Question on new Winchesters

[Rusty]

I see all the levers now seem to have the tang safety on them. Does this mean they all have rebounding hammers as well?

[1894c]

yes--left over form the past, but there is a link somewhere on this forum that shows you how to replace the rebounding hammer to a non-rebounding hammer--parts can still be bought...someone with better info and details should be along shortly to help you further...here are some links for you to consider... :)

INSTRUCTION links:
http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... =1&t=29287
http://reloadingandlevergunning.blogspo ... -mods.html
http://onesticky.levergunscommunity.org ... _sear.html

PARTS links:
http://www.midwestgunworks.com/page/mgw ... r-model-94
http://winchesterbob.com/model94.htm

[claybob86]

The rebounding hammer is only a problem if you just INSIST that the gun goes bang every time you pull the trigger. No biggie, though, just eject the misfire and the next round will probably fire. I'm kinda picky about that sort of thing, so I replaced my rebounder, which suffered from light primer strikes, with the half-cock lower tang/hammer assembly from the older models, courtesy of one of the fine gentlemen on this forum, and now, the rifle does, in fact, go bang every time the trigger is pulled! This is an USRAC, not a Miroku.
Based on posts on this forum, some of the rebounders work fine, some don't. There are threads here showing how to make a bad rebounder work right, but I don't really trust that mechanism, due to my experience.

[El Chivo]

if your concern is only the light strikes, it's an easy fix to file down two little spots on a cheap, replaceable part inside. I did it, and light strikes are a thing of the past. I made sure I had a spare before I started. I could go into more detail if you need it.

If you want to get rid of the rebounding, then you'll need a new hammer and I don't know what else.

But since you don't have the gun yet, you might consider an older one or a different brand and avoid the problem altogether. The new Winchesters are not particularly special, tend to spit out broken parts, shoot rounds under the carrier, seize up and other fun stuff. I do like the way they shoot but I single load them now.

[hightime]

So all tang safety Winchesers have a rebounding hammer? Even back in '05.
I had one and no troubles, sold it, and now have another comming. I'm not worried, but I'd like to know.

Owen

[J Miller]

if your concern is only the light strikes, it's an easy fix to file down two little spots on a cheap, replaceable part inside. I did it, and light strikes are a thing of the past. I made sure I had a spare before I started. I could go into more detail if you need it.

If you want to get rid of the rebounding, then you'll need a new hammer and I don't know what else.

But since you don't have the gun yet, you might consider an older one or a different brand and avoid the problem altogether. The new Winchesters are not particularly special, tend to spit out broken parts, shoot rounds under the carrier, seize up and other fun stuff. I do like the way they shoot but I single load them now.

NONSENSE!

The Win 94AE is only worse than the earlier ones due to the abominably horrid rebounder action and safeties. Once that's taken care of they work just the same as the earlier ones. The only Win94AE that's problematic is those chambered for .357 mag. A chambering sired by demons. Far more of these guns have had trouble with broken carriers and jams than the others. The 357 size cartridge is just too small for the action.
Yet there are some that work just fine. To condemn all of them is nonsense.

From 82 on all Winchesters even the 92s, 86s, 71s, 95s, made in Japan have been rebounders. From about 95 to 02 (I think) the American 94s had the CB safety, and from the start the Japanese guns had the tang safety.

(Note: My timeline may be off. I've suffered the third hard drive failure and have lost most of my files.)

Joe

[Mescalero]

Jeepers Joe,
What are you doing to that computer?

[hightime]

I don't think my Legacys were Japan made in '05 and '06 both had tang safetys.
They do have rebounding hammers. Made in USA. Always work though.

Owen

[Pete44ru]

the 92s, 86s, 71s, 95s, made in Japan have been rebounders, and from the start the Japanese guns had the tang safety

You musta had CRS, when you overlooked the fact that Model 92's & 1886/86's made in Japan by Miroku (the same folks who make/brand the current "Winchesters") for Browning in the 1970's & 80's , etc have neither - the reason many cognescenti seek them out ILO newer iterations.

The Browning lawyers of the time apparrently didn't have the legal qualms that the later Winchester lawyers had, and which Winchester lawyers inserted into their contracted construction requirements vis-a-vis Miroku-made Winchesters.

.

[El Chivo]

if your concern is only the light strikes, it's an easy fix to file down two little spots on a cheap, replaceable part inside. I did it, and light strikes are a thing of the past. I made sure I had a spare before I started. I could go into more detail if you need it.

If you want to get rid of the rebounding, then you'll need a new hammer and I don't know what else.

But since you don't have the gun yet, you might consider an older one or a different brand and avoid the problem altogether. The new Winchesters are not particularly special, tend to spit out broken parts, shoot rounds under the carrier, seize up and other fun stuff. I do like the way they shoot but I single load them now.

NONSENSE!

The Win 94AE is only worse than the earlier ones due to the abominably horrid rebounder action and safeties. Once that's taken care of they work just the same as the earlier ones. The only Win94AE that's problematic is those chambered for .357 mag. A chambering sired by demons. Far more of these guns have had trouble with broken carriers and jams than the others. The 357 size cartridge is just too small for the action.
Yet there are some that work just fine. To condemn all of them is nonsense.

From 82 on all Winchesters even the 92s, 86s, 71s, 95s, made in Japan have been rebounders. From about 95 to 02 (I think) the American 94s had the CB safety, and from the start the Japanese guns had the tang safety.

(Note: My timeline may be off. I've suffered the third hard drive failure and have lost most of my files.)

Joe

Hey Joe, how many post-2000 Winchesters do you have? How many months or years since you've shot one at the range?

I have two, and yes, one is a .357, but it has had no more problems than the 30-30's. My buddy and I both bought our 30-30's in January of 2006 to get the last ones.

His broke on the first use of the lever and had to go to warranty service. It spit out the tooth part of the cartridge stop.

My .357 wouldn't advance and also went in for warranty service. It broke its ejector and that tinfoil thing that is mounted on the end of the lever. It gave me under the carrier jams dozens of times so I carved the cartridge stop so it was perpendicular to the cartridge ends to stop them from riding over it.

My 30-30 also lost a part, due to the screw inside being sheared off flush, now that was a bitch to get out. It is the one that had light primer strikes and I had to file off the feet of the part the spring fits on.

Along the way I was able to observe the cheapness of the individual parts, the poor fit and rudimentary execution.

I'm just giving fair warning to someone who should make his own decision based on reality, I'm sure he'll consider the 100 year tradition that is Winchester. By the way I said I like the way they shoot, my horrid .357 is my most accurate gun and I shot a 37 in silhouette with it.

One good thing, you won't have to use the instructions on how to assemble and disassemble your Winchester, you'll have it memorized.

Winchester 94 - now available in single shot

[Griff]

Per Winchester's catalog's, the tang safety was added in 2003.

Some changes move a product forward, some take it back. This year we’ve done both with the Winchester® Model 94. Look at a new 94 and you will see ... and you won’t. You will see the safety that has been relocated to the top tang. What you won’t see is the side receiver mounted safety from recent years ... Just the clean classic lines collectors love in the ‘94s of old.
The appearance is the only thing we dare change in the Model 94. And that’s really something we are just changing back. That’s because some things should never change. The Winchester Model 94 is such a rifle.

The coil mainspring was added around serial # 4,580,000 or around 1977/78. Top eject receivers numbered up to around 4,900,000 (IIRC). USRAC took over production of the mdl 94 in 1981, and the AE was introduced in 1984. The crossbolt safety was added in the early 1990s when FN took over from USRAC. The lower tang has two versions for non-rebounding types, early ones still had the "ears" that held the tang at a set angle from the top and then the "ear-less" that relied on the top flat of the tang to position it. Even with the advent of the tang safety, you could used the later type in an earlier receiver, but you had to be careful to keep the angle proper to have the link catch work properly.
Here's a lower tang (curved) that I purchased from Winchester in about 2007 and fit to a 1976 receiver.


I was going to try to have a shop near home make these spring struts and offer them up... but they went belly up before they could take my part and reproduce them. The actual spring is the same for both this version and the rebounder. (I should probably look into that more).

What's interesting is that 90% of Browning's stock was purchased by FN & Miroku in 1977, before the B-92 was offered in 1978 and the 1886 clone in '85. And when FN bailed out USRAC in '92 they shortly introduced that crossbolt safety on the mdl 94. Yet the annual issue of various forms of the mdl 1892 (mdl 53, 65) from the Miroku plant continued without it until 2003 (I think), when the 1892 also got the tang safety.

[RIHMFIRE]

if your concern is only the light strikes, it's an easy fix to file down two little spots on a cheap, replaceable part inside. I did it, and light strikes are a thing of the past. I made sure I had a spare before I started. I could go into more detail if you need it.

If you want to get rid of the rebounding, then you'll need a new hammer and I don't know what else.

But since you don't have the gun yet, you might consider an older one or a different brand and avoid the problem altogether. The new Winchesters are not particularly special, tend to spit out broken parts, shoot rounds under the carrier, seize up and other fun stuff. I do like the way they shoot but I single load them now.

NONSENSE!

The Win 94AE is only worse than the earlier ones due to the abominably horrid rebounder action and safeties. Once that's taken care of they work just the same as the earlier ones. The only Win94AE that's problematic is those chambered for .357 mag. A chambering sired by demons. Far more of these guns have had trouble with broken carriers and jams than the others. The 357 size cartridge is just too small for the action.
Yet there are some that work just fine. To condemn all of them is nonsense.

From 82 on all Winchesters even the 92s, 86s, 71s, 95s, made in Japan have been rebounders. From about 95 to 02 (I think) the American 94s had the CB safety, and from the start the Japanese guns had the tang safety.

(Note: My timeline may be off. I've suffered the third hard drive failure and have lost most of my files.)


Joe

My US made legacy model 94s have the tang safety...so do the trails end models with
the octogon barrels.....I think the round barrel trails end do too!

Standard AEs have the cross bolt.....and all have the rebounding hammer

[Griff]

RIHMFIRE,

All mdl 94s since 2003 have the tang safety. Only the ones produced between 1994 and 2002 have the cross-bolt.

[Don McDowell]

I have two ae's from about 88 both have fired thousands of rounds and neither have suffered the widespread misfire of internet fame.
I also have one of the early remakes of the 95, it's one of the 270's they brought back from the warehouses and rebarreled. It has the rebounding hammer and tang safety of internet fame. Yet again that rifle has never failed to fire, and it's entirely possible to just flip that safety to fire and forget about it....I find both to be nonissues.
(Also have a couple of the pre AE and all that jazz 94's)
In someways it's a comfort knowing that on the rebounding hammers the hammer isn't resting on the firing pin which is protruding thru the bolt and in turn resting on the primer, if you should happen to not put the hammer into the safety notch.

How's come we never see anythreads about what a mess Marlin made of their elegant rifles, like the over porkulus forearms, and bulbous buttstocks and we never see anybody grousing about that stupid crossbolt safety, which they were the first to safety their guns....

[RIHMFIRE]

RIHMFIRE,

All mdl 94s since 2003 have the tang safety. Only the ones produced between 1994 and 2002 have the cross-bolt.

Thanks Griff....

[claybob86]

I have two ae's from about 88 both have fired thousands of rounds and neither have suffered the widespread misfire of internet fame.

It does happen, and not just on the internet. Mine did it.

How's come we never see anythreads about what a mess Marlin made of their elegant rifles, like the over porkulus forearms, and bulbous buttstocks and we never see anybody grousing about that stupid crossbolt safety, which they were the first to safety their guns....

I like my Marlin. It has a crossbolt safety, but it also has the halfcock mechanism, not a rebounder. I just ignore the safety. Fires every time. Also, mine does not suffer from porkulusness or bulbousness. Its an 1894. I think the worst of the excess wood Marlins is the 39A.

[Tycer]

The actual spring is the same for both this version and the rebounder. (I should probably look into that more).

Although I've never measure wire size and spacing, it appears to me that the springs are the same except the rebounder is longer. I've had one that has a bit thinner wire size that was NIB, late 70's model 30-30 rifle so perhaps they bought from different manufacturers. That one had a noticeably lighter action but I never fired it.

[WinM71]

Jeez . . . . . . . .why wouldn't anybody want a lever with the finest custom-lawyered MODERN features you can get??????? Who cares if it's anything at all like a classic rifle design that worked just perfectly for 100+ years??? Who cares if the lawyered-up features make it less-than-100% functional??? SOME people are just SOOOOO picky!


Which reminds me . . .

Question: What does a lawyer get when you give him Viagra??


Answer: Taller.

[Don McDowell]

Well boys lets keep in mind some of the problems folks are associating with the design has more to do with shoddy workmanship, which was a fairly good part of the reason operations at New Haven ceased.....
Claybob you ever handle a real Marlin 94 and you'll realize the bulbous and porkulous of the new ones...

[Griff]

Don,

We have, on an irregular and widespread timeframe talked about the bulbous nature of Marlin forearms. I believe that Marlin started installing their cross-bolt safety on the 336 & 1894 well in advance of Winchester (USRAC) doing so. When you figure that Winchester produced almost 2 million of their AE models in less than 30 years, yet the previous 5 million were produced over 90 years, the ones purchased in the "internet age" far outnumber, on an annual basis, those in collections, safes, rifle racks or over the fireplaces that then changed hands in that same 30 year span. Given that the rebound design is a far less forgiving of manufacturing tolerances, it's easy to see why so many complaints have arisen.

To my knowledge, Marlin hasn't seen fit to use the rebounding hammer in their leverguns. It's yet to be known what Remington might do to the design.

I, for one, am glad that my two Marlins are pre-crossbolt safety models. And the "project" gun is getting a nice slim forend!

[Nath]

Out of the two 94 rebounders I have owned I never had an misfire issue. I have heard of it occuring when folk trim the hammer spring in a vain attempt to lighten the trigger!

I did achieve a 1 3/4lb trigger on the last ae with full hammer spring weight. I also removed some of the lower prongs to lessen the rebound. It made no differance to how well the gun shot and I would not do it again,,,,,pointless IMO.

I simply would not worry about anything to do with a Win 94 action as they are so easy to fix with the minimun of tools regardless of era. Marlins are good but IMO I prefere the more open action of the 94.

Nath.

[claybob86]

Well boys lets keep in mind some of the problems folks are associating with the design has more to do with shoddy workmanship, which was a fairly good part of the reason operations at New Haven ceased.....
Claybob you ever handle a real Marlin 94 and you'll realize the bulbous and porkulous of the new ones...

Don, my Marlin 1894 is real, and while the forearm may not be as venisonious as the older ones, I would describe it as beefy, rather than porkulous. I'm gettin hungry.

[Don McDowell]

The original Marlin 94's were quite possibly the finest leverguns Marlin ever turned out, almost in the same class as a winchester.