Winchester 94 357 Magnum

[KevH]

When did Winchester start producing the 1894 in 357 Magnum?

Is there a preferred variation or vintage?

[J Miller]

As a guess I'd say mid 1990s. Just a guess but it did apear late in their product line. No particular vintage is better than another since they were all late production.

Joe

[gak]

...Other than tang versus crossbolt safety. The former I would think valued/sought after more..

[RIHMFIRE]

...Other than tang versus crossbolt safety. The former I would think valued/sought after more..

I dont remember ever seeing a crossbolt 357......
I have a legacy...fine looking lever...but the lever has to much slope sise to side...
legacy and trappers seem to be the most desireable....

[Tycer]

...Other than tang versus crossbolt safety. The former I would think valued/sought after more..

I dont remember ever seeing a crossbolt 357......
I have a legacy...fine looking lever...but the lever has to much slope sise to side...
legacy and trappers seem to be the most desireable....

I filled that ugly belly-button

[Hobie]

...Other than tang versus crossbolt safety. The former I would think valued/sought after more..

I dont remember ever seeing a crossbolt 357......
I have a legacy...fine looking lever...but the lever has to much slope sise to side...
legacy and trappers seem to be the most desireable....

I have seen them, all Trappers as a matter of fact.

[1894c]

I filled that ugly belly-button
[/quote]

I like your option--very cool--nice touch...

[gak]

To my speculation and Hobie's subsequent point, here's an AE .357 Trapper with crossbolt on GB now.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =259789980
Tycer, is your AE a .357?

[Buck Elliott]

As a matter of educated opinion ,and a lifetime of levergun experience, my verdict is that the Winchester '94 contains far more machinery than is necessary to handle the puny little .357 Magnum cartridge. The same verdict extends to that mechanism, when chambered to any of the (relatively) stubby revolver cartridges..

To me, it is analogous to driving a 10-wheel dump truck to the grocery store, to pick up a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk...
Sure, it'll work, if that's all you have at the moment, but there are other conveyances, much better-suited to the job...

[olyinaz]

As a matter of educated opinion ,and a lifetime of levergun experience, my verdict is that the Winchester '94 contains far more machinery than is necessary to handle the puny little .357 Magnum cartridge. The same verdict extends to that mechanism, when chambered to any of the (relatively) stubby revolver cartridges..

To me, it is analogous to driving a 10-wheel dump truck to the grocery store, to pick up a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk...
Sure, it'll work, if that's all you have at the moment, but there are other conveyances, much better-suited to the job...

Agreed. Winchester 92 actions in .357 are the cat's meow. I've got both and the 94 can't hope to be as smooth or nice as the 92, but it'll certainly do and I enjoy my 94 quite a lot.

The only thing I'll warn against is the birch (or beech - whatever it is) stocks on some of them. They're fugly! Get something with walnut on it if you can.

Best,
Oly

[J Miller]

I totally agree about the 94 Win and the .357 cartridge. It's alike a midget driving a 57 Buick Roadmaster when a VW beetle would be better.

As for the larger but shorter cartridges that start with a "4" I DIS-agree. The 94 is in many instances the perfect platform for them. In the Winchester 92 and copies, and the Marlin 1894, you have a problem with OAL, not so in the Win 94. Lots of room to use long bullets.

As for smoothness, the 94 was just fine as it was before the rebounding hammer abomination was introduced. After that the smoothness it did have vanished.
For the most part it's just different in feel and some folks just can't stand it. Like that old argument about the bottom falling out when you work the lever.
It's just individual perception.

Joe

[Buck Elliott]

The cartridge length "problem" in a '92 is an easy fix.. Simply cut back the cartidge stop ON THE CARRIER to allow for longer bullets, and OAL.. i have done it to literally dozens of '92s -- Winchesters, Brownings and other clones.. The spring stop at the front of the receiver keeps the next cartridge from overriding the carrier, when cartridges of "normal" or shorter length are used..
There is simply no excuse for a '94, chambered for revolver cartridges, with th possible exception of the .357 Maximum...

[J Miller]

Nother words, Buck and Joe could argue this till the bovines came to roost with no agreement.


Buck, just a question with a statement, not an argument.
Question: Can you alter a 92 action to handle .45 Colts with an COAL of 1.75"?

Statement: My unaltered, factory stock Win 94 can do that all day long.


Joe

[Buck Elliott]

Answer: yes.

Comment: irrelevant.. You can put a lot more than bread and milk in the bed of a dump truck, but it is still a lot more machinery than is needed for a run to the Walmart...
Why not complete the absurdity and chamber for .45 Colt in a Wichester '95..? It would handle even Longer .45 Colt cartridges, if that becomes an overarching concern... And if you are partial to action in which the bottom falls out, you just can't beat the old '95...

[Buck Elliott]

I have to admit that I have never had occasion to load .45 Colt to 1.750" length, but the .454 Casull, loaded normally, with 325-gr LFN bullets, run to 1.76" OAL, and the Pumas I have seen will handle that load, with little or no tweaking..

[J Miller]

But .... when you run to Wal-Mart in the dump truck you can intimidate little old ladies in their encono boxes ....

I have to admit that I have never had occasion to load .45 Colt to 1.750" length, but the .454 Casull, loaded normally, with 325-gr LFN bullets, run to 1.76" OAL, and the Pumas I have seen will handle that load, with little or no tweaking..

I do not routinely load .45 Colts that long. Several years ago the late forum member Stuffit sent me some Keith variants from an old Ohaus mold he'd found. They had most of the bullet outside of the case with very little in it.
After loading them in various cases we determined the bullets were most likely intended to be loaded in .45 Auto Rim cases. The short crimp to base would leave about the same powder space as a normal 230gr bullet would.
But in experimenting with them I loaded them in .45 Colt cases and crimped them in the crimp grove. This gave a cartridge OAL of 1.75". I found that ammo loaded to this length would chamber and function in my Old Model Ruger BH (with no room to spare at the front of the cylinder) and would cycle, chamber, and fire quite accurately from my Win 94. Without the attention of a gunsmith, which to me is very relevant. There are NO worthwhile gunsmiths here in central IL, and my pockets are not deep enough to want to pay shipping on top of gun smithing.

Yes, I am a fan of the Winchester 1894 / 94 action. It bothers me not a whit that the late John Browning designed it the way he did. It is an excellent action and a lot more user friendly than the earlier 92 design.

Now, as for the Winchester 95 and long seated .45 bullets. How about we chamber one to 2" or so case and load say a 400gr bullet over a case full of .............. Oh wait they did that with the 1886, the 92s older brother. Oh well, so much for that idea.

Joe

[Buck Elliott]

John Browning's agreement with Winchester was to paper the maker's butt with so many patents that it made effective competition virtually impossible.. This he did, and in spades.. Almost every other manufacturer had to come up with less-efficient, more expensive ways to get the job done, skirting around Browning's patents.. Browning was proud of the dropping-link aspect of the '94, but not overly-fond of the rifles, as produced by Winchester.. The Company saw advantages in the '94, for a new series of cartridges for repeating rifles, beginning with the ubiquitous .38-55 Ballard..
The rest, as they say, is history...
To say that the '94 is more "user-friendly" than the '92 is purely subjective, and I find the opposite to be true.. They serve completely different cartridge classifications, and I love the smooth, rounded bottom contour of both the '86 and the '92.. I have never hefted a '94, made after the mid-50s, that felt at-all comfortable in my hand.. '92s are also virtually debris-proof, whereas the '94 leaks like a sieve, allowing dust, dirt, rain, snow, grass, etc., to enter too many crack and crevices.
The unsupported length of the '94's receiver wall allows more stretching and twisting than the relatively short, supported walls of the '92, and in the AE versions, the 94 is particularly vulnerable to flexing because the AE feature robs the right receiver wall of whatever strength it once had...

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

I have to admit that I have never had occasion to load .45 Colt to 1.750" length, but the .454 Casull, loaded normally, with 325-gr LFN bullets, run to 1.76" OAL, and the Pumas I have seen will handle that load, with little or no tweaking..

The carrier in the 454 Rossi is different than the 44/45 cal guns. Plus the portion of the lever just over the carrier is shaped different, too.

[junkwrencher]

There was a time I didn't understand the mechanics of the '94 Winchester and it was available in the Ranger trim and less expensive than the Marlin and easier to teardown and re-assemble than a '92. Being made in America didn't hurt it either. Now it is history. The dump truck analogy is interesting. Anyone notice all the 3/4 and 1-ton trucks that are daily drivers that will never work a day in their lives?