Letter to Winchester

[getitdone1]

Hi everyone,

I just finished writing a letter to Winchester Repeating Arms asking them to once again make the model 94 SRC. Too, I asked them if it would be possible to omit the tang safety they've been putting on their recent lever action guns. I suggested that they might require the buyer to sign a form releasing Winchester from any liability when they buy this gun. There may be no way to convince them to omit this safety but I thought it worth a try.

I know there are people in this group who, like me, would really like to see Winchester once again make the model 94 SRC. Would you write them a letter asking them to do so?

The address is:

Winchester Repeating Arms
275 Winchester Avenue
Morgan, Utah 84050

Of all the guns I'd like to buy I believe this one is at the top of the list.

Don McCullough

[Pete44ru]

[I suggested that they might require the buyer to sign a form releasing Winchester from any liability when they buy this gun.]

JMO, Don - but that "MIGHT" only relieve Winchester/FN of liability with the original buyer, and not any OTHER possible user and/or future owner.

IOW, fahgettaboutit.

.

[TomD]

I don't think you can sign away your rights if a person makes a dangerous product. Obviously we don't think the safety is an improvement, though it might stop idiots from hurting themselves, which is still a product safety issue given demographics. But we know that it can be argued that the lack of a safety is unsafe, and even if that argument was a looser, it is still expensive to be in court. Worse still since they make rifles with safeties currently, making one without would throw one or the other type into the soup.

I have a hard time believing Win.will make better rifles than what is easilyy available second hand, or from Marlin.

[Stan in SC]

Why don't you just hop on Gunbroker and find what you want there?Just a thought.

Stan in SC

[Gun Smith]

I seem to remember that firearms are excluded from liability when describing them as dangerous products for legal purposes, since, by design, they are dangerous. Am I mistaken?

[KentuckyLevrgunr]

As much as I hate to say it, I think we're just stuck with the Japanese "model 94" with tang safety, side eject and rebounding hammer. I'd imagine the only hope we have of ever seeing a new model 94 that's actually made the way we all want it, it's gona come from..... I dunno, maybe USFA. If you could live with a foreign made model 94, maybe Uberti would make a good one.

[Lastmohecken]

We are never going to get them made like they used to be, by Winchester. The newer generations will just accept the safetys, rebounding hammers, etc and go on. And us old hold outs will eventually die out, and shut up about the new fangled stuff on our guns.

Fortunately, there are millions of Winchester 94's still around without that junk on them. The best thing to do is save up you money, and find an older used Winchester or two or three, and be happy. Besides, new guns are badly over rated, I would rather have a fine old original any day.

[J Miller]

Don,

I think we'd have better results if enough of us sent letters to Uberti. The big foreign conglomerate that now produces the John Browning designs don't care one whit what we want because they can and do sell all of these limited runs they make.


Joe

[Griff]

But Joe, just think how many MORE they would sell if they'd listen to their potential customers... instead of their "marketing experts."

{sarcasm mode off}

[J Miller]

But Joe, just think how many MORE they would sell if they'd listen to their potential customers... instead of their "marketing experts."

{sarcasm mode off}

Griff,
Lots of us know that, but like I said, "They Don't CARE".
My bets are that if Uberti and the other Italian manufacturers keeps selling the 1876s, 86s, Henrys, 66s, 73s, and now the 92s like they will, eventually we'll see no more Mirokuchesters. Especially if they keeps the prices lower than the Browning imported ones, but even if not. Their quality has come up, and there are no stupid add on safeties or rebounding hammers to cause misfires.

JMHO

Joe

[getitdone1]

I knew when I told Winchester to have buyers sign a legal paper to avoid liability--it probably wouldn't work. Just trying to point them in the right direction.

And yes, a letter to Uberti would probably have been time better spent.

Seems to me Winchester now makes very good guns and the "lawyer safety" is about the only thing I can knock them for. The current model 70--especially the Express rifle in 375 H&H--looks great to me. I think they have it right when they call it the best model 70 ever. I know many here will not agree.

I'd prefer a new Winchester 94 SRC with tang safety and rebounding hammer than a used SKY HIGH, semi-piece of junk, old original. Not too much expense or bother to make that gun right. I've gotten tired of the crazy prices for old Winchester junk. Too, I like to know that the metal of the gun is the best and can be assured of that with a new gun.

I forgot to add in my letter to Winchester that they round off the bottom corners of the receiver--like the old ones. Probably never happen but would be a nice "touch" and make it a bit more comfortable when carrying in one hand. Prefer the 92 action but you just can't make the pistol cartridges do what the great 30-30 can do. If I wanted to be totally practical I'd sell all my levers but the Browning 71 carbine and be in fine shape. Never was "practical" with guns--probably never will be.

Don

[winchester1886]

As far as I am concerned a modern day Winchester isn't a Winchester anyway, Olin is Winchester they own the name and all the rights that go with it, they are part of the old Western Cartridge Co that bought Winchester in the early 1930's, and they have never sold Winchester, they just let other people use the name.
Obviously they are not interested in making firearms, they are a chemical company and that's what they want to do, just make the ammo.

[dbateman]

ok so what chamberings would you like to see i have allways wanted a 32spl and have a want for the 32-40 what other old time favrat rounds would you like to see again?

[COSteve]

Your answer from them (if they even bother, which I doubt) will be something along the lines of "pee up a rope."

[J Miller]

Your answer from them (if they even bother, which I doubt) will be something along the lines of "pee up a rope."

Yep Steve I'll bet your right. Only ... the "pee up a rope" part will be written by the corporate lawyers and nobody will be able to understand it. Assuming it's even written in English.

Joe

[KirkD]

I wouldn't mind seeing Uberti make a repro of the original Winchester 1895 with the tapered octagon barrel, chambered in either 38-72 or 40-72. I doubt that Winchester is going to make one of those any time soon ..... to limited a market. I handled a couple originals once and they just make a fellow want to yell with pleasure.

[gak]

+1 to the idea/spirit/concept in the letter. Even IF you grant the tang safety as a given (hopefully without the rebound hammer--are those two inter-dependent?), I'd still also like to see all other Pre War SRC elements incorporated. I don't see Uberti, Chiappa, etc., entering into the mix what with all the Pre 64s still out there...UNLESS it was a 100% dead ringer Pre War (and more specifically Pre 1930s) SRC and trapper--complete with ring and carbine butt--and octagonal/and or round barrel long rifles (I can live with shotgun butts vs "rifle" type on these latter two, but you should have the choice)--similar to Chiappa's nice 92s. Can't see a foreign remake of the Post War Pre 64s.


In the meantime, impatience is getting to me and I'm very close to transforming one of my rougher (cosmetically) "regular" Pre 64s into a bona-fide "Pre War" SRC in all important respects: buttstock, longwood, relocated front band, ladder rear/front post sights, ring, the works. Resale smesale. What the heck.