rebounding hammer modify?

[Newtire]

I recall a thread that talked about someone taking care of the rebounding hammer either by modifying or eliminating it. Is this a possibility on a Win '94 angle eject? If so, anyone point me in the right direction and I would appreciate the heck out of it! Would like to do myself if do-able like that.

[fecmech]

I've played around with my 94AE .357and came to this conclusion. If you are using the AE parts you can shorten the bottom legs on the hammer spring guide and get rid of about half of the rebounding effect. This will let you go a little lighter on the hammer spring for a slightly lighter trigger and still get reliable ignition. If you take the bottom legs off totally you can get rid of the rebound effect but in my case the upper leg would sometimes slip out of the notch on the hammer and tie up the gun. If you decide to do it order another hammer spring guide or two, they are only a couple bucks and then when you go too far you will know on the next one how much to take off. My trigger is right at 2 3/4 Lbs and decent but I've played with it quite a bit and changed the sear angle slightly. The best thing if you can find an old parts gun and swap out the whole lower tang, hammer,trigger and all from one of the older 94's.

[MtGun44]

The reasone I reduced the rebound on my 1886 Ltwt (new production) was that the
darned thing misfired about half the time. If your rifle is reliable, like my 94 AE is, I'd
leave it alone.

Bill

[Newtire]

Well, my one 94AE (earlier) doesn't have the problem but this newer one misfires about every 3 or 4 shots. I tried a new spring and spring guide so never would have guessed it was the rebounding hammer since I didn't even see how it worked until now. I will tackle that after I finish fitting the new walnut stock to the rear of it to replace the ill fitting plastic one it came with. Next, will go for the extractor spring. This rifle was just a real ***! Fun for a project rifle-I'm learning alot. It's real accurate whenever it decides to fire one off!

Thanks you guys for the help. I think that should solve the problem of misfires. Take off half of the lower legs on the spring guide...OK...

[Larry Gibson]

My current (it's also a keeper) M94AE also would miss fire every 3 - 4 shots. I shortened the lower legs as mentioned but it did not help. I took the push button safety out to modify it so it wouldn't work. For a lark I shot the rifle for a while without the push button safety in the rifle. It fired every time. I then noticed that the undersid curved part of the hammer was also hitting the push button safety cushening the blow. I ground off a little of the bottom of the push button safety for clearence and that solved the problem.

The push button safety is redundant as there is a hammer block also that prevents the hammer from hitting the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled the same as in most all modern revolvers. The rifle is entirely safe with out the push button safety. Mine is back in the rifle but it is just cosmetic now.

Larry Gibson

[Newtire]

Thanks Larry, like I said before, I never would have thought of some of this stuff so will check that too. I'll give that a shot first and see since I was going to try to eliminate that button too. My earlier version doesn't have the redundant safety. I read an article about doing that on Marlins and it doesn't look that hard to make one of those.

Once again, thanks a heap!

[ktw]

I have a 94AE Trapper//tang safety that was 100% reliable. I wanted a lighter trigger pull and installed a lighter hammer coil spring. This made it unreliable with trimmed down 454 Casull brass and small rifle primers, although it still shoots CCI LPM primers in 45 Colt brass without a hitch.

Someday I will try shortening the bottom leg of the hammer spring guide, but for the time being I'm content to just stick with LP primers.

-ktw

[Newtire]

Having removed the safety and finding out it wasn't hitting on mine, I carefully ground off about 3/16" of the lower legs and now...wham! The hammer smashes the firing pin in every time. I don't see how it was even firing before.

So, the grinding of the lower legs really did the trick on this one. Glad I asked...Thanks guys!

[FergusonTO35]

I dug up this thread because I'm having the same problem with my 1985 94 .30-30. I'm getting light strikes about 10% of the time and some vertical stringing that I think is related. Cases are full length sized and the primer pockets reamed and uniformed. Same ammo shoots great in my Marlins.

I went ahead and ordered a new factory hammer spring from Midwest Gun Works. I suppose I'll also try very slightly shortening the lower rebound leg.

[uscra112]

OK, I know what a rebounding hammer is. My old Hopkins & Allens all have the feature. But I have a hard time understanding why a recent-mfg Winchester would incorporate the feature. It was a poor idea in 1900, and IMHO and even poorer idea today. What on Earth does it do for the functionality pf the gun?

[FergusonTO35]

Well, Winchester wasn't known for always making good decisions.

[GhostHawk]

My Win 94AE is perfectly happy operating without the cross bolt safety at all. Yes I removed it, decided I liked the holes better than the safety sticking out and left it out.

Now that I have read this thread I see that perhaps I was farther ahead of the curve than I thought I was.
While I have not shot mine a lot I think I have at least 50 rounds through it without a single missfire. And no more "Click" when I expected to hear "Bang" because someone else handled the gun and put the safety on.

[Greg S]

Completely removed the leg on a 94AE and three Winokou 1892s and trimmed the hammer spring. I have had no problems with miss fires or the hammer strut coming out and timing up the rifles. Worst case scenario, new lawyer approved rebounding hammer struts are available from gunpartscorp. I can't recall how much I trimmed the hammer springs but I recall 1/2 a coil on either end to start then took another 1/4 coil from each end and tapered the ends till I liked it.

They are terribly oversprung to have enough energy to get through the nuetral/resting position of the hammer position and still strike with enough authority to detonate the primer.

The overspringing also compounds the trigger pull resistance. I ended up polishing the hammer and sear surfaces and shimmed the trigger return leaf sprung to reduce trigger pull. This was in low of reducing the width of the trigger return finger on the leaf spring. G

[FergusonTO35]

My 94 AE doesn't have the cross bolt safety so no worries there. The trigger pull unmodified is actually pretty good and I am happy with it.

[NEKVT]

I have a Big Bore 356 bought new in 1998. Didn't have any ignition issues at first then years later began getting about 10% misfires. Researched it and found the lower strut adjustment did it and got 100 straight at one point but then it started again. Took off more to where the rebound hammer barely clears the crossbolt safety but didn't resolve it. I'm seeing the possibility of hammer contact with the safety for first time on this thread. Can someone explain how to remove the crossbolt to check and adjust for contact there? I want to retain the safety feature and would like the rifle to function with any primer and load.

[uscra112]

Ah, now I get it. They wanted the hammer far enough back to allow the crossbolt to engage. Do these guns not have a half-cock notch on the hammer? Does the hammer not rebound far enough for it to engage?

[DAVIDMAGNUM]

I have corrected two 1892 and one 1886 Winchester. They are, however set up different than the 1894. I do however want to point out the the problem with all three Winchesters is two fold. The rebounding hammer slaps an inertia firing pin. The firing pin has a rather healthy return spring and is shorter than the bolt. In other words IF the hammer rested on the firing pin (1886 &1892) or firing pin striker (1894) the firing pin will not protrude from the bolt face. The firing pin travels against the return spring under its own inertia after being slapped by the hammer. So......gunk , grit and/or old dried oil will easily bind things up enough to retard the movement of the firing pin. An over complicated mess.
I will call myself out on a lie. I did correct the inertia firing pin on an 1894. It however is a Uberti 1894, top eject, no safety and standard hammer. I simply fitted an "original" (new manufacture) firing pin and tossed the return spring. This allowed the installation of a lighter hammer spring.

Personally I believe that the described OEM safety features added to these firearms are an abomination !

[.45colt]

With All Respect to those who done the modifications , I say this "if You or any one who buys such a modified firearm from You has a malfunction that leads to a court room good luck . I wish All Good Luck ....................

[FergusonTO35]

Ah, now I get it. They wanted the hammer far enough back to allow the crossbolt to engage. Do these guns not have a half-cock notch on the hammer? Does the hammer not rebound far enough for it to engage?

As I understand it, the rebounding hammer actually predates the crossbolt safety by a decade or so. In fact, there was a brief time in the early 80's where the 94 was still top eject but with the new rebounding hammer.

[Mk42gunner]

Ah, now I get it. They wanted the hammer far enough back to allow the crossbolt to engage. Do these guns not have a half-cock notch on the hammer? Does the hammer not rebound far enough for it to engage?

In my opinion, the rebounding hammer and all manner of additional safeties on Winchester Model 94 (whatever version) came about because some lawyer decided that there might just be someone out there who was too stupid to operate a traditional hammer with a halfcock safely.

The term Nanny-state comes to mind.

Robert

[Bazoo]

I’ve run this course too. One thing that helps is to polish the end of the struts legs. My research shows you can install an earlier fire control group, with modification, if that’s of interest. Some of the struts had two legs on top and only one on bottom. It was changed to two on bottom. The latter offers more trouble from my research. However I can’t really say from experience cause I can’t remember now.

I’ve also removed the safety. It has a ball detention in a blind hole. Best I recall, you put the safety halfway between on and off, and it rides the hump, and you can turn it, then it can be pushed out. I faced the protrusion off the left side, so it couldn’t be bumped on.

I generally don’t consider all the liability risks for day to day life. Guess I’m naive.

[FergusonTO35]

I’ve run this course too. One thing that helps is to polish the end of the struts legs. My research shows you can install an earlier fire control group, with modification, if that’s of interest. Some of the struts had two legs on top and only one on bottom. It was changed to two on bottom. The latter offers more trouble from my research. However I can’t really say from experience cause I can’t remember now.

I’ve also removed the safety. It has a ball detention in a blind hole. Best I recall, you put the safety halfway between on and off, and it rides the hump, and you can turn it, then it can be pushed out. I faced the protrusion off the left side, so it couldn’t be bumped on.

I generally don’t consider all the liability risks for day to day life. Guess I’m naive.

I have better things to do in life than worry about that issue. All my lever actions other than the Henry .22 were purchased used, no telling how many owners they have had. If I did sell a gun that had some questionable mods done I would first reinstall unmodified factory parts. I'm not one of these people who tries to get a 2 ounce trigger pull in a lever action, I just want them to be reliable and get the job done.

[FergusonTO35]

New hammer spring for the 94 showed up and I installed it. Winny must have gotten a clue and realized light strikes were a problem with late model 94's, as the new spring is a good 3/8" longer. Was quite an effort to wrestle it back together with the new spring, hopefully can test drive tomorrow.

[Bazoo]

I remembered another thing that helps, polishing the strut and seat.

[FergusonTO35]

Thanks, will remember that.

[FergusonTO35]

Ok, managed to give the 94 a test drive today. Unfortunately the rounds I had on hand were loaded with Remington primers, which have been giving me fits for years. 16 of 20 rounds fired with nice deep indentations. One required three strikes to dent enough to fire, three would not fire no matter how many times I tried.

I took the dud rounds apart and found that the primers looked like the priming compound was not at all being disturbed by the firing pin impact. I have always had lots of hard primers and duds with Remington small pistol and large rifle, probably 20 times more than other brands. A flintlock in a downpour would probably be a better bet. I loaded up some more rounds with CCI and Federal to try

[swOhioMatt]

OK, I know what a rebounding hammer is. My old Hopkins & Allens all have the feature. But I have a hard time understanding why a recent-mfg Winchester would incorporate the feature. It was a poor idea in 1900, and IMHO and even poorer idea today. What on Earth does it do for the functionality pf the gun?

The EU requires a “proper” safety on their rifles. A half cock hammer acceptable here wasn’t considered equal facility. The cross bolt safety met the EU requirements, but a rebounding hammer is necessary to make it work. This revision allowed the 94 to be sold in Europe.

Edit: the tang safety was finally settled on as the least hated by us yanks.

Matt

[uscra112]

Ah, so once again writers of regulations take control over common sense engineering Oh, well. Never wanted a new Winchester anyway.

(In my career as an engineer I expended more skull sweat complying with regulations than I did getting the design to work in the first place.)

[FergusonTO35]

Tried out the Winchester 94 again today with CCI and Federal primers. All rounds went bang on the first try and seemed to have good indentations. Hopefully she will be a good shooter from now on.

[NEKVT]

I had posted to this thread back in March but had a hand nerve injury at the time that prevented me from working on the rifle for a while. Took it out yesterday and removed the crossbolt and as Larry had described the hammer had been hitting it. There was a bright spot on the edge and a tiny lip of displaced metal could be seen. I filed it down and touched up the bluing and replaced it. When new this rifle came with a hammer extension that screws into the side of the hammer. I had misplaced it so had ordered another and shot with it in place and then noticed the extension was just touching the back edge of the receiver when fired so yesterday filed it a bit for clearance as well. Thought with those two adjustments it would be golden again.

I had previously disassembled the hammer, strut and mainspring and polished everything and had twice removed a bit of the bottom strut fingers so the hammer in the rebound position just clears the crossbolt safety. Tried it today and the first two misfired as did another of the next seven and then I shut it down to save ammo. These had CCI 250 primers. I thought the weight of the hammer spur might increase the hammer momentum a bit but didn't seem to help. Before leaving I tried it without the extension and only 2 of 21 misfired so maybe hammer speed is more important than momentum but still not there. These were a mix of CCI 250 and WinLR primers.

I remember I had filled the original hammer extension cylinder with lead to add weight and think it was firing reliably at that point so might try that again. I have a supply of Federal primers and may try those first but ideally would like the rifle to fire with any brand primer as that is what I would consider reliable. I have researched this FTF extensively and the hammer contacting the crossbolt was the only new possibility I'd come across in a long time. Any other suggestions? These rifles are so frustrating!

[indian joe]

With All Respect to those who done the modifications , I say this "if You or any one who buys such a modified firearm from You has a malfunction that leads to a court room good luck . I wish All Good Luck ....................

So how come Chiappa is selling proper Browning design lever guns NEW ? - no BS safety, no rebounding hammer, just built how it was meant to be - half cock safety notch, flat mainspring............
They pass Aussie import safety regulations (about as ridiculous as the seat polishers can come up with)

[agcannon]

I just converted my 44 mag centennial to half cock this past weekend, and ditched the cross bolt safety. found a complete lower tang on ebay. 75 bucks, but it was worth it to me. I like that gun a whole lot more now.

[doccash]

FWIW, I have numerous Miroku guns in 94s, 86s, and 92s and have Never had a misfire. Dr.C

[NEKVT]

To me a reliable firearm should be able to ignite any brand primer. I have shot all US brands in a slew of rifles since 1975 and don't recall a primer misfire, certainly not multiple of any one brand, until this 94 rebound model which was reliable for several years after being purchased new. Haven't tried a longer spring but even that doesn't appear to make it 100% reliable. May go in a third time and remove a bit more of the lower forks to hopefully get the balance needed to be reliable.

[UnknownUser]

315035
Davidmagnum or Greg S would either of you be able to tell me if while in the “rebounded” position, your 1892 hammer strut only had this much material sticking out from its guide? I’m worried if I do the mod and remove material from the lower leg that the strut will have to come too far forward to interface with the hammer and might come out of its guide and jam up the action. If yours looked like this did you have any problems? Thanks.

[stubshaft]

I took the crossbolt out and threw it away befire I ever shot the rifle. Which, by the way , shoots great!

[uscra112]

Does that thing even have a half-cock notch?

[UnknownUser]

Does that thing even have a half-cock notch?

Not so much a notch as a ledge that the trigger can overcome if the rebound is removed

[FergusonTO35]

That's how my 1985 rebounding hammer 94 is. Also, the grip safety is non-functional from the factory so you can pull the trigger and have the hammer resting very close to the firing pin. Next time I have it apart I may try to add an extra notch on the hammer to catch the sear.

[dangt]

In regard to post #35 above, I also would like an answer to the spring seat (strut support) to the hammer strut fit when the lower leg of the strut is removed. If the spring is long enough, the strut will still contact the hammer with certainty but will the rear of the strut fall out of the seat?

If the spring is too short and the strut falls out of the hammer, a longer spring would be needed, but falling out of the strut support would require a longer strut.

[Griff]

With All Respect to those who done the modifications , I say this "if You or any one who buys such a modified firearm from You has a malfunction that leads to a court room good luck . I wish All Good Luck ....................There's the same thinking that would lead one to refrain from using reloaded ammo. Living in a "what-if" frame of mind ain't living. Saying it's illegal to modify the exhaust on my new car, didn't stop me from making changes that improved it's performance. And, it still passes smog tests like they were written for it!

BTW, simply replace the strut with part #https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/301750. Eliminates the rebounding hammer completely and interchanges with the rebounding strut fine.

[FergusonTO35]

Sweet, thanks!

[indian joe]

Somebody mentioned in an earlier post the rebounding firing pin setup - that would definitely be part of or add to the problem - it was the whole problem in my Browning 348 model 71 - it ran ok at the start so maybe stripping the bolt and a good clean might have fixed the problem - it was all extraneous bs - because the lever lugs retract the firing pin at the commencement of opening (and block it until the bolt is closed enough to be safe) --- just as Mr J M Browning planned it . Now its got a solid firing pin - (I left the rebound spring in at the front of the firing pin but dont need it there) the other little spring from inside the bolt made a dandy (Ruger style) hand spring conversion for my son's 1860 Army Colt -

It boggles the mind that a factory will send out a gun like this - made to tackle things that will eat you - with an obvious design flaw that could get a person killed because of a misfire - all in the name of increased safety ----its stupid!!!!

[dangt]

UnknownUser , I also wanted to modify the hammer strut on my Miroku 1892 and was concerned about the strut "tang" being too short if I did so. I did not want to tackle this without another replacement strut in hand and was not able to find any available (in stock) . I did not try Winchester/Browning as I did not want to be asked why I wanted a replacement.

I obtained the 1894 hammer strut referenced in an earlier post with the hopeful intention of modifying to function in my 1892. The steel that part is made from and the heat treatment results in a very hard but machinable part. I reshaped the tang and the forward section with a carbide endmill and gradually shortened the "tang" until it would function in my carbine. I ended up with a tang only about .050" longer than the original. Longer would bind during cocking. Thinking of modifying the 1894 strut with hand tools would probably not be reasonable.

As I had read in other posts, eliminating the rebounding feature of the hammer and leaving the tang mounted hammer-blocking safety in place resulted in:

1. hammer forward, safety ON.........hammer cannot be moved.
2 .hammer in half cock, safety ON........hammer will not drop even with strong trigger pull. Trigger feels locked in place. I did not expect this and dont fully understand why it is giving this result.
3. hammer cocked , safety ON.........trigger can be pulled and hammer falls to be caught by the safety to approximately half cock position. Slight pull back on hammer and sear enters the half cock position.

[indian joe]

I recall a thread that talked about someone taking care of the rebounding hammer either by modifying or eliminating it. Is this a possibility on a Win '94 angle eject? If so, anyone point me in the right direction and I would appreciate the heck out of it! Would like to do myself if do-able like that.

never had a problem with my '94 (its a OFW commemorative before they did angle eject)
had light strike then no fire issues with my Browning model 71 -- they have a stupid little block out arrangement inside the bolt, with a two piece firing pin and rebound spring, all absolutely un necessary, this gun has a properly functional half cock safety, and as well the 'ears' on the lever retracts the firing on th first instant of bolt stroke and blocks hammer fall until the bolt is mostly locked up -- all just as J M Browning designed it .........we converted to solid firing pin, took the little dinky block out bits out and stashed in a bag in the spare parts drawer ----I left the rebound spring at the front of the firing pin "just in case" ---it does no harm but would proly been better in the spares bag too. Am absolutely baffled why they did this to a perfectly functional gun - particularly one designed to tackle critters that bite back.

[UnknownUser]

Thanks dangt for the info. I don’t have much besides hand tools though. I figure since the back of the strut isn’t a very critical part I’d just try the job and if it needs to be longer I’ll have someone weld a piece of metal to the end and I’ll file it to shape. I’m going to refinish the wood before then though so I have some time

[dangt]

UnknownUser, I dont think I really answered your question about the length of the tip of the strut if the original part just had its lower forward protrusion removed. From the appearance of my .050" longer strut made from the 1894 part, it looks like the original modified strut would be right on the edge of being unsupported when fully cocked. However, the shape of the strut support (spring seat) is such that it should still restrain the rear end of the the spring itself.

I dont think any other poster anywhere has said the strut would fall out of the support and lock the gun up on full cock. That is a condition that you and I have just worried could happen.

[UnknownUser]

Dangt I have only seen one person anywhere say that he believes it would come out of its slot. He said he thought Winchester made a design change to prevent the mod. He got his in 2020 so I’ve been trying to see people’s experience with the newer ones to see if anything really did prevent it nowadays. Thanks for clearing it up a bit with the second post. I assume you mean it is nearly unsupported when fully uncocked*. But yes if you only needed to add another .05” to get it to work, I’m pretty sure there’s still enough room without any length added on.