Win 94 Ranger

[nonferrous]

I would like to get a Winchester 94 just to have one. The other day I read a note on a web site of a Gunsmith that seemed to specialize in Winchesters and he said he refused to work on Win 94's that were ranger models, so don't send them in.
Would someone please tell me what that is all about and what serial #'s to watch out for.
Thanks.

[NickSS]

I do not know what the guy is talking about as I have two winchester 44 mag 16 inch carbines. One came in a box and was called a Trapper carbine the others box said it was a ranger model. The only difference I can see between the two of them is that one has a Walnut stock and the other has a birch wood stock. The rest of the rifle is pretty much the same gun. The Ranger did cost about $100 less that the other.

[nonferrous]

Thanks for the reply,
I have collected S&W'S and shot handguns competitively for years. I got away from it for several years due to a move and other interests, but I kept the guns.
Now that the new big thing is that everybody is packing heat or wants to, someone in one of the new group's bought a gun and decided it would be fun to start shooting on a semi formal basis within the group, keep score and so on. I had never mentioned that I had shot some and so I had some fun with them.
Because we are always at least one gun short. I bought a S&W .44 mag online only to find out too late about the internal lock that is now common and much unloved. I just plain was out of the loop.
The lock may or may not be a good deal, thats a whole nother discussion, all I learned, is that is that if it has one it won't be very popular.
I got lucky and broke even on that one, so now I thank this forum again to be able to ask questions.
Thanks again

[jlchucker]

NickSS is right. The only real difference between the "Ranger" models and the regular 94 is cheaper wood on the Ranger. Internally they are the same gun.

[moose30273]

I beg to differ with the previous posters. The "Ranger" mod 94s used a rebounding hammer system that was different from both the pre 64 and post 64 model 94s. Simply the hammer would not rest on the firing pin in the down position. It sat back just a fraction of an inch at rest. As a personal note I do not like them but it is simply because it is different from the usual Browning/ Winchester system. Can't comment about gunsmithing them.

[fecmech]

I beg to differ with the previous posters. The "Ranger" mod 94s used a rebounding hammer system that was different from both the pre 64 and post 64 model 94s. Simply the hammer would not rest on the firing pin in the down position. It sat back just a fraction of an inch at rest. As a personal note I do not like them but it is simply because it is different from the usual Browning/ Winchester system. Can't comment about gunsmithing them.

I think the model 94's that were made at the same time as the Rangers also had rebounding hammers. I don't know at what point Winchester started but I believe from a certain point forward all 94's had rebounding hammers.

[MtGun44]

Ranger was cheap wood, less polish, lower price point, no design changes. Fecmech is right.

Bill

[7of7]

I've got three, two older ones, 1947, and 1950, and a newer one in .357.. the 357 has the rebounding hammer... it goes bang when I pull the trigger and click if I have a bad primer...
The only thing that I don't like about it, or didn't like about it was the front post sight... I prefer a bead sight.. which I found one, and replaced it...
As far as the hammer system, there is a possibility of getting something in the small gap that could cause it to not fire, if hunting with it...however.. it is a relatively small possibility... it is just different....

[jimmeyjack]

The rebound hammers are harder to get a light trigger pull on. most gunsmiths cringe when they have to do it. I know who you are referring to about not working on ranger models. Kind of struck me as being, eh never mind.

[pietro]

[I know who you are referring to about not working on ranger models. Kind of struck me as being, eh never mind. ]

"Peculiar" comes to my mind. ;) :roll:

.

[jlchucker]

Fechmech, my 44 mag trapper has a rebounding hammer. It's an early angle eject model, with walnut stock and forearm. I'm very sure that no top ejects had rebounding hammers. Not even Winchester was dumb enough, production-wise, to create an entirely different model 94 (Ranger) to sell on the cheap. That would require too much production retooling and fixtureing. What they did do was what other companies did--use cheaper wood and less polishing here and there. If you notice the bolt actions, they are all pretty much the same variants of Model 70- the cheaper ones had hardwood instead of Walnut, less polishing here and there, but were still the same basic gun. The infamous "comemmoratives were pretty much mostly a Model 94 action, some fancier wood and embellishments, and a bigger pricetag. Underneath though, the same gun. Look at Remington--especially their pump 22's. One's walnut, the other hardwood. There are other examples but I've said enough.
by the way--this kind of fits with what 7of7 said in his reply. The 94's never really came out in 44 mag (except very briefly) or other pistol calibers until the angle eject era began. He didn't say specifically, but I suspect his 357 is an angle eject.

[fecmech]

Fechmech, my 44 mag trapper has a rebounding hammer. It's an early angle eject model, with walnut stock and forearm. I'm very sure that no top ejects had rebounding hammers. Not even Winchester was dumb enough, production-wise, to create an entirely different model 94 (Ranger) to sell on the cheap. That would require too much production retooling and fixtureing. What they did do was what other companies did--use cheaper wood and less polishing here and there. If you notice the bolt actions, they are all pretty much the same variants of Model 70- the cheaper ones had hardwood instead of Walnut, less polishing here and there, but were still the same basic gun. The infamous "comemmoratives were pretty much mostly a Model 94 action, some fancier wood and embellishments, and a bigger pricetag. Underneath though, the same gun. Look at Remington--especially their pump 22's. One's walnut, the other hardwood. There are other examples but I've said enough.
by the way--this kind of fits with what 7of7 said in his reply. The 94's never really came out in 44 mag (except very briefly) or other pistol calibers until the angle eject era began. He didn't say specifically, but I suspect his 357 is an angle eject.
I never said anything about top ejects or angle ejects. All I said was at some point all the 94's had rebounding hammers and probably about the time the Rangers came out. I don't know for sure but would guess Winchester changed all their 94 production both Rangers and regular 94's at the same time. the rebounding hammer is a "Lawyer hammer", not a cheaper way to make a hammer.

[jlchucker]

I never said anything about top ejects or angle ejects. All I said was at some point all the 94's had rebounding hammers and probably about the time the Rangers came out. I don't know for sure but would guess Winchester changed all their 94 production both Rangers and regular 94's at the same time. the rebounding hammer is a "Lawyer hammer", not a cheaper way to make a hammer.

Yes, I agree with you, as I did initially. That hammer change is a "lawyer hammer". From a manufacturing standpoint (and cost standpoint) a sweeping change to accommodate the lawyers was applied to the whole product line. That's why I brought up the angle eject vs top eject thing. I own an early angle eject (in a pistol caliber). 7of7 mentioned one that he has in 357. They didn't make top eject 357's--at least none that I can recall. I was just trying to agree with you, and still do, with your premise that they changed all 94 production at the same time. Making that hammer into a lawyer hammer by a manufacturer like Winchester (was) is only smart if you do it in volume, over time. I wasn't looking to argue--just trying to agree.

[fecmech]

Sorry about the tone of my previous post, after rereading your original post I must have gotten out of bed on the wrong side or something. Please accept my apology.

[jlchucker]

No offense taken. We were pretty much saying the same thing.