The 94 can't do it all - ...

Post by **Old Savage** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:16 pm

as well as other lever gun choices - have at it ....

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:17 pm

uh-oh

duck and cover.....

awp101 · Post by **awp101** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:22 pm

Grizz wrote:uh-oh

duck and cover.....

pharmseller · Post by **pharmseller** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:52 pm

You know...
I'm sorta a fan of the model 71. Loaded with 200 grain bullets it's a DRT on deer and elk. Loaded with 250 grains, it's potent enough for big things with teeth. I just love the style of the 71.

Quinn

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:55 pm

OS pulled the pin - everyone duck for cover!!!

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Aye Caramba!

Maybe not, but it does most everything PRETTY DARN WELL!

I prefer a Win 92, Win 86 or Win 95 but the 94 is pretty capable. OS, what you are suggesting to my mind is that "philosophically" a levergun must be chosen more for the hunting task at hand over loyalty to the particular design. Very reasonable. However, if thats the true priority, I would submit that at times a bolt-gun should be chosen for the long range shots for the same reason. If the priority is a successful hunt, then choose the best weapon for the job. JMHO.

-Tutt

Post by **Old Savage** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:19 pm

Tutt, For hunting of at least small deer and antelope the 88 and BLR can't really be outdone by bolts.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:31 pm

Tutt, For hunting of at least small deer and antelope the 88 and BLR can't really be outdone by bolts.

O.S., I don't think I had the chance to shoot your '88 to any particular degree. Is it that accurate? The BLR's do shoot tiny groups. I defer to you on the accuracy of the '88.

-Tutt

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:32 pm

pharmseller wrote:You know...
I'm sorta a fan of the model 71.

Amen to that.

JReed · Post by **JReed** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:34 pm

Man Old Savage when you start something you dont mess around

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:45 pm

Man Old Savage when you start something you dont mess around

Yeah, you got that right!

To be fair to Joe, his point was well made though, and paraphrased by Griff pretty well on the other thread. The '94 may not be the best tool for the job, but it can often get the job done, even more so with the newer Leverevolution ammo. Furthermore, as a single platform it has proven itself to be supremely versatile and has been designed for many chamberings in both pistol and rifle. In today's world, the '94 is more capable than it ever has been. A 30-30 AI would be even more so, but even if you modified the rifle to this chambering, apparently Hornady does not want to release their bullets as components which I think is shamful.

-Tutt

Post by **Old Savage** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:01 pm

This isn't meant to challenge anybody just recognize a reality. Accuracy - my 88 and BLR are as accurate as my bolt rifles. I have carried one or the other in the field as I preferred. These two belong to a friend - they are more than 40 years old and have accounted for more than 80 deer. Still one shoots under 1/2" at 50 yds when we checked the xero recently.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:33 am

But Savage, those guns just aren't as pretty as the 94, you got to look good out there.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:03 am

Well they were pretty before these guys wore half the finish off in the brush.

Poohgyrr · Post by **Poohgyrr** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:27 am

Hmmmm...........

I kinda think Fadala in his Winchester 94 book, and all the hunters (guys and gals) over the years, have shown a properly loaded, and shot, M94 can do about anything. Not to say the others can't do it as well or even easier.

Load 165gr ballistic tips into the 30-30 AI over a stout charge of 748 and make the 243 look bad.

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:36 am

Right on! The parent .38-55 Winchester loaded to 40K psi is by FAR the better cartridge...

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:08 am

OS,
Those rifle are nice and, truly versatile.

And give the hunter the additional advantage of distance.

Still doesn't mean the 94 CAN'T do the job; just means the hunter has to do a better job.

Hobie,
The .38-55 is legendary.

All,
The latest numbers I've seen indicate that the good ol', venerable .30-30 has taken more deer than any other cartridge in history. It may not have surpassed the bow & arrow, yet still proves its worth, year in and year out. Like a few other cartridges, it can be loaded with a WIDE range of bullets for the taking of everything from mouse to moose. With bullets from the 50 grain sabots to over 200 grains, the .30-30 Winchester Mdl 1894/94 IS the handiest, most versatile platform from which to launch a hunting adventure. And if one MUST hunt birds, the 9410 will make your challenge truly rewarding if you can measure up to it.

And this is where I disagree w/Joe, the 9422 and Marlin 1894 just aren't needed to make the 94 a versatile and "do-all" rifle.

End of discussion. Denigrate my choice if you must, but you cannot argue with facts.

Oh yea, I will concede that the Marlin 1893, 36 & 336 models have added to the allure and general attraction of the .30-30 and its history.

jlchucker · Post by **jlchucker** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:51 am

Old Savage, nice Model 88's. Nice try at stirring the pot this morning, too. There's an old saying: "What's the reason for stirring the pot? To keep the sediment from sinking to the bottom, and the scum from rising to the top!" The reactions this morning, though, seem to be something less than they were when the guy with the bulletproof deer from Kalifornia posted a few weeks ago. I kind of wish there still was a Winchester--and that they still produced the Model 88, which never really got the kind of credit that it deserved, and which had, in some variants, some pretty ugly checkering. Of course if there was still a Winchester, it would have to be a Winchester that still produced the 94 as well-- in traditional,tasteful, non-Madison-Avenue styles--real wood, plain and functional finishes, no lawyer-safeties, etc. Of course in 30-30 and 38-55.

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:02 am

I shot an 88 once (yes, just the once that I can remember). A .308 carbine (IIRC) it didn't impress me. It functioned, was accurate enough (I never got to put rounds out for a group) but it seemed, well, clunky to me. That's been my impression ever since. IOW, if I wanted a bolt action I'd get a normal one.

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:13 am

"...And if one MUST hunt birds, the 9410 will make your challenge truly rewarding if you can measure up to it."

I hunt grouse with my 94, I load .310 round balls over 3 grs Unique, about as much noise as a 22 standard vel round, and doesnt tear up the birds. My Malamute bird dogs flush them, they fly up and sit in the trees, and I pop them with the Winchester. Same load works good for bunnies and squirrels. Kills rattlesnakes very dead with head shots too.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:18 am

The facts of history have shown that the Winchester 94 in all of it's calibers and incarnations, has already done it all. This thread is simply an exercise arguing for arguing sake. This is xxxxx and xxxxxxxx.

(NOTE: Edited by request)

Joe

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:25 am

I think the 94 can do just about all that I would ever call on a rifle to do. Some do things better than the 94, but the 94 can hold its own for most of us. As I posted before, having said that, the 94 is not in my top choices which are filled with a 92, a 39 and an 1886. If I had to choose 1, it would be the 39

as I love small game hunting and I can't use a centerfire in here in PA for them. If I could, perhaps the 92 would be next but would be really hard to go with out an 86. I now many out there would say if they could have one, it would be 94 in 30-30. I don't own a 30-30 so I would have to defer to them.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:42 am

I think the original post about this was to the effect that the 94 is available in small cartridges and up to the 356 Winchester (or was available).

The 88, BLR can handle more cartridge but isn't as versitile as the total incarnations of the 94.

I think that was the point.

I would argue that the Marlin is a stronger action and has been available in a large variety of cartridges as well....

But th 94 can do it "all" IMHO.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:44 pm

if you're stuck up a creek with no paddle, the 94 is the best choice to get you back safely.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:34 pm

Joe, you are still ignoring the long shots - maybe because you have never had one - this thread is making a point that the 94 aficianados must ignore to try to make the everything claim. It is you who is doing the arguing by ignoring this obvious point. I am discussing using the facts.

tman · Post by **tman** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:17 pm

out to 200yards, the.356wcf can do anything the great 30-06 springfield in a bolt-action can. name any game on earth, and the 06's taken it more than once. so ,for me,anyway, the model 94 can do it all. you can always find a flatter shooting, more powerfull, longer range cartridge and gun. the 94 won't match the accuraccy and range of the super-magnum, moon-scoped modern bolts. all depends on what u need a gun to do.

preventec47 · Post by **preventec47** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:52 pm

[quote]by Malamute on Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:13 pm
I hunt grouse with my 94. My Malamute bird dogs flush them, they
fly up and sit in the trees, and I pop them with the Winchester.[/quote]
.
.
Surely you dont mean ALASKAN MALAMUTE bird dogs that flush grouse !
DO YOU ? Please explain.
.
.

meanc · Post by **meanc** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:32 pm

Since this has turned into a "matter of fact" type post...could someone explain to me exactly what a 94 is incapable of killing or doing?

Hillbilly · Post by **Hillbilly** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:57 pm

My 94 doesnt make much of a boat paddle... a beater Mossberg 500 is excellent. Dont ask me how I know this.

I think I concede. I was coming home yesterday an saw what I thought was a fawn deer in the pasture. I was moving and maybe 350 yards out... as I got closer I thought it was a small doe.... I came to a stop when I was abeam the critter at about 150 yards. It was still so I got a good look....It was a coyote. Biggest one I've seen in a long time. After a minute or two I wistled at him and he broke and ran off.

I see a scope in my future... I dont know if I could have seen that dog through the brass bead front on my favorite lever. I guess I will track that big boy and his packmates after I get this cast off and can walk again.

Hill

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:07 pm

Malamute wrote:"...And if one MUST hunt birds, the 9410 will make your challenge truly rewarding if you can measure up to it."

I hunt grouse with my 94, I load .310 round balls over 3 grs Unique, about as much noise as a 22 standard vel round, and doesnt tear up the birds. My Malamute bird dogs flush them, they fly up and sit in the trees, and I pop them with the Winchester. Same load works good for bunnies and squirrels. Kills rattlesnakes very dead with head shots too.

Now, that's going "above & beyond!"

Post by **Hobie** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:19 pm

preventec47 wrote:
by Malamute on Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:13 pm
I hunt grouse with my 94. My Malamute bird dogs flush them, they
fly up and sit in the trees, and I pop them with the Winchester.
.
.
Surely you dont mean ALASKAN MALAMUTE bird dogs that flush grouse !
DO YOU ? Please explain.
.
.

Yes he does mean exactly that.

Bigahh · Post by **Bigahh** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:01 pm

Well the way I see it the 88 and BLR are a little bit like a Compound bow with a beautiful sight system. They do work quite well. Like our Forefathers guys like Griff, and Joe, and many others just happen to love those Recurve Bows, they call them 94's. In a good Hunters hands they have, and will continue to cleanly take Big Game animals well into the future! And they are so much more fun to shoot. I am still trying to figure out why?

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:20 pm

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:53 pm

very kewl pics

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:04 pm

Well.....it can and it has....from mice to elephants (170 gr. full patch). Granted, it's not the best tool for certain jobs, but it does just fine.

w30wcf

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:38 pm

Here is the nice 88 - still has all the finish. Of course, it has shot nothing but black paper bulls.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:56 pm

Fred, how about hitting us with some facts why you don't think the 30-30 can do it all? Trajectory, ballistics, experience, something????

-Tutt

Post by **Old Savage** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:29 am

Bullet drop is too great for reliable shooting at unsure ranges 250 - 300 yds. 20" to 24" more than a 100 gr in a .243. Impact velocities fall into the 1200+ to 1300+ ranges likely too low for reliable bullet performance. The shooter is unnecessarily handicapping himself. 99s or 88s with .243 or the like give a greater advantage and make range estimation less of an issue and hold their velocity.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:17 am

I'm sure you're right about the long-range limitations.

But the 94 is light, I'd hate to carry around a bolt gun with scope all day.

So of course, it can't "do it all" but it can do 95% of it.

meanc · Post by **meanc** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:41 am

Bullet drop is too great for reliable shooting at unsure ranges 250 - 300 yds. 20" to 24" more than a 100 gr in a .243. Impact velocities fall into the 1200+ to 1300+ ranges likely too low for reliable bullet performance. The shooter is unnecessarily handicapping himself. 99s or 88s with .243 or the like give a greater advantage and make range estimation less of an issue and hold their velocity.

So, basically this is what you're saying:

For "hunters", those that actually know how to and can hunt, there's nothing the 94 can't take.

For "shooters" , those that consider "250yd + shots" necessary, the 94 is a handicap.

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:56 am

"Bullet drop is too great for reliable shooting at unsure ranges 250 - 300 yds. 20" to 24" more than a 100 gr in a .243...."

I agree that there are better choices for longer range shooting, but the difference isn't quite as great as the quote indicates.

------------------100 yards---------200 yards---------300 yards
243 100gr-----------+2.5"-------------+1.2"--------------6.0"

30-30 150 gr--------+2.5"------------- -3.2"------------ -22.5"

(looks like extra spaces don't show when the post goes up, I had nice lined up range columns)

The chart I looked at didn't have 250 yards drop figures shown, but the 30-30 would be "minute of deer" at 250 yards if sighted in properly. At 300 yards there is 15.5" more drop than the 100 gr 243, not the "20 to 24" more at 250 to 300 yards" than the quote indicated. Not that I'm taking a stand either way (I usually "hunt" with a scoped bolt gun), just keeping the facts straight. The Hornady rounds are a bit better trajectory wise, if someone wanted to use them.

I don't feel it's productive to disparage anyone elses "hunting" experience because they choose different tools. The handgun hunters often disparage rifle hunters, the muzzle loader boys look down at the modern gun hunters, and the bow hunters feel smug comparing their choices to gun hunters. You make your choice, live with it, and like it. We don't have to justify it by discouting anyone elses choices or tools. This comes up pretty regularly when someone compares different types of guns. It isn't realistic dialog.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:17 am

meanc wrote:
Bullet drop is too great for reliable shooting at unsure ranges 250 - 300 yds. 20" to 24" more than a 100 gr in a .243. Impact velocities fall into the 1200+ to 1300+ ranges likely too low for reliable bullet performance. The shooter is unnecessarily handicapping himself. 99s or 88s with .243 or the like give a greater advantage and make range estimation less of an issue and hold their velocity.

So, basically this is what you're saying:

For "hunters", those that actually know how to and can hunt, there's nothing the 94 can't take.

For "shooters" , those that consider "250yd + shots" necessary, the 94 is a handicap.

meanc, I do so wish I had your way with words.

Joe

Haycock · Post by **Haycock** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:12 am

So, basically this is what you're saying:

For "hunters", those that actually know how to and can hunt, there's nothing the 94 can't take.

For "shooters" , those that consider "250yd + shots" necessary, the 94 is a handicap.

Oooph! Gettin' DICEY!!!

Haycock

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:56 am

Old Savage wrote:Bullet drop is too great for reliable shooting at unsure ranges 250 - 300 yds. 20" to 24" more than a 100 gr in a .243. Impact velocities fall into the 1200+ to 1300+ ranges likely too low for reliable bullet performance. The shooter is unnecessarily handicapping himself. 99s or 88s with .243 or the like give a greater advantage and make range estimation less of an issue and hold their velocity.

My Stihl MS290 is a hell of a chainsaw. It has an 18" bar. Now, if I happen to want to cut a tree 300 yards away, I reckon I'll have to get off my butt and walk 299 1/2 yards.

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:00 pm

sobenk wrote:I'm sure you're right about the long-range limitations.

But the 94 is light, I'd hate to carry around a bolt gun with scope all day.

So of course, it can't "do it all" but it can do 95% of it.

After carrying my '94 all of Elk season, I got a great deal on a Paul Jaeger custom Mauser '98 large ring sporter. When Elk season was over, and I came back to Kansas just in time for deer season, I felt like I was carrying a darned anvil. I KNOW when I last shot my '94. I can't remember the last time I shot the Mauser.

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:09 pm

Malamute wrote:I don't feel it's productive to disparage anyone elses "hunting" experience because they choose different tools. The handgun hunters often disparage rifle hunters, the muzzle loader boys look down at the modern gun hunters, and the bow hunters feel smug comparing their choices to gun hunters. You make your choice, live with it, and like it. We don't have to justify it by discouting anyone elses choices or tools. This comes up pretty regularly when someone compares different types of guns. It isn't realistic dialog.

If I see some idiot trying to break rocks with a rubber hammer, and he tells me all about how wonderful and expensive his custom made imported hammer is, I'll not stand in his way. Hell, I might just go find him a really good rock, and call people over to watch!

On the other hand, if I see some numbnuts lobbing rounds at a herd of deer 500 yards away, just hoping for a hit, I might feel the need to correct some deficiencies in his upbringing by way of beating his butt with his own rifle.

I've seen animals dying from wounds such as idiots like this cause. It'sa horrible way for anything to die. Imagine limping around for a month or so, getting sicker and sicker, while you see and smell your own leg rotting off.

Poohgyrr · Post by **Poohgyrr** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:03 pm

I have always thought that bagging plains antelope with a M94/3030 said something good that I simply could not ignore.

Guess those ballistic tips (bigger diameter & heavier bullet than the .243) hold their velocity and trajectory pretty darn well, even out of a handloaded rimmed 30 WCF round. Just single load into the chamber, and load a single round into the magazine - then hunt.

I will have to add Malamute's 9410 (and bird dogs

) to my list.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:11 pm

meanc wrote: ... For "hunters", those that actually know how to and can hunt, there's nothing the 94 can't take.

For "shooters" , those that consider "250yd + shots" necessary, the 94 is a handicap.

The same can be said for a pointy stick...

If you want to sit in a sagebrush and pretend to be a rock long enough for a Pronghorn to come within 50 yds of you, great. And if you can find your way up the side of the mountian to get a 50-150yd shot at a blind Dahl Sheep or Mountian Goat, go for it.

But there ARE certian types of game that essentially require 250yd+++ shots... and that is why I will likely never hunt them.

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:29 pm

Travis Morgan wrote:
Malamute wrote:I don't feel it's productive to disparage anyone elses "hunting" experience because they choose different tools. The handgun hunters often disparage rifle hunters, the muzzle loader boys look down at the modern gun hunters, and the bow hunters feel smug comparing their choices to gun hunters. You make your choice, live with it, and like it. We don't have to justify it by discouting anyone elses choices or tools. This comes up pretty regularly when someone compares different types of guns. It isn't realistic dialog.
If I see some idiot trying to break rocks with a rubber hammer, and he tells me all about how wonderful and expensive his custom made imported hammer is, I'll not stand in his way. Hell, I might just go find him a really good rock, and call people over to watch!

On the other hand, if I see some numbnuts lobbing rounds at a herd of deer 500 yards away, just hoping for a hit, I might feel the need to correct some deficiencies in his upbringing by way of beating his butt with his own rifle.

I've seen animals dying from wounds such as idiots like this cause. It'sa horrible way for anything to die. Imagine limping around for a month or so, getting sicker and sicker, while you see and smell your own leg rotting off.

I'm trying to figure out what the connection between the quote of my post and the infered reference following it is.

"I will have to add Malamute's 9410 (and bird dogs ) to my list."

My 94 is a 30-30.

O.S.O.K. · Post by **O.S.O.K.** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:00 pm

Not to take away from the 94 but my Stevens 200 in .270 weighs 6.5 pounds before the scope. It's just a bit more than a standard 94 with it's Nikon 3x9 in place.

I personally have all kinds of rifles. I like em all. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

But, If need dictated, I could do quite nicely with "just" a few 94's. If only one, it'd have to be a big bore in .356 Win or .307 Win. preferrence in that order.