I'm a 94 fan, but I have to ask...

[KentuckyLevrgunr]

I understand that the toggle-link mechanism of earlier Winchesters was too weak for the smokeless propellent used in the 30-30, but I don't see why Winchester ( J. M. Browning) had to design an entirely new rifle to fire it. They had the relatively small 92 for revolver rounds and the giant 86 for rifle rounds, why didn't they redesign the 86 with a midsize receiver for the 30-30? I don't know if it's true, but I think I remember reading somewhere that the 92 is strong enough for the 30-30, it's just too short. A midsize 86 sounds like the perfect, obvious, much more simple solution, so what am I missing?

[Ysabel Kid]

I think a midsize, between a '86 and a '92, would be the cat's meow!

[rjohns94]

i have to agree. I would buy at least one!

[Terry Murbach]

THE ORDERS TO JOHN M. BROWNING WERE SPECIFIC: MR BROWNING , YOU WILL DESIGN AN ACTION EXACTLY THE SIZE AND THICKNESS OF THE MODEL 1892 BUT IT MUST HAVE A BOLT THROW LONG ENOUGH TO CYCLE THE NEW SMOKELESS HIGH PRESSURE FLAT SHOOTING CARTRIDGES WE ARE GOING TO INTRODUCE.

[Buck Elliott]

Browning's relationship with Winchester demanded that he produce patentable models. JMB 'created' many more prototypes for Winchester that did NOT see production, than those that Winchester marketed. The idea was to cover all possible bases with PATENTS, making it difficult for the competition to introduce something not already covered by a Browning patent.

He succeeded admirably.

FWIW, the '94 IS sized somewhere between a '92 and the '86, and not nearly as strong as either.

[J Miller]

Browning's relationship with Winchester demanded that he produce patentable models. JMB 'created' many more prototypes for Winchester that did NOT see production, than those that Winchester marketed. The idea was to cover all possible bases with PATENTS, making it difficult for the competition to introduce something not already covered by a Browning patent.

He succeeded admirably.

FWIW, the '94 IS sized somewhere between a '92 and the '86, and not nearly as strong as either.

The Browning designed Winchester 1894 / 94 is as strong as it needs to be. Nuf said.

Joe

[Warhawk]

Browning's relationship with Winchester demanded that he produce patentable models. JMB 'created' many more prototypes for Winchester that did NOT see production, than those that Winchester marketed. The idea was to cover all possible bases with PATENTS, making it difficult for the competition to introduce something not already covered by a Browning patent.

He succeeded admirably.

FWIW, the '94 IS sized somewhere between a '92 and the '86, and not nearly as strong as either.

If you ever find yourself in the Salt Lake City area, the Browning Museum is in the old train station in Ogden. Many of his inventions that never went into production are there. Winchester seemed to have been in the habit of buying his designs with no intention of producing them, to keep them out of the competitions hands.

[arjunky]

Browning's relationship with Winchester demanded that he produce patentable models. JMB 'created' many more prototypes for Winchester that did NOT see production, than those that Winchester marketed. The idea was to cover all possible bases with PATENTS, making it difficult for the competition to introduce something not already covered by a Browning patent.

He succeeded admirably.

FWIW, the '94 IS sized somewhere between a '92 and the '86, and not nearly as strong as either.

If you ever find yourself in the Salt Lake City area, the Browning Museum is in the old train station in Ogden. Many of his inventions that never went into production are there. Winchester seemed to have been in the habit of buying his designs with no intention of producing them, to keep them out of the competitions hands.

They messed up big time though when they didn't pony up for the A-5.

Byron

[kaschi]

No doubt that the 94 action is strong enough for the 30-30 family of cartridges. It's just not as slick as an 86 or 92 and therein lies the difference. If there were an 86/92 style action designed around the 30-30 and its offspring, you would definitely be able to cycle it quicker than a 94. That's just my opinion though.

[Kansas Ed]

I heard reports (though I'm not sure if they were based on factual evidence), that the '86 and '92 actions were reported to Winchester as freezing up in the northern climates...especially the Alaskan wilderness. The looser '94 had less of a tendency to do so in extreme conditions.

Ed

[KentuckyLevrgunr]

Like the name of the thread says, I definately like the 94, so don't get me wrong on that one. But I have to admit, the 92 is better looking and smoother cycling. I just wonder why Browning saw it fit to design a whole new rifle rather than change the scale of an existing model.

[J Miller]

I've lived with the 94 Winchester for over 40 years. You can cycle the actions on them just as fast as you want to. The reasons have already been mentioned. They are just different. I cannot understand why people dis the 94s just because they are different from the 92 and 86. They are an ingenious design. Put a long cartridge in a short space. Did you know the 94 receiver is less than an inch longer than the 92s, and yet the 30-30 is almost twice as long as the 44-40?

The 94s are mechanically simpler than 92 and 86, did you know that?
Did you know there are several advantages to the link that opens the bottom of the receiver, besides shortening the action?
First, what might fall into the top, will fall out the bottom - sort of self cleaning. With a 92 or 86 what falls in the top stays in until you take the gun apart to clean it.
Second, with the appropriate tooth brush you can clean the inside of the 94s action from both the top and the bottom. Try that with a 92 or 86.
Third, and this is the most important, you can easily lube every single moving part of a 94s' internal action without taking it apart. The 92 and 86 isn't quite so easy.

I really wish folks would quit comparing the two designs. It's really like comparing apples to oranges.

Joe

[rhead]

It may have been an attempt to control production cost. Most of the changes since then have been for that reason.

[Mike D.]

Not really a comparison, Joe, more of a case of wishful thinking. Granted, the '94 is much easier to clean, but having the guts fall out of the action every time you cycle it takes some getting used to. I seldom use my 7-30, instead gravitating to an '86 or '95 Winchester. A pound or two heavier, but solid security when it counts. It's merely a matter of preference, and very little else.

[Buck Elliott]

""If you ever find yourself in the Salt Lake City area, the Browning Museum is in the old train station in Ogden. Many of his inventions that never went into production are there. Winchester seemed to have been in the habit of buying his designs with no intention of producing them, to keep them out of the competitions hands.""

I grew up in Ogden. I've spent literally MONTHS at the Browning Museum; first, when it was located at the (John M. Browning) National Guard Armory, and later, after it was moved to the Union Depot. Same with the Browning Gallery at the Cody Firearms Museum.

Read my other post...

[RIHMFIRE]

I've lived with the 94 Winchester for over 40 years. You can cycle the actions on them just as fast as you want to. The reasons have already been mentioned. They are just different. I cannot understand why people dis the 94s just because they are different from the 92 and 86. They are an ingenious design. Put a long cartridge in a short space. Did you know the 94 receiver is less than an inch longer than the 92s, and yet the 30-30 is almost twice as long as the 44-40?

The 94s are mechanically simpler than 92 and 86, did you know that?
Did you know there are several advantages to the link that opens the bottom of the receiver, besides shortening the action?
First, what might fall into the top, will fall out the bottom - sort of self cleaning. With a 92 or 86 what falls in the top stays in until you take the gun apart to clean it.
Second, with the appropriate tooth brush you can clean the inside of the 94s action from both the top and the bottom. Try that with a 92 or 86.
Third, and this is the most important, you can easily lube every single moving part of a 94s' internal action without taking it apart. The 92 and 86 isn't quite so easy.

I really wish folks would quit comparing the two designs. It's really like comparing apples to oranges.

Joe

AND IT WAS CHEAPER TO BUILD THAN THE 86 AND 92
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

[Buck Elliott]

"Cheaper to build...?"

Only because it was easier to machine, internally, having an 'open bottom.'

"Cheaper...?"

Yup. Definitely.

"Mechanically Simpler...?"

Not Hardly!

[J Miller]

"Cheaper to build...?"

Only because it was easier to machine, internally, having an 'open bottom.'

"Cheaper...?"

Yup. Definitely.

"Mechanically Simpler...?"

Not Hardly!

So what's more complicated about it then?

Joe

[firefuzz]

Browning's relationship with Winchester demanded that he produce patentable models. JMB 'created' many more prototypes for Winchester that did NOT see production, than those that Winchester marketed. The idea was to cover all possible bases with PATENTS, making it difficult for the competition to introduce something not already covered by a Browning patent.

He succeeded admirably.

FWIW, the '94 IS sized somewhere between a '92 and the '86, and not nearly as strong as either.

If you ever find yourself in the Salt Lake City area, the Browning Museum is in the old train station in Ogden. Many of his inventions that never went into production are there. Winchester seemed to have been in the habit of buying his designs with no intention of producing them, to keep them out of the competitions hands.

They messed up big time though when they didn't pony up for the A-5.

Byron

Did he ever, but that's a whole nother story.

Rob

[NonPCnraRN]

Instead of the Big Bore 94 I wonder what would have happened if they used a 1886 action with a 45-70 necked to 30 cal and put a 30 cal barrel on it? Sounds like something JD Jones would do. I think it would have surpassed the 308 Marlin Express or 307 Win in performance. But it wouldn't be as light and handy as the 94. Also the 30-30 or 30-30 Imp will work just fine within the range of iron sights. As it is my eyes can't see as well as the 30-30 can shoot.

[shawn_c992001]

How about a 95, only using the 405 case and a 30 caliber bullet! The 30-70 would be a wicked lever round!!! What would that be compared to, a 30-06?

[Kansas Ed]

How about a 95, only using the 405 case and a 30 caliber bullet! .......

It's called the 30-40 Krag, or the .303 British.

Ed

[shawn_c992001]

Ha, I was wondering who would catch that!!!

[Buck Elliott]

SMOKELESS POWDER was the reason for the '94 Winchester, even though the boys at New Haven hadn't figured out just HOW... Took 'em a while.

Higher pressure and velocity from a smaller cartridge was the goal.

Browning and Winchester made it happen.

[Griff]

THE ORDERS TO JOHN M. BROWNING WERE SPECIFIC: MR BROWNING , YOU WILL DESIGN AN ACTION EXACTLY THE SIZE AND THICKNESS OF THE MODEL 1892 BUT IT MUST HAVE A BOLT THROW LONG ENOUGH TO CYCLE THE NEW SMOKELESS HIGH PRESSURE FLAT SHOOTING CARTRIDGES WE ARE GOING TO INTRODUCE.

What he said. Also, it was only about 15 months or less IIRC from instructions to patent. Remember, Mr. Winchester was primarily a financier & marketing type. "NEW" sells better than "Improved", even in the 1890's.

Something was right... they sold over 7 million during their production. For a non-military gun, that's unheard of. End of discussion.

[KentuckyLevrgunr]

I think Griff may have a point. From a marketing standpoint, the 30 WCF will look more impressive if it's had a new rifle designed just for it.

[jlchucker]

I've lived with the 94 Winchester for over 40 years. You can cycle the actions on them just as fast as you want to. The reasons have already been mentioned. They are just different. I cannot understand why people dis the 94s just because they are different from the 92 and 86. They are an ingenious design. Put a long cartridge in a short space. Did you know the 94 receiver is less than an inch longer than the 92s, and yet the 30-30 is almost twice as long as the 44-40?

The 94s are mechanically simpler than 92 and 86, did you know that?
Did you know there are several advantages to the link that opens the bottom of the receiver, besides shortening the action?
First, what might fall into the top, will fall out the bottom - sort of self cleaning. With a 92 or 86 what falls in the top stays in until you take the gun apart to clean it.
Second, with the appropriate tooth brush you can clean the inside of the 94s action from both the top and the bottom. Try that with a 92 or 86.
Third, and this is the most important, you can easily lube every single moving part of a 94s' internal action without taking it apart. The 92 and 86 isn't quite so easy.

I really wish folks would quit comparing the two designs. It's really like comparing apples to oranges.

Joe

AND IT WAS CHEAPER TO BUILD THAN THE 86 AND 92
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

No Doubt it was about the money. Especially considering the cost of setting up manufacturing equipment to produce a levergun like the 94 at a price that the buying public could afford to buy in the volume that it did. Don't forget--they could produce with the same kind of precision back then, but they had no inkling of anything like CNC equipment, just-in-time inventory, or any other cost-saving innovations. A longer 92 would have required a lot more manufacturing tooling than the 94, at a higher cost to the average buyer.

[SJPrice]

NOPE, you are all wrong. The 1886 was the big one and the 1892 was the small one. How could they market a mid-size with a model number that was 1894. We would never be able to figure it out and factory orders would always be getting messed up thinking that the mid-size should be the middle number model.

[Buck Elliott]

NOPE, you are all wrong. The 1886 was the big one and the 1892 was the small one. How could they market a mid-size with a model number that was 1894. We would never be able to figure it out and factory orders would always be getting messed up thinking that the mid-size should be the middle number model.

Huh.......?!?

[71fan]

NOPE, you are all wrong. The 1886 was the big one and the 1892 was the small one. How could they market a mid-size with a model number that was 1894. We would never be able to figure it out and factory orders would always be getting messed up thinking that the mid-size should be the middle number model.

Smart alec. But you make a good point. Look at Marlin --> 1893=midsize; 1894=small; 1895=large. And their production numbers were a shadow of Winchesters. Must be that everyone was confused. You're onto something here

[gamekeeper]

NOPE, you are all wrong. The 1886 was the big one and the 1892 was the small one. How could they market a mid-size with a model number that was 1894. We would never be able to figure it out and factory orders would always be getting messed up thinking that the mid-size should be the middle number model.

Smith & Wesson had a simlar problem with the Mod one, followed by the Mod two and then the Mod one and a half.

[Buck Elliott]

Maybe the gun makers should adjust the calendar to reflect their model numbers.

And you dummies think you're confused NOW...

How do you manage to keep track of inches, feet, yards, rods, furlongs, miles, leagues, knots, hands, cubits, spans, and centimeters...?