years ago had a winchester mdl 94 in .357 mag would not cycle for anything, got rid of it. The issue was the cartridge was not long enough to work effectively through the action.
The mdl 92 is much better with pistol cartridges that fit that action
Printable View
years ago had a winchester mdl 94 in .357 mag would not cycle for anything, got rid of it. The issue was the cartridge was not long enough to work effectively through the action.
The mdl 92 is much better with pistol cartridges that fit that action
I'd get an older Marlin
I have a 94 in 44mag and I really like it. It does like the longer oak but that's ok since I have 330gr bullet that has a long oak. The internals have been polished by a friend and the action is butter smooth and it also shoots the 330gr bullets very well even at speeds that don't beat me to death
Good people to deal with. I've ordered from them quite a few times as I have a bunch of antique winchester 73's & 92's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbitNutz
Thank you for this post, I never knew the '94 was chambered in handgun/carbine cartridges. I have a 1926 '94 in .32 WS and a 1926 '92 in .32 WCF, both are honest and a true joy to fire but there is no comparing the '92 action for glass smooth functioning. I would imagine the '94 in a short cartridge would jam and run rough. Send pics, would love to see it.
Nice people good service ,bought a lifter and ejector for my win 357 ae from themQuote:
Originally Posted by AbitNutz
When Winchester quit making the mdl 1892, they didn't keep the tooling, etc. When demand for pistol calibered leverguns made a comeback, the only option Winchester had was to either re-tool, or modify the carrier & guides on the mdl 94 to accommodate the short rounds. It was first cataloged in 1967, in .44Magnum. They were only produced for a couple of years, not even cataloged in 1968! Mine serial numbered to 1969 & I bought it new in box thru the Navy Exchange in 1972. AFAIK, this was the only pistol caliber, regular production mdl 94 until the introduction of the mdl 94AE by USRA. I don't know when the .357 or .44 were cataloged, but the .45 Colt 1st made an appearance in 1985. 1976 & 1977 saw the Canadian issue of the "Little Big Horn" & "Cheyennne" commemoratives in .44-40, 1984 saw a Winchester/Colt commemorative set chambered in .44-40, 1986 had a .44-40 for the Winchester 120th Anniversary, and lastly, 1996 saw the issue of a Wild Bill Hickok commemorative in 45 Colt. I do not know if any of these post '83 guns were on top eject frames or if the were 94AEs.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbitNutz
As with the Browning B92 & 1892 and new "Winchester" 1892, they were/are produced by Miroku of Japan. The last Winchester Repeating Arms produced guns left the Winchester plant in 1982. ALL produced since then are made by others, putting the Winchester name on them under license from Olin Corp., who owns the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by runfiverun
Yep, the mdl 94 DOES have that extra part that has to fall out of the receiver and go back in during the cycle. IME, the action feels the same regardless of the cartridge it's chambered in.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndAmendmentNut
FWIW, the stamped carriers only saw use from 1964 to sometime in 1971. All subsequent ones are machined from the factory. IME the stamped ones are fine... unless someone tried to load an over-length and tried to muscle it in. I have a '67 Canadian Centennial with the stamped carrier still in it. Works perfectly. I recently bought a '66 Centennial at that "scratch & dent discount, and replaced it's bent & warped carrier with one from Wisner's. Quick service & less money.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbitNutz
Attachment 191272
Quote:
1967 Winchester Catalog mdl 94 page
Howdy OP.
In my experience, the 1892 is the best choice for pistol calibres for a couple reasons.
Firstly, it was designed for the purpose of shooting pistol calibres. Secondly, the 1894 was designed around the 30-30 and similar cartridges. The 1894 fills this role well. As others have stated, the 1894 can have issues with shorter cartridges, ie; pistol calibres.
As I mentioned in another topic a few minutes ago, the 1892 is a fine design for pistol cartridges, whether it be a genuine Winchester or a Rossi rifle. I am not sure, but the Rossi rifle may have slightly more metal on the receiver (don't quote me on that though!) and is surely strong enough for what it does.
I like the 1892, it can be easily slicked up at little or no cost (except time) and once worked is utterly reliable. The action is relatively simple, yet strong and I have found it to be fast, smooth, strong and very reliable.
Whilst not a perfect choice, it can do a fine job as a defensive rifle, especially in calibres like .44 mag and .45 Colt etc. I would be comfortable in using one for that purpose. When money permits I will be getting more of them in other calibres. Even as a western action gun, I can beat people with slicked up/worked 1873s in lighter calibres with no trouble.
Actually... the 44WCF, 38WCF & 32WCF (aka the .44-40, .38-40 & .32-20) were introduced as "rifle cartridges" in the 1873 Winchester... and only later chambered in pistols... so technically, they are what's become known as "pistol-length rifle cartridges". But still, "rifle cartridges". Whereas, the 45 Colt, introduced in the 1873 "Peacemaker" by Colt, is a pistol cartridge... although now chambered in several rifle actions. I've never heard it referred to as anything but a pistol cartridge. (Strictly a tidbit of information in case someone's got money on the line and saying they're "pistol cartridges"). The 1892 Winchester was introduced and only chambered in these traditional rifle cartridges until the latter third of the 20th Century... when clones began appearing in "pistol cartridges" such as the .357Magnum, .44 Rem Mag and even later for the 45 Colt. The original Winchesters can be found in these pistol cartridges, but it was on a case-by-case conversion basis.
But, indeed, you are correct, it is the far better choice when contemplating a pistol length cartridge in a handy, short carbine... or even a rifle.
Howdy Griff.
Thanks for the correction; yes you are spot on, I recall Elmer Keith talking about this issue and the fact that the .44-40 or .38-40 suffered ballistically out of a six shooter because at that time they were still running rifle powders meant for long barrels and not 4-7 inch ones.
What I should have said was; "the 1892 was designed to suit short rifle cartridges such as......"
Thanks for pointing that out :-)
Ozz
I started my pistol caliber journey with a 94 AE Trapper in 45 Colt complete with safety and inertia hammer. My friendly firearms advisor highly recommended the 92 action over the 94. It fed Keith style bullets but was rough racking. Alittle smoothing, polishing and clipping and it started to turn into a nice rifle.
I followed up with a second in 357 Magnum but with a 92 20" carbine. Completely different lockup (stronger) and alot smoother. Since, the 94 went down the road and was replaced with a 92 Trapper TD in 45 and a third 92 rifle with an octogon barrel in 32-20.
By once and cry once, there is no comparison in my mind.
Miroku made 1892 rifles are as fine as they get.
Hi Birch; do the Miroku ones have the safety button and rebounding hammer etc? I agree in regard to fit and finish and overall quality, but I am not a fan of the additional safety features. Hence my owning a Rossi.
Would be cool if there was a manufacturer with the traditional half cock safety (nothing else) and the fit and finish of Miroku/Winchester!
I own two Miroku/Winchester '92's. 357 and 44/40. Both have the rebounding hammer and tang mounted safety. Both have been flawless. Have fired every round I've put through them. Like Greg S said you get what you pay for.
Ozz, to castrait the Lawyerized rebounding hammer strut is easy. Simple 5 min job with a cut off wheel and clipping the mainspring about 3.5 to 4 coils. The tang mounted safety can be deleted and doesn't effect the normal operation of the rifle like the rebounding hammer does. Some folks has removed the parts and tigged the windows over but requires a reblue.
Thanks Greg.
Thats good to know. That being the case my next 1892 might be a Winchester/Miroku. I have not yet owned one but the one I used a few times had a very stiff mainspring that required the gun be unshouldered to get more leverage on the lever. Was overall stiff and tight, but I imagine your advice would resolve much of that, as would a regular 1892 action job.
The Miroku/Brownings are exactly what you are looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ozzman
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...dbf59ede7e.jpg
I have also heard that the Pedersoli lever actions are very nice and only have the traditional 1/2 safety.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk