Winchester Ranger

[fatelk]

I just bought my first 30-30. It's funny, I've owned an awful lot of rifles over the last three decades or so, but never the one iconic American deer rifle.

I've been half-heartedly watching for one for some time. I have a Marlin 1894 .44 Mag., thought I'd like a Winchester just because. It just seemed that anything I saw was either more than I was wanting to spend, or butchered somehow. So, I come across this Winchester Ranger, from the early '80s in like new condition at a fair price. I know the Ranger is not highly regarded but it seems like a solid rifle. I did have one person tell me (condescendingly) that it's not a Winchester. Well, it's stamped Winchester and sure looks like one, so that's good enough for me, for a simple shooter rifle.

So, this rifle is just a cast bullet shooter, with no illusions of any future collector value. I've started working up a load and getting it sighted in. Is there anything I should be concerned about? Is the general dislike of these rifles primarily because they're "not a real Winchester", or the cheaper wood, or are they actually mechanically inferior in some way?

A good friend of mine bought an old Winchester 94 30-30 from an old timer a couple years ago, for about the same price as I paid for this Ranger. It was in very nice condition for an old hunting rifle from the '40s (as he was told- I didn't check the serial number). It's too bad I couldn't talk him out of it; he's a govt. trapper and is HARD on his guns.

[Bazoo]

They have a different hammer spring setup than previous models. I'm not sure if all of them do, but I think so. They use a cool spring on a stamped piece with a set of dog legs to engage the hammer. They have a rebounding hammer instead of a half cock notch. Some of them had three legs, and some four. I think it was the older ones that had three legs, and they are supposed to function better. The newer ones can be converted simply by cutting off the extra leg.

I'm told the system works well. I had misfiring issues out of one I had, but it could have been that particular rifle. Mine had four legs, I tried to remedy it by removing a leg, but never figured it out and traded it on the 70 made version I have now.

Congratulations by the way. I certainly hope you don't have any issues with yours.

[OverMax]

Just a opinion.
As I recall Rangers were produced as a entry level rifle as was the model 788. At that time nearly all arms manufactures were doing the same. Marlin had Glenfield. I don't know what Savage produced as entry level firearms?
The only difference in a Ranger that I knew about was its wood and bluing otherwise its innards I do believe were the same as its handsome Brothern.

[koger]

Over Max is spot on, Basically all 94's were made the same, from 64 until mid 90's, when they returned to making them out of steel billets and CNC machining made it possible. They also returned to better internal parts, machined out instead of stamped out. and they put the screw back on the the bottom of the lever plate, to take up slack as the gun wore, theoretically. Most of us that have had 94's, have had the post 64 models, with receivers made out of sintered metal, with the same parts as the gun you just bought, and they were fine guns, and fit the bill as hunting rifles, where most shots here in the east is under 150 yds. Rest assured yours is a Winchester, and is the model most folks bring to mind when talking about a 1894. The most accurate 94 I ever shot was a Ranger, with beech wood stock, made in 1996, with a 3x9x40 scope, it would shoot a 3 shot group into 3/4" at 100yds with 170gr factory fodder. Never shot another 94 that accurate.

[Bazoo]

The receivers of the post 64 94s are investment cast, not sintered.

[fatelk]

Thanks guys. That makes me feel better about it. So far I’ve just shot a few groups at 25 and 50 yards, starting a load workup with Lee C309-170-F powder coated and gas checked, and LVE powder. Nothing impressive yet for accuracy, about 2” at 50 yards. That’s with iron sights though. I suspect my eyes aren’t quite as sharp as they used to be, but I know I can still do better than that.

One of these days I’ll probably have a really neat older Winchester, but I’m in absolutely no hurry at all. My mom has my great-grandfather’s model 64 from the ‘30s. It’s not pristine, has honest finish wear because it was a saddle gun for a while.

[Bazoo]

Here's a few links that you might like. Info on the issue I described and the fix I described. I'm not trying to discourage you, but you (sorta) asked for known issues with the model. Maybe having some info about it will save you some frustration if you do experience an issue. Not everyone does.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?330774-Mod-94AE-light-primer-strikes

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?19936-Winchester-94-Rebounding-Hammer-Fix

https://www.levergunscommunity.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17308&view=previous

[bedbugbilly]

I bought a Ranger a few years ago - it was made during the last years that they produced them - had the cross safety but that wasn't an issue to me. The carbine was a "true closet queen". It had been purchased, leaned up in a closet and never shot - the gentleman who bought it never shot it and when he died, his kids sold all his guns as they had no interest. On mine, I had some issues with failure to fire every so often - second strike would set the off (my reloads). After asking a lot of questions, I took it down and thoroughly cleaned it and re-lubed it. It was fine after that. My thoughts were the tit had sat leaned up in a closet for a number of years and the factory lube "settled" - got icky - and it caused things to "drag" - like I said, after cleaning everything worked better.

Anyway . . . . I really liked the one I had. I had owned other Winchesters but never really shot them much and parted ways with them over the years. I didn't mind that the Ranger didn't have a walnut stock - the wood had nothing to do with how well it shot . . which was very well. I sold it this past year with my old Marlin 336SC as I really wasn't shooting them very much - went with a 357 Henry instead.

Don't let anyone down play the Ranger - they'll do everything you need them to do. I loved shooting mine with 115 gr flat point lead over Red Dot - a great light plinking round and "critter getter". Mine also shot well with a 150 grainish and 175 grainish boolit.

Enjoy it and have fun - bu the careful - it will make you want more lever guns!

[fatelk]

Thanks guys both for that info. I appreciate any information I can get.

Speaking of light loads, I have a bucket of plastic bullets I bought a few years ago. They are orange plastic 13gr. .308" bullets with a copper gas check. I never really got around to trying them out, but I think they might make a usable plinking load for a 30-30.

[Rifletom]

I have a 1985, I believe, Ranger. It's as accurate as I could hope for. As has been said, it's as solid as any '94 out there. I no longer hunt, but, this one isn't going anywhere. You have a splendid rifle.

[fatelk]

Thank you. I've had it to the range a couple times now, and occasionally I'll get a tight group, but more often than not I get some serious vertical stringing. Any idea what might cause that? I talking about 3" - 4" groups at 50 yards, always vertical.

[Bazoo]

You using the factory sights? They don't agree with me, although I did some better than that. I switched to a marbles rear sight and it helped. Perhaps this is some of your trouble.

[T.R.]

US Repeating Arms developed the Angle-Eject models back in the early 1980's for scope use. The easiest way to determine if your Ranger has this feature is to observe the top of the receiver. If four little screws are present for the scope bases, you have the model described.

Good shooting to you!

TR

[fatelk]

Yes, the sights could be part of it. They really aren't very good, are they? Normally I can shoot better than that with any sights though.

It does have the scope base mounting holes. I thought about picking up some bases for it and putting a scope on it temporarily just for load workup.

[Bazoo]

If I'm not sure which sights you have. I've seen a cheap stamped basic blade rear as well as something like a semi buckhorn style. And I've seen a bead front as well as a cheap blade front. It really isn't a semi buckhorn but rather looks like the top half of a heart with a hole at the intersection. I've seen that both with and without a white triangle.

For me, with the bead sight and "buckhorn" type, I found the notch too large for the bead to be consistent. The notch on the marbles semi buckhorn is smaller. I turned the white diamond around on the marbles as it clashed with my eyes too.

If I'm not mistaken, the blade front can be found with the "buckhorn" rear. Not sure about the other way.

[fatelk]

248034248035

I feel like there's still got to be more to it than just the sights, but these sights are not my favorite.

[Texas by God]

By all means scope it and see what it’ll do. Then to a receiver sight if you want it handy IMO.

[Bazoo]

That's the cheap stamped rear and the bead front. Not the best bead. I have the same bead on my 1970 made model 94. Mine has had the paint scraped off the bead portion and then polished. I want to replace it with a brass bead some day but it's okay the way it is for me.

[FergusonTO35]

Those cheapo sights are better than nothing and not one bit more. Get yourself a Lyman 66 or Williams Foolproof and put a slot blank in place of the barrel mounted rear. I bet your shooting will immediately improve!

[Drm50]

For shooting purposes in my opinion there is no difference between a pre 64 and a Ranger. A reciever sight will get the best out of it compared to standard rear. Around my area post 64 m1894s are a dead horse, $350 will buy them at any local gun show. And they don't fly off the shelf at that.

[Bazoo]

I like the marbles semi buckhorn rear personally. But I don't like receiver sights much.

[veeman]

I just put a Skinner on mine, it was always a great shooter before, my eyes just getting older.

[fatelk]

Well, I spent $8 and bought a scope base, put a little Tasco 1.75-5x scope on it.

I'm a little disappointed, not with the groups today, but with my shooting before I put the scope on it. I thought I was a better shot with iron sights that this. It seems like I used to be able to shoot at least mediocre with any sights. I shot a 4-shot group @50 yards with jacketed, about 1.5", then two 5-shot groups of 170gr cast, powder coated, gas check bullets. Funny thing is both groups had 4 in about 1", with one vertical flier another inch away. I wonder about that, but it definitely shows promise.

This little scope is just one I had laying around. I think I'll leave it on it. It kind of looks like it belongs there.