure how clunky it looks.

[Don McDowell]

Marbles offers a tang sight for the safety'ld winchesters, and its windage adjustable....

[DPris]

On a side note, Jeff's one of the very few people I'd allow in my truck with glass on a levergun....
Denis

[winchester1886]

According to the Australian Shooters Journal the 94 will be back in production, and made at the the factory in North or South Carolina where ever it is.

[Jeff Quinn]

Thanks for that detailed info, Denis.

[Hobie]

Whenever the scopes on leverguns subject comes up it really stirs the pot.

I myself will never understand why-for the honkin' big scopes people seem to need nowadays (we had a guy buy a 4-12 for his the other day). A trim little 2½X isn't so bad though.

It is another thing entirely to NEED the scope. Most of us will reach that point all too soon. That doesn't mean I have to LIKE it!

We appreciate all the info the insiders have!

[DPris]

1886,
My info comes directly from a guy involved with the 94 project inside the company.
Dunno where the Australians got theirs.

Jeff,
I'm getting where you are, eye-wise, but so far I've been able to avoid having to desecrate the clean lines of my leverguns with glass. They just carry so much easier without a scope, and they slide in & out of a scabbard so much slicker.
My '51 Model 94 with the older rounded receiver is one of the best carryin' rifles I own, and clamping a scope right at the balance point would ruin that completely.
Admittedly, I don't shoot long distances with any of them. When one goes out, it's either for short-range defensive uses or for fun.
You're still welcome in the truck, brother......

Denis

[Jeff Quinn]

1886,
My info comes directly from a guy involved with the 92 project inside the company.
Dunno where the Australians got theirs.

Jeff,
I'm getting where you are, eye-wise, but so far I've been able to avoid having to desecrate the clean lines of my leverguns with glass. They just carry so much easier without a scope, and they slide in & out of a scabbard so much slicker.
My '51 Model 94 with the older rounded receiver is one of the best carryin' rifles I own, and clamping a scope right at the balance point would ruin that completely.
Admittedly, I don't shoot long distances with any of them. When one goes out, it's either for short-range defensive uses or for fun.
You're still welcome in the truck, brother......

Denis

I appreciate that, Denis. Most of my leverguns are scopeless. I most often carry afield one of my Rossi 16 inch .357 Model 92 carbines, either in the scabbard on the tractor, or on the Rhino. However, when I am hunting for meat, I will usually have a scoped rifle with me. Problem is, I seldom get to hunt with one of my rifles. I am usually shooting someone else's rifle.

[HATCHETTJACK]

[Old Savage]

I LIKE scopes. All that is necessary to understand it is that different people have different likes. Women, scotch, etc.

Guns do not need anything, guns do not have needs - once we get past that little jewel. We can see that it is people who have needs wants and likes and that makes it up to the individual person. The mystery is why one person thinks they can tell another person what they need want or like in an issue like this.

[DPris]

Ditto on the "shooting someone else's rifle" part.
Denis

[Old Savage]

Jeff, you sure that isn't my rifle - nice little group you shot in that article in spite of the scope.

http://www.gunblast.com/Winchester_25-35.htm