John Browning would be rolling in his grave...

[David LaPell]

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.

 

[PALADIN85020]

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:

WINCHESTER
TRADE MARK
MADE IN U.S.A.​

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

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

 

[desi2358]

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.

 

[Practical]

John Browning would be rolling over in his grave.

John

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.

 

[PhilOhio]

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.

 

[RobertJ.]

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!

 

[Catshooter]

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

 

[GatorFarmer]

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.

 

[bmcgilvray]

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

 

[CajunBass]

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.

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

"Operator Foul Up."

 

[Maximumbob54]

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

 

[sw44spl]

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.

 

[brucev]

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!

 

[PALADIN85020]

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

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!

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

 

[RobertJ.]

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

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.

 

[PALADIN85020]

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

"Operator Foul Up."

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

John

 

[PALADIN85020]

No hope of a Winchester 92 in .44 Magnum!

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

 

[anglaispierre]

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.

 

[JStew49]

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

 

[williamlayton]

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