94 to 44-40 kit

[ollogger]

does anyone know bout this kit?
says on bbl. 44-40 mod 94, comes with lifter kit also
it is NOS. is this one of those lessons in total frustation, or a cheap
way to get a 44-40 in a winchester,
im tempted to throw a bid at it, but a little gun shy
What say you

ollogger

[J Miller]

Numrich used to, and maybe still does, sell those conversion kit's. I've also been tempted to buy one, but never have.

I'd check with Numrich before you put in a bid. If they are still available you don't want to bid too much.

Joe

[Griff]

IMO,

The 94 Winchester action is just too long for the short pistol cartridges. It can, and does work. But, you have to be careful with bullet shape and just how you jostle the gun around when loading. But... the parts are not really that hard to fit. Your biggest headache will be if the barrel doesn't index properly... or if you have a top eject receiver and the barrel is probably an AE version. (I can't recall any top eject pistol caliber 94s except the 1968-1970 .44 Mag.).

The only other area might be some slight difference in the positioning of the cuts in the barrel for band screws (see my "New Toy" post), etc. It's fairly easy if your donor receiver is of the same configuration as the kit; carbine to carbine. There have been some light changes in things over the years... but nothing that can't be easily overcome. Other'n those, I don't see a real issue. If your donor receiver is a carbine and the "kit" is a "rifle", then unless you get everything with the kit to change the front end of the gun... you might have a few more issues in locating parts.

Me, I'd pass... if I wanted a .44-40, I'd rather have it in a mdl 1892! The shorter action just makes it that much handier!

[Buck Elliott]

Griff is right !
chambering the '94 Winchester for pistol-length cartridges was USRAC's "WRONG" answer to the demand for leverguns for the short cartridges.. sure they "work," after a fashion, but they don't work as well as a '92 chambered for the same rounds..

[ollogger]

The kit is carbine, but it doesnt say if its top or angle eject
wil find that out, but needed your know how first
if its a top eject i may go to 150.00, but will listen to you guys also
so far if i was smart id Pass?
thanks alot guys

ollogger

[1894c]

i agree with Buck--my buddy had a .45 Colt in a Win.94 Trapper version and had nothing but feeding problems...even had a gun-smith look at it...in the end, as others have stated, you would be better off with a Model 92... :)

[J Miller]

Talk about naysayers ....

Winchester has made the 94 in pistol calibers off and on since the late 60s. Some were finicky, some weren't. That said there is nothing wrong with the concept at all. I have one. Bought it new in 86; Win 94AE Trapper, .45 Colt. It is one of two lever guns that I will not part with. For over 25 years and thousands of rounds of every shape and length of bullet you can dream of that little carbine had worked without problems. It doesn't matter which way you hold it, or tilt it, it just works.

There is nothing wrong with pistol calibers in the longer 94 actions except for those whose personal preferences make them think so.

Joe

[Sixgun]

Ollogger,
I'm one of the retarts who bought into that back when 44-40 92's were hard to come by at my paycheck level. (you know, kids in school etc.)

Anyway, I bought the parts and paid a guy to fit everything in a post '64--pre-angle eject carbine. It was OK, not great. As many have stated here, the biggest issue was feeding. You mostly had to jiggle the lever for it to go in the barrel. Sometimes it worked fast and sometimes it did'nt. I got tired of trying different bullets at different seating depths so it went away.--------------Sixgun

[ollogger]

Well if everyone was as positive as Joe id bid on it, but i got enough
negatives that it scared me off, I have some 94s that i thought
I would convert one & end up with a new toy & still have plenty of
30-30s left over,

thankyou ollogger

[2ndovc]

Ollogger,
I'm one of the retarts who bought into that back when 44-40 92's were hard to come by at my paycheck level. (you know, kids in school etc.)

Anyway, I bought the parts and paid a guy to fit everything in a post '64--pre-angle eject carbine. It was OK, not great. As many have stated here, the biggest issue was feeding. You mostly had to jiggle the lever for it to go in the barrel. Sometimes it worked fast and sometimes it did'nt. I got tired of trying different bullets at different seating depths so it went away.--------------Sixgun

I'm with Professor Joe on this one. I also have a 94 in .45 Colt that functions perfectly. However will only shoot
properly with .454 sized bullets.

jb

[meanc]

I still find it funny that people are still bringing up the tired argument about Win 94s not feeding pistol caliber ammo well.

Here are eight, still in my safe, that have had well over 1000rds through each and have never had a problem

44mag (3) Two Trappers and one Legacy
45Colt (3) Two Trappers and one Legacy
357mag (2) Two Trappers

As a matter of fact, the only problems I've ever encountered with pistol caliber levers, have been with four different Marlin 1894's and a couple of Rossi 92s with the 357mag/38spcl.

[Griff]

Let me put it in terms that should underscore the rationale behind my statement.

The largerst number of pistol caliber leverguns in use in any shooting sport today is in cowboy action shooting. Look up any weekend on the SASS website and you'll find a club shooting somwhere all across the US, Canada, Europe, So. Africa, Australia & New Zealand.

Literally 1,000s of leverguns in use on any given Sat or Sun. The key to success in the sport is smooth, fast shooting, economy and speed of motion. That applies to rifle, pistol, shotgun, transistions between them and movement around the course of fire.

The far and away leader in preference is either the 1873 or 1866 toggle-link designs. Next is the 1894 Marlin. The 1892 Winchester is a relatively distant 3rd. On my ranking the Winchester 94 comes in an even more distant 4th closely followed by the Henry "Big Boy" onlly due to its' weight, otherwise it might beat out the 94!

To the very best of my recollection, over the 30 years they've been holding the "End of the Trail" match, never has the overall winner used a Winchester 94 or a Henry BB. There's a VERY good reason for that.

Now, before you crawl down my throat, I have a little challenge for you. Gather four friends or even aquaintenances, each of whom has one of those models, just so that each is represented. Hopefully each will be in the same caliber, then decide on a particular load that will dimensionally feed thru each model. Might I suggest a round flat nose bullet profile, as I know that's the best feeding bullet shape across a wide range of calibers and leverguns.

Now, take 10 16" x 16" steel targets and set them out @ 25 yarrds. Then each of you fire 10 rounds thru each model as fast as you're able and still hit the targets.

Then come back here, and with a straight face, tell me you believe the Winchester 94 action is as suitable a pistol-caliber action as the three I ranked above it, The whole purpose of a repeater is rapidity of followup shots. If it doesn't do that smoothly, quickly and consistently, then it hasn't met its design criteria.

And don't think for an instant that I, of all people, dislike the 94 Winchester. I love mine, ALL 36 of them, now!

[Ji in Hawaii]

I've had my 94AE Ranger Compact trapper in 357 magnum since 2003 when I bought her new in the box for $230.00. She feeds both 38 Special, and 357 magnum 100% NEVER had a feed problem. I use mine for hunting and plinking, and I'm ecstatic with the way she performs especially after replacing the rebounding hammer with a 70s vintage leaf spring hammer and lower with a halfcock. Hopefully I'll never get into a shoot-out with a seasoned opponent armed with a short stroked '73 so I'm happy.

That being said I'd don't think I'd ever try and convert a 30/30 shooting 94 into a 44/40 shooting 94 on my own. If it didn't come from the factory chambered in a short round I don't want it. The factory did their homework and worked the bugs out.

[J Miller]

Griff,

If I was gonna take action and shoot cowboys I'd be sure to have one of them other styles of lever guns.
But not everybody shoots cowboys so not everybody needs or wants a slicked up race ready 73 or the like.

For normal use, cowboy action shooting games are NOT normal use, there is nothing wrong with the pistol caliber Win 94s.

As far as CAS goes I totally agree with you, the pistol caliber Win 94 isn't suitable.
But I don't shoot CAS so I look at it from the different point of view.

Different strokes for different folks.

Joe

[Molasses]

Ollogger,
I'm one of the retarts who bought into that back when 44-40 92's were hard to come by at my paycheck level. (you know, kids in school etc.)

Anyway, I bought the parts and paid a guy to fit everything in a post '64--pre-angle eject carbine. It was OK, not great. As many have stated here, the biggest issue was feeding. You mostly had to jiggle the lever for it to go in the barrel. Sometimes it worked fast and sometimes it did'nt. I got tired of trying different bullets at different seating depths so it went away.--------------Sixgun

This matches fairly well with my experience. I might've described the feeding a little bit more positively, but not a whole lot more so. Since my donor action had minor rust on it, I polished down the receiver and had it electroless (matte) nickeled; ended up with a sort of two-toned "pinto" look. I gave it to my nephew as a wedding present and he's always seemed pleased with the gun, although it might just have something to do with him liking and having multiple '94s.

[Griff]

Joe, I ain't even talking about slicked up, race-ready '73s, Marlins or 1892s. I'm talking bone stock. Yea, the Uberti or Rossi copies might need some judicious slickin'-up to meet the smoothness of an original; but, it's the action of the link that causes the 94 to have that little hitch in its get-a-long. And why, unless everything is exactly right, they have their problems with short cartridges. Why even the Marlin 1893/93/36/336 a smoother lever throw the 94. But it's that link that allows the 94 to have that shorter profile and flat bottom that makes carrying one such an ease.

One of rumors I heard as to why Winchester thought it necessary to modify the 94 action instead of just making 1892 again, is that they no longer had blueprints of the action. I've also heard that Miroku had to reverse engineer the 1892 before their original production could begin. How true those are? I don't know. But, like Buck... I think Winchester did a great disservice to the mdl 94 by trying to make it something it wasn't. They had the perfect platform for pistol calibers... and just neglected to use it. Sure, they saved some money by not having to have two receivers... but... oh well... water over the dam.

For those of you that have one that works well... congrats... enjoy 'em, for from my experience, they're the anomoly, not the norm.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Over the years I have worked several 94's in pistol cals. What I have found is the 44 and 45 cal guns tend to be the least problematic. Those carts come close to the diameter of the 30 WCF so the action tends to handle them well enough.
The caliber that I saw the most problems with was the 38/357 guns. In order for the 94 to cycle them metal has to be added back into the action to control the smaller case. That combined with Winchester trying to make the guns with parts that were too loose so that they required very little fitting (one size fits all) made these gun extremely temperamental. Plus, they all came as rebounding hammer style guns making them extremely bumpy. Over the years I have converted several to 1/4 cock style hammers which allowed removal of the majority of the bumps. But, it also amplified the looseness of the action once it was converted. When you fling the action open they feel like they will fly all apart.
Bottom line is if you have ever owned a pre-war 94 the late model 94’s just don’t feel right. Then if you have ever owned an original 92 what’s the point of dealing with a 94 converted to pistol cal.

[Sixgun]

Then if you have ever owned an original 92 what’s the point of dealing with a 94 converted to pistol cal.

This makes more sense than anything that has been said. Why fool with trying to make a car fly when you can just buy an airplane. ------------Sixgun

[ollogger]

Well i got what i wanted lots of advice & im gonna pass on the kit
im an expert at sniffing out Winchesters & some day ill come across
a old 92, my pride & joy 1873 was bought private party along with 95%
of my guns, its a matter of time till a 92 shows up, or a factory 94
that should have been a 92

Thanks alot guys ollogger

[meanc]

Let me put it in terms that should underscore the rationale behind my statement.

The largerst number of pistol caliber leverguns in use in any shooting sport today is in cowboy action shooting. Look up any weekend on the SASS website and you'll find a club shooting somwhere all across the US, Canada, Europe, So. Africa, Australia & New Zealand.

Literally 1,000s of leverguns in use on any given Sat or Sun. The key to success in the sport is smooth, fast shooting, economy and speed of motion.

On CAS/SASS - that's all fine and good, but the Win94 was chambered in 44mag many years before SASS came into existence; the 45colt just 2 or 3 yrs afterward.

So I don't think the pistol caliber concept in the Win94 was designed with SASS or extreme speed shooting in mind.

As a matter of fact, I don't think any of the original leverguns (regardless of capabilities) were designed for quite the type of duty found in SASS.

As such, the Win94s in pistol calibers perform exactly as they were designed.

So my point is, just because they don't meet the criteria of a bunch of guys seeing just how fast they can empty a magazine, that doesn't mean there is anything at all wrong with them.

Another point I'd like to bring up is the sturdiness of those 1873/66s race rifles.

How many rounds of factory 44mag or "Ruger Only" type 45Colt loads do you suppose they could stand up to - and would they even feed the longer cartridges and the different ogives of the hunting type rounds?

That's why I like the Win94s. I can load them down to the anemic loads you guys use in SASS and then take them up to loads capable of taking deer, elk, bear, etc...

I may not be able to put down 30 deer in 10 seconds - but to be honest - when is that ever going to happen.

Anyway, this is just me rambling. Don't mean anything disrespectful by it.

[Griff]

Let me put it in terms that should underscore the rationale behind my statement.
The largerst number of pistol caliber leverguns in use in any shooting sport today is in cowboy action shooting. Look up any weekend on the SASS website and you'll find a club shooting somwhere all across the US, Canada, Europe, So. Africa, Australia & New Zealand.
Literally 1,000s of leverguns in use on any given Sat or Sun. The key to success in the sport is smooth, fast shooting, economy and speed of motion.

On CAS/SASS - that's all fine and good, but the Win94 was chambered in 44mag many years before SASS came into existence; the 45colt just 2 or 3 yrs afterward.
So I don't think the pistol caliber concept in the Win94 was designed with SASS or extreme speed shooting in mind.
As a matter of fact, I don't think any of the original leverguns (regardless of capabilities) were designed for quite the type of duty found in SASS.
As such, the Win94s in pistol calibers perform exactly as they were designed.
So my point is, just because they don't meet the criteria of a bunch of guys seeing just how fast they can empty a magazine, that doesn't mean there is anything at all wrong with them.
Another point I'd like to bring up is the sturdiness of those 1873/66s race rifles.
How many rounds of factory 44mag or "Ruger Only" type 45Colt loads do you suppose they could stand up to - and would they even feed the longer cartridges and the different ogives of the hunting type rounds?
That's why I like the Win94s. I can load them down to the anemic loads you guys use in SASS and then take them up to loads capable of taking deer, elk, bear, etc...
I may not be able to put down 30 deer in 10 seconds - but to be honest - when is that ever going to happen.

You missed my point. The point of a repeater is a fast follow-up shot. And "race-guns" as far as SASS is concerned is something that came into being some 15 years after the development of the game. I wasn't talking about race guns.

1 - Cowboy Action Shooting came into being about 1979. The first EOT (End of Trail) was in 1982, 3 years before the first 94s were produced in .45 Colt circa 1985. So yes, I'd say that Winchester did bring back the '94 in pistol calibers in the hopes of sellin' to cowboy shooters. There were folks beggin' Winchester to come out with their 1892. Myself included. The single year per caliber Browings from Miroku weren't emough to meet the demand. Those that could get them... counted themselves lucky.

2 - Yes, the .44Mag was first introduced in the mdl 94 in 1967 and produced for 2 years according to my research. The demand wasn't there. I owned one... purchased it new while I was in Viet Nam in 1972 (made in 1969, it had been ordered by a prior sailor but never picked up... sat in the ship's store inventory for almost 2 years before it was released for sale). And, like MOST other pistol caliber mdl 94s was very difficult feeding. I admit, it was mostly due to the available ammo. Both .44Mag and .44Spl ammo at the time were available (in my budget range) as SWCs... not the best choice for a levergun. That poor sales is why they discontinued production. It's one of those... "idea 10 - execution 3", things. I've literally (& personally) seen more than a hundred guys buy Winchester 94s in .45 Colt, .357M and .44Mag over the past 26+ years to use them in CAS. VERY few of them still own those guns. Let alone compete with them.

3 - Strength. Yes, the 94 action is stronger than the toggle links. However, it isn't the strongest of leveractions chambered for a pistol cartridge. I'm not sure where it falls in comparison to the Marlin 1894 as they're both chambered in the .44Mag. However, copies of the Winchester 1892 action is chambered in cartridges requiring a stronger action than the 94 is capable of withstanding. And those copies don't materially change in those chamberings.

My point was, and still is... that the Winchester 94 is simply NOT the best choice for a pistol caliber levergun. As I said before, does it work? Yes. Does it work well? Ok, maybe I'll modify my opinion a little. Apparently, there are examples that do. But, when I weigh that against my own experience and that of at least hundred other examples... I stand by my statement... they're not the best choice for a pistol caliber levergun.

A bit of CAS history. For the 1st few years of cowboy action shooting, the rifles that ruled the roost were the Marlin 1894 and the Winchester mdl 1892. Both originaly designed and produced in pistol calibers. I'd say the Marlin was the top winner, mainly because of its slightly shorter lever throw. Both of those guns in .38/.357M were somewhat problematic. As has been mentioned repeatedly here and on the SASS Wire, the best calibers are the bottlenecks. As folks started to learn how to slick up the mdl 1892 Rossi, they became more prevalent and some of the then faster shooters were able to win with them. In the mid '90s gunsmiths started working on short-stroking the toggle links to improve the speed of those actions. That they were successful is in the number of them that find their way to the winner's podium. Several gunsmiths I known of over the years have tried to modify the 94 action so that it can become both reliable and faster. It just isn't up to the task.

Let me say this, CAS competitions or any other speed game is NOT the reason I feel the Winchester 94 isn't a real good choice for a pistol caliber levergun. If it weren't for its many other redeeming qualities, I'm not sure I'd love it as much as it do. The action itself is not smooth operating. It doesn't matter what the caliber is, it's simply not as smooth as almost any levergun introduced up to that date. (I can't say about the mdl 1895 as I'm not familiar with it). Amongst the ones I own, there's more than a couple that are smooth as glass. However, even on those, I can tell when the lever hits the low point on the link and starts pushing the bolt back, snaps up the carrier and when the lever hits the point where the link starts to close on the return strock. Even as a hunting gun... I really like a quick, smooth action in order to put that next round in the chamber... just in case. My custom built mdl 94 is just such a smooth rifle (1978 production) and so is the mdl 64A I purchased from a forum member as new in box (1972 production). My 1967 Canadian Centennial custom made Trapper is another. As are the seven I own that are pre-WWI production. Those after the "Big War" vary in their smoothness. These also vary in one other aspect. The slot in the lever for the lever/link pin has some subtle differences. Why that is, I haven't a clue.

No need to get defensive. Trust me, I LOVE the model 94 Winchester. It's my favorite rifle. How much is it my favorite... I have 2 toggle links, a '73 and an 1860; 3 1892 Rossi, 2 in .38/.357, 1 in .45 Colt; and as for the Winchester mdl 94? If you include my mdl 64A... having just recounted my inventory list - 35!

[El Chivo]

I have the .357 Legacy model and true, it's not ideal for rapid fire, but for normal cycling it's ok. What can happen is, if you rack it too hard, the round can bounce up and the nose bumps into the rifle rather than going in the chamber.

I finally changed out the tinfoil piece that makes up the difference between short and long cartridges, and part of it had worn off, and it still worked.

Another problem, that came up when I cycled too SLOW, was the cartridge stop didn't do its job properly and the next round was coming in under the carrier. Faster cycling prevented this but then sometimes created the above problem with the round on the carrier. I found that the cartridge stop is a little too rounded for the .357, so, I ordered a spare and then worked on the original. I filed it so that when the lever was in the open position, the face of the cartridge stop was at 90 degrees, perpendicular to the case. In its original form the face of it was angled back at about 100-110 degrees, so the case tended to slip right over it. Now the case butt comes up against a flat faced tab and it's a little more secure.

Still, I generally use it as a single shot. 357 is probably the worst of the 3, Joe you must have the 45 Long Colt version.

[Leverdude]

JMHO but the 94 in short calibers is a stop gap measure because Win didnt want to build two entirely different guns. If it were truly a good idea they would have stopped making 1892's in 1894.
I tried a couple of them and couldnt tolerate them, but I'm not fond of the 1894W in general. The last one was a beautiful little trapper model that kept shooting apart on me. I'd buy a 92 if I wanted a Winchester short action.