I've always been a fan of one of John Browning's most popular inventions, the 1894 Winchester rifle. Compact, handy and powerful, it's probably been responsible for more venison than any other rifle in America. The master designed it just right from the start. The action was strong and reliable, made for the new smokeless powder cartridges, of which the .30-30 became among the most popular. The gun fits easily into the hand. It was never designed for scopes - that would have made it not so handy and not suitable for rifle scabbards used on horseback.

At any rate, although I have several of the breed, I didn't have one made in the "golden age" of Winchester manufacturing. I have a "golden spike" commemorative (post-1964 cheaply made), inherited from my stepfather-in-law. I also have one made in 1981; probably among the last true Winchesters made before the formation of U.S. Repeating Arms. And I have a .45 Colt "Trapper" made in 1992. All of these were altered by either Winchester or USRA from the original Browning design.

I'm in the process of writing an article for Dillon's Blue Press on the Model 94, and I've been looking for one made the old way when quality was king at Winchester. Yesterday I found one, made (I estimate) about September in 1952. I was pleased with its condition, and I'm tickled to add it to my collection. Here's a shot - it will be used to accompany the future article:



I was musing through a 1939 Winchester catalog, and was pleased to see that my 1952 example did not deviate from the specifications and pictures shown in '39. Checkered steel buttplate. Forged receiver. Careful fitting. No gimmicks; just the way Browning designed it.

Just for the hell of it, I thought it would be interesting to compare my 1952 rifle with one made 40 years later, in 1992 - the Trapper model. Here are some photos that illustrate many of the differences.

First, the 1952 rifle:



And next, the 1992 example:



I should also point out that Winchester went to stained birchwood rather than walnut in 1964, and that a number of parts were stamped, most notably the cartridge lifter. This was later corrected, but with cast parts rather than forged steel. The buttplate became a cheap plastic part rather than the previous checkered steel.

That cross-bolt safety was, in my mind, dangerous. The first time I tried to fire one so equipped, the gun went "click" instead of "bang." So much for a handy home defense gun. I had forgotten to push the damn safety to the left instead of the right. The '94 doesn't need any safety other than an empty chamber or the half-cock. That arrangement was good enough for John Browning and for generations of users for over 80 years. External safeties on a '94? Pure political correctness, designed by lawyers. And pure excrement.

The later '94s (beginning in 1983) had the bolt modified to "angle eject" so that a scope could be mounted on top. A scope? On a '94? Excuuuse ME! This gun was designed for handiness and packing for short range. It was never intended for long-range or target shooting! To put a scope on the old '94 would be like sticking a supercharged V12 into a Model T and thinking that would be appropriate!

The changes incorporated in the late manufacture of the Model 94 sure saved the company some money, but they spelled the doom of the rifle, and of the Winchester plant in New Haven. New Model 94s are now being made...in Japan. Complete with tang safeties. Good grief. The all-American rifle was perverted, changed, cheapened and then abandoned. John Browning would be rolling over in his grave.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Amen! The only true 94 was made prior to 1964. I have one, and in my opinion, it is just about as close to a perfect rifle as exists. A safety on 94 is akin to a screen door on a submarine. The Winchester name once stood for quality. They've *******ized it to the point it makes me sick. Oliver Winchester and John Browning had it right well over 100 years ago. I personally think they were inspired men.

I agree the old ones were made with pride and care.

A blown V12 in a 'T,

'50 and '60 in this pic of my families stuff.

Attached Images

Winchesters 003.jpg (85.4 KB, 151 views)

__________________
Dum vivo cano

I bet if ol' John Moses Browning had access to the technology and communications in the late 1800's that we have today, every model 94 lever gun and 1911 semi-auto would have been made in Japan. He was a progressive, not a traditionalist. Why do you think he went to Europe with some of his patents to have them manufactured? There's a reason why Winchester, Colt, Remington, and FN all manufactured firearms he designed . . . because he was a shrude business man and I have no doubt that in his day and time if others had had the technology to manufacture his wares he'd have done business with them too.

I would like to see one of the new Japanese made 94's, I've heard they are very well made. I've been impressed with the Japanase made model 1892's that I've seen.

__________________
- Change it back -

Fingers in ears La La La La La La La......

Bean counters and their cost cutting have destroyed many firearms icons throughout the years, Winchester models like the 70, 94 and the 12 are but just a few. Other examples that come to mind are the Colt DA revolvers, the Remington 870 and I'm not even going to touch on S&Ws cost cutting exploits. But on the other side of the coin if you can't keep pace with the times and keep your costs under control you will go belly up. If Winchester had not gone to cheaper more profitable manufacturing processes I highly doubt they would have lasted much past the 1970s.

__________________
Regards,
Guy-Harold Smith II

This is a statement that needs emphacis. Try and find a NEW DA Colt revolver today, it aint gonna happen.

As for S&W's cost cutting, IMO that "cost cutting" has resulted in Improved Quality in their revolvers. BTW, if you study Deming and Staistical Process Control you'll find the most effective method of reducing costs is by IMPROVING Quality. As for why, rework costs plummet as well as the mass of scrap material in the disposal bins.

As an example of the improvement in Quality of the new "cost cutting" guns, I cite my model 620 produced in 2008. If accuracy is a measure of Quality, my 620 is a Standout in this area. I've personally managed to put 3 rounds into a 1/2 inch cloverleaf at 50 yards, or 150 feet. Now I'll admit that I can't manage to run a full cylinder into a 1/2 inch at 50 yards but that's simply because I'm just not good enough. So, that "cost cutting" tensioned barrel actually did result in a more accurate revolver, which I consider to actually be an improvement.

Then there is the matter of the use of MIM parts, another "cost cutting" measure. Yeah it does reduce the cost of having someone hand fitting parts together. It also eliminates all the mistakes that people make when they are doing a repetitive process. BTW, I expect that back in the "hand fitted" days everyone fawns over that the reject rate at the end of the line for S&W was between 10 and 20 out of 100 revolvers produced. In addition, I'll bet that 2 out of 100 revolvers produced hit the dealers shelves in a non functional condition.

Finally, having tuned both forged and MIM lockworks, I'll tell you that the MIM guns require about 1/2 the work of the earlier Forged guns. As for why, it's because the MIM parts fit together and within the frame recess so much more consistently that they don't require any re-sizing or additional fitting.

I have a feeling that if John Browning had access to the processes available today he would be FULLY implementing those processes. In fact he'd problaby come up with some designs that he rejected due to the lack of ability to reliably manufacture those design concepts.

Frankly, I find it a bit amuzing that people will complain bitterly about improvments in techniques to manufacture firearms but when they take their classics to the range they do it in fuel injected air conditioned comfort. I'll also bet that not ONE of them has ever busted a thumb trying to start a Model T.

Thanks Paladin! Good read! I had a 1950s Winchester 30-30 which was stolen in 1982. I also agree about the open sights. I killed many deer with that 30-30 and did not need any telescopic sight. Kids today are even mounting scopes on 22 rifles. I still have my old J.C. Higgins single shot 22 breech loader with open sights and it will still out shoot any 10/22 with a scope.

I rather hope that Rossi or Pedersoli will come up with a version of the 1894. I've had a couple of Japanese made rifles over the years, and although the work and shoot very well...there is something missing I can't put my finger on.

I've seen one of the Pedersoli '71's, (and I love .348's) which I think, and hope they are making in house (not contracted out to any of the other "local" makers).

Also, at least the Rossi rifles which may not have as authentic features as some others on the market right now, but they have forged receivers and are in the right price range. The other 1892's on the market coming from Italy are ok (mixed reviews) but priced terribly above what most people want to pay.

After all, it was the SKS that truly "killed" the 1894 carbine. The SKS was cheaper, almost as handy and meshed perfectly with the desire of many of the younger generation for a semi-auto medium caliber rifle. Also, an SKS owner could get four to six times more ammunition for the same amount of money as a box of .30-30 ammunition, even though they are in the same power range. For hunting rounds, most people used to just trim off the end of the bullet of surplus rounds (if they weren't steel jacketed surplus).

Just my two cents.

__________________
Lost it all in a boat accident

How long till it's made in , , , CHINA???

I believe that the last pre 64 model 94 serial number was somewhere around 2,700,000. I have one made in 1972 with a serial number of around 3,700,000. If the numbers were assigned sequentially, and I believe that they are, they made around 1,000,000 of them in the first 8 years after they "cheapened" the design. It doesn't look like the changes hurt sales any. The post 64 guns that I have seen, while not up to the quality level of the pre 64 guns, were not bad guns. I have owned a couple from the 70's, and one from the 80's, and all were decent guns. I wonder how many of us would have been willing to pay the higher price had Winchester not elected to change their production methods?

rolling in his grave ... nah ...
If its one thing Rev JMB seemed to do at design time was to figure in for bean counting pencil necks and heavy production runs.
No matter the cut corners, overspeed production, and substitution within his design, they still work, just like he intended them to.
rolling ... nah .. hes laughing. Mostly because there isnt a single successful arm out there that doesn't lift principals from his work, thus making todays designers appear as cut rate hacks in the shadow of the master

__________________
it just needs more voltage

Very nice post Paladin. And yes I agree, there is nothing like the original '94s. Notice the difference in the screw pattern on the side of the receiver between the old and new of your posted pics.

One improvement they finally went back to because the levers rattled so badly was the pin with set screw in the front pivot of the bottom receiver plate.

Another cost cutting maneuver was shortening the front end of the forearm in the early '50s. I can't imagine that saved that much money but it sure threw off the looks. Fortunately USRA made long forearms for some special and commemorative models and I've installed them on all my post '64s which are mostly Big Bores.

No I would not put a scope on my '94! But I admit that some older gentlmen just can not see the target well enough to use open sights and shoot them w/o a scope, so the ugly angle eject is a plus for them.

Best thing about original '94s (or the 30-30 cartridge) is w/o changing the old guns in anyway, technology has changed them from 150-200 yard guns to 250 plus yard guns. The soft tip Hornady bullets for magazine fed rifles has done wonders for the old 30-30 ballistics! Now that '94s can shoot better, farther some may say that makes a case for a scope on a '94 to realize it's new full potential.

I wish Hornady would get around to making these bullets in .348 and .358 for the '94 .356 Winch cartridge!

A word about the guns now made in Muroku, Japan: I've been told by those that install choke tubes in Browning shotguns made there before the time choke inserts were suplied from the factory, have barrels that are more concentric than those made in Belgium.

I have two of their '92s and a '71, and I have to admit that they are top quality for fit and finish, and shoot like "new money"! The tang safety and rebounding hammer on the '92s suck but the safety removes easily and the hole covered with a nice peep tang site. The first thing I did to the '92s was to throw away the cheap roll pins used to attach the magazine retainer ring and replace them with real solid pins just like I do on my pre lock Smiths with a roll pin attaching the front sight blade!

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

The same number as paid and still pay premiums for pre 64 guns instead of the '64 to '70 junk or later more decent ones ever since.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

re; The screw pattern on the side of the receiver,,
One 'improvement' they made in '64 was to make the two small screws that hold the two cartridge guides into place accessable from the outside of the receiver.
That's the small screw in the left side pic of the 1992 gun below the 'A' in cast receiver.
Before 64, they both (right and left) were installed from the inside. A bit tricky. The right one is installed through the empty left side hole. Then the left one through the open loading port.

On the '52 rifle, it's the end of the cart. guid screw seen right beneath the 'R' in forged receiver.

Quicker assembly during manufacture was the reason I believe. One of the many shortcuts they were looking for(?)

The other screw end is the carrier spring screw. New design in '64 and the screw moved forward with it.

The large plug screw in the upper left of the 1992 gun was a change in size only from the smaller plug screw used earlier. Only used to cover the hole used to punch the lever pin through when disassembling, probably another 'ease of assembly' move.

The larger screw hole being easier to machine & tap,,and the screw being easier to handle during assembly. I think the lever pin stayed the same size.

I'll stick to my 1912 '94 TD 32winchester, just 'cause I like the older stuff.

But you gotta admit, they do what they're supposed to do no matter when they were made.

I only own one Winchester 94. Everything about the rifle is wrong. It used to belong to my brother-in-law, but he had to leave early and now it's mine.
It is a Buffalo Bill Commemorative. It has a crescent buttplate. It has shiny nickeled parts. It has some rolled "engraving". It is in a configuration never produced in the good old days.
It is deadly accurate. It points like my finger. I have sold the last of my Krags, as they are just too old for SD work. It is my go-to firearm.
Maybe I just lucked out. Maybe everything that was "out of spec" worked perfectly with its "out of spec" mate.
Maybe it is better made than some would lead me to believe.

__________________
and what his trumpet saith

I love 1894s and have several rifles and carbines made between 1896-1929 + a couple of M-64s made in 1936. They are finely made and look great even after all those years. I shot my first deer with a pre-64 30-30 94 carbine.

My biggest complaint is that there was never a provision for a proper sling. You had to carry it in your hands.

My second biggest complaint is that you had to leave the chamber empty or load one in the chamber and drop the hammer to half cock then cock it before you could shoot. Either way you made a lot of noise that could scare a deer.

__________________
6/23/2022

I would never say anything bad about how they shoot. I am glad it shoots well and using it sure beats being a safe queen cause I don't think it will ever appreciate much.

I got my angle eject 30-30 Trapper Carbine used but like new, and cheap! You had to squeeze the daylights out of the lever to get it to go off and the front sight dovetail leaned about 5 degrees to the left. Both easy to fix and a great shooter. I found a cheap set of new commemorative checkered stocks for it; carbine buttplate on buttstock and long nose forearm in matching fancy walnut. It's my go to gun and the 1st one everybody wants to pick up at the range.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

They can be slung like any other rifle; with sling swivels. Drill the buttstock or clamp the end of the sling between the buttstock and the butt plate if you don't wanta' drill an original stock; I wouldn't. And there's at least two ways to attach to the front; neither are permanent. A special forearm barrel band that replaces the original for one with swivel or the swivel that clamps onto the mag tube.

To cock the gun silently, you 1st hold the trigger back then move the hammer from 1/2 cock to all the way back. Now slowly release the trigger and ease the hammer onto the sear. In two minutes you can do that as fast and naturally as spittin'.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

John,
There are quite a few differences between a 1939 Model 94 and an early 50's version. Hondo44 already mentioned the length of the forearm wood. In 1939, they were using the Model 55 type buttplate that had smooth steel at the toe and heel with horizontal serrations in between. The left side of the receiver wasn't yet drilled for a receiver sight, but the top tang was still drilled for a tang sight. They also had tang markings:


There were other differences in the barrel markings and finish, but those aren't as obvious.

... and keep the gun pointed at the deer in case your thumb slips!
　
　
　

__________________
"I also cook."

I've owned probably a dozen model 94's and a couple of 1894's and I can tell you I have had good and bad. I bought my first one when I was 18 in 1994 brand new. That gun could not hit a 2 liter bottle at 50 yards. My uncle got an identical 94 .30-30 right next to mine on the shelf and it has always been a very accurate rifle. I have had three or four 1970's guns, all of those were wickedly accurate. I had a pre-64 gun from 1949 and no matter what I did, I could not get that gun to shoot, period. I have an 1894 full length rifle in .38-55 made in 1895, one of the most accurate guns I ever owned. I had a 1894 SRC in .25-35 made in 1909 that came from a Utah sheep ranch, a real working gun that was so worn out that the buttstoke was made from Ponderosa pine, the sight was gone and there was an actual crack in the receiver. I saw it before another guy had it all repaired, I wished he would have kept that buttstock, it was something. It was another very accurate gun. Two I wished I had kept if it wasn't for bills and expenses at that time. It's been a spell since I had a Model 94, just the other day I spotted an 1894 in .38-55. It was once a full length rifle with a half mag that sometime in the past had the barrel shortened to 20 inches and a carbine sight added. Quality work done back before they were worth big money. I have a hard time right now not putting a couple of guns up for sale and buying that old timer for the sake of flattening a whitetail with it. I always did love that caliber. My grandfather carried the same Model 1894 from the late 1920's until 1994 when he quit hunting. I often wonder how many whitetails that gun accounted for over the years. It's one of the reasons I fell in love with the design. It works, period.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

I'll grant that there were some minor differences between 1939 and 1952, but the checkered buttplate was definitely not one of them. Here's what my copy of the 1939 catalog states.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I have owned several 94's over the years, all were solid, reliable rifles. Accuracy varied, some were noticably more consistant. Currently I only own one, a Canadian Centennial with the octagon barrel. It handles so well and seems to point like an extension of my arm that I don't think I'll let it go. I know it has the post-64 "improvements" but it shoots as well or better than any of the older models I owned.

I don't think so.

John Browing was an innovator and creative thinker. He did re-use ideas his own and others.

He would be making new guns in the engineering mediums of our time. He would probably LOVE glocks and respect their simplicity, durability and ease of manufacture.

Frankly only luddites look to the past and think its always better.

Cosmetically I agree many older guns are works of art.

And many commodity guns are made cheaply.

But these are business decisions.

If you were willing to pay the price you could get a superb gun.

You can't expect the working gun owner to afford these works of art.

And frankly, poor folk didn't own the guns you worship. There were cheaper guns back then.

I know I owned SEVERAL cheap guns 20 years ago and hunted with them. I wore them out and even broke some.

A lot of guns shoot a few rounds a year hunting and at the range. Many never see 1000 rounds. I wore out a brazillian shotgun in 250+ rounds when in high school. But that was all i could afford.

mkk41, you beat me to it. I was reading the comments about Winchesters built in Japan, and it reminded me of first going out to work in Korea in 1969, and for the first time learning about some of the world's best shotguns, made in Japan by Miroku. I had never heard of them. Many Americans still have not. We began to see them via G.I.s returning from Asian posts and access to the Pacific Exchange System.

Firearms quality seems to naturally follow the combination of a high craftsmanship ethic, reasonable wage scale, and government not intent on killing golden geese.

John Browning took his designs to Belgium. Later they drifted to Japan. And the Japanese began to make Weatherbys and some other things.

Some of the finer Italian firms, such as Uberti, I believe, have built various Colts for a long time, some of them considerably better than the U.S. versions ever were.

And Astra made the fine little Colt Juniors in .22 Short and .25 ACP.

It's only a matter of time before this sort of thing happens big time in China. They already have a running start in experience, Norinco (a whole grouping of manufacturers) having made some not-so-bad copies of the Browning .22 semiauto rifle, the Walther Olympia .22 target pistol, and more recently those 1897 Winchester shotgun copies. The Chinese were only slowed down by Bill Clinton's sandbag efforts to block the U.S. import of all small arms made in China. That's a long and interesting story in itself.

I'll predict that the various impediments and import limitations will slowly fade (already have, to some extent), as new political forces reshape Washington. The Chinese will have had lots of time to think this through and get their quality act fine tuned. The next generation of their sporting arms exports to the U.S. may not be straight copies of somebody else's designs, but something better, in the same way the Japanese did this with other things. And the Koreans are ready to do it if they decide they want to. If Daewoo unleashes itself, watch out.

China is already poised to blitz us with their automobile models. The only way to beat them in that arena and with firearms manufacture is to do it better, and at the same or lower cost. That's up to our own industrialists at S&W, Ruger, Remington, etc. All we can do is wish them the very best of good luck. It could be cut throat, but it's not impossible that we could win. We have some pretty good capabilities in automation and unconventional, cutting edge manufacturing technology.

I should also point out that Winchester went to stained birchwood rather than walnut in 1964,
John[/QUOTE]

On all the Model 94's?

I have one made in 1978, it's the prettiest rifle I own. I'm pretty certain the stock is walnut. Could I be incorrect? If so, it certainly fooled me, and all my friends!

I could be wrong, but I believe that the 94 was first chambered in .32-40 and .38-55. The .30-30 came along the next year.

Before Winchester went belly up they sold more than seven times as many 94s as they did model 70. That surprised me.

I have a 26 inch .38-55 and it is a wonderful rifle. Half round barrel and full length mag. It is still light and well balenced.


Cat

__________________
Think for yourself.

People used to have a bit of a problem with accidental discharges in ye olden days when there was no safety. Thus came the cross bolt safety. If someone doesn't want to use it, then don't. A tang safety actually makes a lot of sense and is a nice position to place one. (Life was cheaper in the late 19th century. Lots of things from ye olden days - like mercury and opium in medicine and cocain in Coca Cola aren't as they were. With a greater life expectancy, most people opt to at least make an effort to live somewhat longer, hence safer products.)

Lever action rifles such as the Winchester are not currently marketed as social weapons. To use one as such, keep it condition three, keep the safety "off" and cock before use.

It was simple customer demand that led to the guns becoming more optic friendly. Marlin's offerings - felt by many to have always been the better choice - were far easier to scope.

Modern electronics has given us things like the Eotech and microAimpoints, reasonably bomb proof (in some cases literally) devices to aid in just the sort of close in/snap shooting that one might want to use one of these carbines for. Maybe the Japanese will offer a blackened stainless version with a nice rail system and synthetic furniture... I think I'd buy one of those just to play with. Non electronic sights designed for such shooting are also readily had.

Military service often plays a role in establishing what form of rifle becomes accepted as "normal". Lever actions gained acceptance from the publicity that Spencers and Henrys received during the ACW. Bolt action rifles meanwhile seem to have become really popular after WW1. With universal issue of optics and semi auto rifles, the modern sporting rifle trend seems to be evolving from the AR platform. At least until caseless ammo and energy weapons arrive on the scene.

Steel butt plates are handy if one wants to use a rifle as a club, but for most uses a rubber butt pad with some recoil absorbing properties was a selling point. Or at least an easy option to have one mounted.

Wood fit declined in exactness because the buyers didn't feel it was important. The same reason that most cars don't have wood finish interiors or a bunch of chrome - buyers chose other factors as important.

In the case of the lever action rifle, the important factor became having an approachable price point for mass market sales (Kmart, WalMart etc) in the Midwest, SE and central NE.

It wasn't just the SKS that took market share from the 30-30s. The various M44 and M38 carbines, wicked little beasts in 7.62x54R also played a part. For long stretches of time a nice one could be had for 100 dollars, and sometimes less. (I once paid 50 dollars for one.) For a knock about/idiot proof gun (Mosin no work? Hit with hammer. Will fix. Is good.)

But more than that was a restriction in many states whereupon certain areas - traditionally home to short range shots - became shotgun only. The remaining designated areas for rifle hunting were often in the sort of terrain where one would want a longer range proposition than the lever action 30-30s.

JMB's last project was a high capacity (for the time) 9mm pistol, possibly intended to be carried "condition zero" (cocked and unlocked). If his corpse is frozen next to Walt's under Space Mountain and revived, he'd likely be working on an improved polymer/alloy 5.7mm pistol for FN.

I'll be happy to let those who admire the modern production methods enjoy the newer ones for I can live out my life without them.

1941 Winchester Model 94 .32 Winchester

That's what we used to call an "OFU" when I worked at DuPont.

"Operator Foul Up."

__________________
John 3:16 .

Just how hard would it be to set up a line using modern day CNC equipment that gives tight tolerance milling and start punching out some high quality original style 94’s??? If all the import sales are an indicator then there is still a market for a quality but affordable 1894 in .30-30 and maybe a few other flavors. I would be willing to bet that a stainless steel with laminate stocks model would sell well. I know my only routine complaint about mine that used to belong to my father is that the lever safety button needs a Hulk Hogan grip on it to make sure when you pull the trigger it actually goes bang. I’m sure there is a fix to this, I have just been too lazy to look it up. Also, I know there is a source out there for Marlins with cross bolt safeties that once removed looks like a screw on each side. No more fumbles. I have heard it referenced on other forums but have yet to investigate it either. It wouldn’t shock me to find out there is a similar “fix” for modern 94’s…

EDIT: OK, I found the Marlin "fix" pretty quick...
Replacement Kit for the  Marlin Cross

Winnie "fix"... Not quite what I was looking for, but I will be trying it on mine eventually.

http://www.gunblast.com/LFCombs-Win94.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/win94_safety.htm

my 1970 winchester 94s are all finished very well and the wood to metal fit is spot on.they just dont have the pre 64 recevier.

__________________
God save the SOUTH

I appreciate this post. Many of the older rifles were very nice. Some of the plain vanilla rifles/pistols were exceptional. I have a 1956 produced Springfield Armory 5.9 M-1 that like many M-1's went through a rebuild. It got a replacement stock at Rock River Army Depot. All the metal is original finish and perfect. I look at the current M-1A rifles on the market and find them underwhelming. Now, a Browning 92 is to me a beautiful rifle. Hope to find one one day. No hope of a Winchester 92 in .44 Magnum!

__________________
<><

Winchester started to make some quality improvements on the '94 in 1972; for example the cartridge lifter became a cast part rather than stamped. Much more solid, but still not forged steel. They may have gone back to walnut around then. But those first post-'64 stocks were indeed stained birch.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Hey, thanks!
I loved your write up on it, BTW. The Model 94 is my favorite rifle of all time, and the .30-30 is my favorite rifle cartridge.

If it wasn't there in the first place, I wouldn't have fouled it up. It was unnatural, unesthetic, and unneeded.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Check your gun shows and gun shops. Browning had a series of Model 92s made in Japan from 1978 to 1987 chambered for .44 magnum. No jackwagon "safeties" tacked on it, either. Pretty true to the original design. I have one made in '83; my only dislike is the gold-plated trigger Browning chose for embellishment. And the fact that the 5.5 lb. rifle kicks like a MULE with full-house .44 maggies. To my mind, it's best used with .44 specials.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I have 4 Winchesters 94s, all post 64. I have to disagree about them being rubbish. They may not be made the same way, but after the disastrous mistakes made in 64 some things changed.

My 30-30 was made in 79, and has no modern safety. Top eject as designed by JMB. It is my favorite of the bunch. Then comes my 44 Mag angle eject with the cross bolt safety which I hate. Not because I am against safety, I just don't like the cross bolt. I find that if I lay the gun down on the left side between shots (action open of course), the safety bolt pushes in and engages without me noticing. When I pick it up for the next shot the safety is on. The same could happen if I was hunting and I could miss a shot because of it. The 444 Marlin AE has the top tang safety which doesn't suffer from this problem. It just hurts my shoulder after a few shots. Finally, not a true 94, is my 9422. A fun gun made in 73. At first I found it less accurate than my CZ 452 bolt action, but as I got used to it I found it almost as accurate.

I'm sure the Master would like to know his design lasted for over a hundred years by which time every other consumer product was obsolete the day after it was sold.

I recently picked up a 2011 Winchester catalog and found the 94 as well as the Model 70 are back in production. The 70 is made by FN in their American factory, but the catalog doesn't say where the 94 is made. The first thing I noticed about the 94 was that the traditional front band fastening the mag to the barrel has been replaced with a band that only goes round the magazine tube and is fixed to the bottom of the barrel. The rear band has gone and is replaced by a much wider metal band at the very end of the forearm, again not circling the barrel.

There are two models available here in France, a Short Rifle with a 20" barrel and an un-checkered stock and forend (it doesn't say what wood), and a 24" Sporter with checkered walnut stock and forend. They are only available in 30-30 caliber. They probably have different names over the pond and there may be other models and calibers available.

It seems appropriate that FN now make these guns, bearing in mind that JMB turned to them when Winchester refused to manufacture his Auto 5 shotgun. A costly error as the gun went on to sell over 5 million. He subsequently licensed FN to manufacture other guns. He actually died in Belgium in 1926 while on a visit to FN to discuss another project.

There remains one more JMB design that I would love to buy. Obviously, the 1911. Can’t afford one at the moment.

__________________
Kill it, cook it, eat it.

not so sure, he sold rights of his machine gun to the US govt during WWI for a fraction of it's value, saying it was his contribution to the war effort

Lots of disinformation here.
Browings have been made in Japan for a long-time.
Browings are assembeled in portugal. When FN acquired WNN they started to make plans to have them assembeled in Portuga.
I have a Browning .22 made in Japan and it is good---except for the wood in the stock--as the Belgium.
Japs make some good stuff----and their optics are first rate--world wide--side by side.
If we are going to compete it will be the wages---and I AM NOT going to go into that--I get zapped enough as it is--that are the big issues.
Blessings

__________________
TEXAS, by GOD