Model 94 vs 92 leverguns - Why?

[Streetstar]

Was looking at TedH's post about his new Browning '92 and reminiscing about a couple of .44's i had and sold

(Teds thread)
viewtopic.php?p=998987#p998987

But it brought up a general question i had that may be of interest -- i have had a few carbine and trapper length pistol caliber leverguns - couple of Marlins and a handful of Winchesters -- with the caveat - all were model '94s - not a '92 in the bunch

So i was wondering and also especially recalling how goofy short action calibers are when used in long action bolt guns can be

-- Why did Winchester do this? I am taking an uneducated guess that , a lot of mine being AE models , so from the late 70's/early 80's on up -- that it is simply because they weren't making the 1892 at the time but still wanted to market a .357/.44 and .45 ?
Ownership issues? - i remember during that time frame the company was Olin/Winchester - and i thought thats when the cost cutting measures started being used (pre '64 vs post '64 - sintered metal receivers, and a host of other things in not just leverguns, but bolt guns and shotguns alike)

The one that made the cut and is still with me is a '94 Trapper and the long action has never given me any trouble in this gun, but one of my older ones , you had to run the lever like you were mad at it for it to operate somewhat reliably

[LeverGunner]

Olin bought Winchester in 1931, and still owns it today. My Miroku made Winchester 1892 is marked Olin on the barrel.

I think the reason they tried to stuff those pistol caliber cartridges in a model 94 action was anticipated sales. Firstly, there isn't a good way to scope a 92, and they wanted to try to compete with the Marlin model 1894 because it could be scoped.

Having discontinued the model 92, and with the Winchester 94 already in AE configuration, which means scope-able, it probably wasn't a hard jump in the thought process. I imagine they made up a few, it worked good enough, and they figured they'd put them on the market to see if they sold well.

Not to mention that the Winchester 94 has a serious following, as does Winchester. I know a guy, an old man, that he touts how good Winchesters are to the exclusion of all others. To a Marlin 1894 he'd say something to the effect of, it's okay, but it ain't a Winchester. I think there used to be a lot of that mentality, and Winchester was looking to capitalize on it.

[OldWin]

All these old rifle designs are "jig and fixture" guns. They were all manufactured by jig and fixture, along with specialized machines and cutting tools.
There was a long span of time from when the 1892 was dropped till the adoption of NC machining centers. Until that time, it was much easier, and more cost effective, to adapt the short cartridges to the already manufactured 1894. Only a few parts had to be engineered and tooled up for.
Once NC machining centers were adopted, the only real difference between a 92 and a 94 is a program and a few sub-routines. Even the tooling changes would be miniscule. More time would be spent on optimization of the program to save time and increase tool life, while minimizing setup and part transfer between machines.
It's the single biggest factor in the reintroduction of old firearm designs by U.S. and European manufacturers. The countries who manufactured these designs prior to NC, mostly did so profitably due to cheap labor.

[Grizz]

All these old rifle designs are "jig and fixture" guns. They were all manufactured by jig and fixture, along with specialized machines and cutting tools.
There was a long span of time from when the 1892 was dropped till the adoption of NC machining centers. Until that time, it was much easier, and more cost effective, to adapt the short cartridges to the already manufactured 1894. Only a few parts had to be engineered and tooled up for.
Once NC machining centers were adopted, the only real difference between a 92 and a 94 is a program and a few sub-routines. Even the tooling changes would be miniscule. More time would be spent on optimization of the program to save time and increase tool life, while minimizing setup and part transfer between machines.
It's the single biggest factor in the reintroduction of old firearm designs by U.S. and European manufacturers. The countries who manufactured these designs prior to NC, mostly did so profitably due to cheap labor.

Really good point. I think another thing that got the 94 going on was the parts count, that was one way they could control costs before computer run tools. reduce the parts number by x a million times is a big bag of change. Or maybe not?

[OldWin]

All these old rifle designs are "jig and fixture" guns. They were all manufactured by jig and fixture, along with specialized machines and cutting tools.
There was a long span of time from when the 1892 was dropped till the adoption of NC machining centers. Until that time, it was much easier, and more cost effective, to adapt the short cartridges to the already manufactured 1894. Only a few parts had to be engineered and tooled up for.
Once NC machining centers were adopted, the only real difference between a 92 and a 94 is a program and a few sub-routines. Even the tooling changes would be miniscule. More time would be spent on optimization of the program to save time and increase tool life, while minimizing setup and part transfer between machines.
It's the single biggest factor in the reintroduction of old firearm designs by U.S. and European manufacturers. The countries who manufactured these designs prior to NC, mostly did so profitably due to cheap labor.

Really good point. I think another thing that got the 94 going on was the parts count, that was one way they could control costs before computer run tools. reduce the parts number by x a million times is a big bag of change. Or maybe not?

Absolutely. There is also the benefit consistency of assembly. It's much easier to be assembling basically the same rifle. From an employee training standpoint, it saves a lot of cost and quality issues.

[Streetstar]

I know a guy, an old man, that he touts how good Winchesters are to the exclusion of all others. To a Marlin 1894 he'd say something to the effect of, it's okay, but it ain't a Winchester. I think there used to be a lot of that mentality, and Winchester was looking to capitalize on it.

Sounds like my dad

[Sixgun]

I’ve owned dozens of each..can break them down and put them back together…..shots tens of thousands of rounds out of pistol calibered leverguns and pumps…..Im an investment collector, shooter, hunter and competitor……mostly Winchesters. Not so much anymore, just an owner but the knowledge is still there.

Hands down, the 1894 Marlin (originals) is the best of them, mostly for simplicity , followed by the Colt Lightning and then the 1892…..while the Lightning is a weaker action,it’s smooth and faster…and will handle mid range loads until the cows come home.

As Jay (Old Win) said or in words to that effect, the ‘94 Winchester was already there…Winchester tried to make it work….but it never worked the way the other actions did.

[OldWin]

There's no question of the Marlins simplicity. I like the Marlin 89 and 94. I still prefer the Winchester 92 to shoot and carry, but could certainly be happy with a the 94 Marlin.
With the 1893/1936/336 vs. 1894 Winchester, there's no contest, I'll take the 94 every time. Nothing against the Marlin, I have several. I just much prefer the Winchester and it's handling characteristics.

[LeverGunner]

I remember the last time I detail-cleaned my Winchester 94. It wasn't on a far away adventure. It was because I saw a nice buck in the field when I came down the driveway. It was pouring rain, but I took the 94, and snuck up the drive and tried to hide in a cedar tree for shelter. I didn't see the buck again. But I did spend an hour cleaning water out of every nook and cranny of my 94.

I'd much rather detail strip a Marlin, but I'd much rather carry and use a Winchester.