John Browning would be rolling in his grave...

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

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.

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.

Faulkner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Smith357 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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!

Gary said:

I wonder how many of us would have been willing to pay the higher price had Winchester not elected to change their production methods?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

nicky4968 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

armadillo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

PALADIN85020 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Hondo44 said:

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'.

Click to expand...

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