Searching for a specific lever action rifle

[Onty]

Greetings to all. Last time I posted here was 15 years ago.

I am trying to identify one lever action rifle I had seen just once years ago. That rifle has top ejector port, like various Winchester rifles, but at the back of receiver has a bridge, just in front of hammer, and locks breech bolt with some sort of thick plate that goes up and down.

I know that this is quite fuzzy description, but hope that somebody could recognize the rifle I am talking about.

Thanks!

[Blaine]

One picture is worth a thousand words.

[Tycer]

Ruger No. 1 ?

[Onty]

Unfortunately, no picture.

It's not Ruger No.1, I know it. It was lever action rifle with tubular magazine under barrel. If I remember correctly, locking plate was about 1/4" thick and seems to me it had two small ribs on aft side.

[2ndovc]

Have you tried a google search for Winchester lever action rifles? If not, give it a try and hit the Images button. Bet you're find what you're looking for.

jb

[Grizz]

sounds like a 94 to me, which has the breech lock at the back of the bolt, instead of in the side of the bolt like the 86 and 92 . . .
.

Screenshot 2023-03-10 064520.png

.
†

[yooper2]

Sounds like you're describing the Mossbeeg 464. Looks a lot like a 94 in profile but has a bridge at the rear of the receiver. Not sure if they're still being made, haven't seen one in a few years.


Eric

[Tycer]

Sounds like you're describing the Mossbeeg 464. Looks a lot like a 94 in profile but has a bridge at the rear of the receiver. Not sure if they're still being made, haven't seen one in a few years.


Eric

Yep

[Onty]

Sounds like you're describing the Mossbeeg 464. Looks a lot like a 94 in profile but has a bridge at the rear of the receiver. Not sure if they're still being made, haven't seen one in a few years.


Eric

You nailed it! Most certainly I mixed up 94 locking plate with Mossberg 464 receiver. Well, it was almost 30 years ago when I saw both rifles on a gun show.



Thank you Sir!

Question, how Mossberg 464 rifle compares in quality and strength with Marlin 336 and Winchester Big Bore? I was for a while dreaming about Winchester 375 BB. I was impressed with nice fit and finish https://www.guns.com/news/reviews/winch ... fle-review . Unfortunately, there are so few in Toronto area where I lived for a while. Another time I saw 307 BB west of Thunder Bay, but I wanted Winchester 375, so I passed that 307.

[RIDERED350r]

I have a 94 Big Bore 375 made in appx 1980. I love it. The 307, 356, and 375 Wins are high pressure cartridges. In the range of 50k psi. Marlin did at one time offer the 336 in 375 and 356 Win but they didn't do them for very long. Also I have heard of some smiths offering the service of converting 336s to run those cartridges. So yes, a Marlin is up to the task. I have no idea about the Mossberg though.

IMG_20211123_090921826_HDR.jpg

[Onty]

Here is one thing that bothers me with Mossberg and other lever action rifles; area around locking plate or lugs slot(s) isn't reinforced. IMO, it should be like on Winchester Big Bore. Yeah, some will say that this is enough steel. If it's enough, it certainly doesn't look good, it could be improved. I don't buy explanation that beefing up receiver in the most critical area isn't justified because of technical or financial issues. Take a look on lever action receivers, where front end meets forearm. As far as I could see, on every rifle receiver's front end is wider than rest of receiver, excluding Winchester Big Bore. Why locking area isn't beefed up same way, is beyond me.

[jeepnik]

Here is one thing that bothers me with Mossberg and other lever action rifles; area around locking plate or lugs slot(s) isn't reinforced. IMO, it should be like on Winchester Big Bore. Yeah, some will say that this is enough steel. If it's enough, it certainly doesn't look good, it could be improved. I don't buy explanation that beefing up receiver in the most critical area isn't justified because of technical or financial issues. Take a look on lever action receivers, where front end meets forearm. As far as I could see, on every rifle receiver's front end is wider than rest of receiver, excluding Winchester Big Bore. Why locking area isn't beefed up same way, is beyond me.

Well, as millions of leverguns have shown, it isn't necessary.

[RIDERED350r]

Also a interesting point pertaining to more modern Winchester 94s specifically.... You can currently buy a brand new Miroku 94 chambered in 450 Marlin that does not have the Big Bore fattened reciever. That's running Marlin lever action 45-70 pressure and is a much more overall energetic cartridge than any of the old Big Bore 94 chamberings with their fattened receivers. That seems to indicate there really is something to be said about the materials used in current production rifles. The meat and potatoes of the action is unchanged from it's original design. So what has changed? And this is even in comparison to later post-64 rifles. They didn't figure the model 94 of 1978 was up to the task of harnessing the 375 Win at that time without beefing up the receiver adjacent to the bolt locking plate.

So this prompts a question that has puzzled me quite a bit as a side point... Why does Winchester offer the 94 in 450 Marlin but not 45-70??? The two cartridges are virtually identical in dimensions, pressure, and energy with the obvious exceptions of the belt on the 450. They worried they won't sell any 1886 models if you can get a 94 in 45-70???? I love the idea of a 45-70 model 94. But for the belted case and the extra little bit of fuss reloading them, I would like one in 450 Marlin.

[Griff]

When I first joined this forum, I learned that a member at the time was one of the folks associated with developing the .375 Winchester. They chambered it both Winchester 94 and Marlin 336. As I understand it the Marlin gave up the ghost a few rounds before the Winchester did. Both as I recall suffered from the sides of the receiving spreading apart. I have a Marlin 375 built on a 1978 receiver that I purchased new in the box in 1980. After reading about the development of the 375 Win, I stopped loading it to near max in my Marlin. I used to run them at max. Now it's just a short .38-55. Still quite capable, but I'm a bit more cautious!

[Onty]

When I first joined this forum, I learned that a member at the time was one of the folks associated with developing the .375 Winchester. They chambered it both Winchester 94 and Marlin 336. As I understand it the Marlin gave up the ghost a few rounds before the Winchester did. Both as I recall suffered from the sides of the receiving spreading apart. I have a Marlin 375 built on a 1978 receiver that I purchased new in the box in 1980. After reading about the development of the 375 Win, I stopped loading it to near max in my Marlin. I used to run them at max. Now it's just a short .38-55. Still quite capable, but I'm a bit more cautious!

I didn't expect that Winchester 64 is stronger than Marlin 336. Been wrong before, thanks for valid info. That is the reason why forums like this are great.

As for receivers on Winchester 94, 1873, 1886, etc.,, is the thickness in front of locking lugs the same as in locking lugs area, the thinnest section, left/right of locking lugs.

[RIDERED350r]

When I first joined this forum, I learned that a member at the time was one of the folks associated with developing the .375 Winchester. They chambered it both Winchester 94 and Marlin 336. As I understand it the Marlin gave up the ghost a few rounds before the Winchester did. Both as I recall suffered from the sides of the receiving spreading apart. I have a Marlin 375 built on a 1978 receiver that I purchased new in the box in 1980. After reading about the development of the 375 Win, I stopped loading it to near max in my Marlin. I used to run them at max. Now it's just a short .38-55. Still quite capable, but I'm a bit more cautious!

I didn't expect that Winchester 64 is stronger than Marlin 336. Been wrong before, thanks for valid info. That is the reason why forums like this are great.

As for receivers on Winchester 94, 1873, 1886, etc.,, is the thickness in front of locking lugs the same as in locking lugs area, the thinnest section, left/right of locking lugs.

The '73, '86, and '94 actions are completely different from one another in design. The '73 is a toggle link action and has no locking lugs and is the weakest of the three. The '86 has two large locking lugs, one on each side of the rear of the bolt and is by far the strongest of the three. The '94 has a single locking lug directly at the rear of the bolt and is a strong design but not as strong as the '86. The 1892 action is very similar to the '86 with two lugs along side the rear of the bolt, but scaled down for pistol sized cartridges. The similarity in design to the '86 makes it a very strong action.

[Griff]

The Winchester 94 vs the Marlin 336 strength is possibly affected by the shape and retention of the bolt in either rifle enjoys. Whereas the Winchester has a basically square bolt, with two "ribs" down each side, the Marlin is basically round and only contained within the action by the channel inside the receiver. The two ribs of the Winchester bolt ride in a groove down each frame rail for the entire length of the bolt. Whereas the Marlin is only supported on the top & side of the bolt for most of the bolt's length and fully supported at the rear. Which is an improvement over the 1983 Marlin. The Marlin's locking lug only engages the bottom half of the bolt, vs the Winchester which engages approx. ¾ of the Winchester's bolt from the top down. (The only place it doesn't reside in contact with the locking lub is the angled bottom ¼ of the Winchester's bolt. The Winchester's receiver also has a web in the rear of the action, just behind the locking lug, holding the locking lug area together. I don't recall what internal structures are in the Marlin 336 action, so won't speculate.

[Onty]

The '73, '86, and '94 actions are completely different from one another in design. The '73 is a toggle link action and has no locking lugs and is the weakest of the three. The '86 has two large locking lugs, one on each side of the rear of the bolt and is by far the strongest of the three. The '94 has a single locking lug directly at the rear of the bolt and is a strong design but not as strong as the '86. The 1892 action is very similar to the '86 with two lugs along side the rear of the bolt, but scaled down for pistol sized cartridges. The similarity in design to the '86 makes it a very strong action.

The Winchester 94 vs the Marlin 336 strength is possibly affected by the shape and retention of the bolt in either rifle enjoys. Whereas the Winchester has a basically square bolt, with two "ribs" down each side, the Marlin is basically round and only contained within the action by the channel inside the receiver. The two ribs of the Winchester bolt ride in a groove down each frame rail for the entire length of the bolt. Whereas the Marlin is only supported on the top & side of the bolt for most of the bolt's length and fully supported at the rear. Which is an improvement over the 1983 Marlin. The Marlin's locking lug only engages the bottom half of the bolt, vs the Winchester which engages approx. ¾ of the Winchester's bolt from the top down. (The only place it doesn't reside in contact with the locking lub is the angled bottom ¼ of the Winchester's bolt. The Winchester's receiver also has a web in the rear of the action, just behind the locking lug, holding the locking lug area together. I don't recall what internal structures are in the Marlin 336 action, so won't speculate.

Thank you gentlemen! I learned a lot from this thread, I am glad I started it.