Model 94 in .348?

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
Yodar
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:49 pm
Location: Prescott, AZ

Model 94 in .348?

Post by Yodar »

Did any of you sharp-eyed Levergunners notice that something was not quite right on page 81 in the September, 2008 issue of The American Rifleman? In the article on the top ten hunting rifles, the Model 94 is listed as number two, Mr Mark A. Keefe IV lists the various calibers for which the Model 94 was chambered. He includes the .348 Winchester in the list. I am not an expert on Winchesters but I understand the only rifle chambered for the .348 WCF was the Model 71. Anybody out there know any different?
User avatar
Griff
Posting leader...
Posts: 21344
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!

Re: Model 94 in .348?

Post by Griff »

Image
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93

There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3843
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: Model 94 in .348?

Post by Malamute »

It was a mistake.

The .348 WCF rim won't even fit between the frame(bolt) rails of a 94 Winchester receiver, let alone the mag tube opening in the receiver or the loading gate. If you could somehow overcome all that, the cartridge length is too great to work in a 94 action.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
John in MS
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:56 pm

Re: Model 94 in .348?

Post by John in MS »

Yep, I saw that and couldn't believe they made that silly mistake...
John
"Pistols do not win wars, but they save the lives of the men who do. The noble 1911 is a mechanical marvel, whose ruggedness, dependability & ferocious power have comforted four issues of GIs and which, unlike any other instrument you can name, is as much superior to its rivals today as it was in 1917."
-Col. Jeff Cooper, 1968
1886
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2835
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:18 pm

Re: Model 94 in .348?

Post by 1886 »

I saw that too. Those type of mistakes seem to be pretty common. They just missed it during the editing process. 1886.
User avatar
Hobie
Moderator
Posts: 13903
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Staunton, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: Model 94 in .348?

Post by Hobie »

I am beginning to believe that the proofreaders know nothing on the subject and so can't catch such things.
Sincerely,

Hobie

"We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend." Robert Louis Stevenson
Leverluver
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: WY

Re: Model 94 in .348?

Post by Leverluver »

Same proof readers that read scripts for TV shows. Saw a CSI rerun last night where the suspect shot a Kodiak bear (illegally of course :roll: ) with a 357 in FLORIDA :lol:. (Ooops, not Florida, thinking of the wrong CSI. It was Nevada) Now if Sarah was the one doing the shooting, it would have been more believable :mrgreen:
User avatar
Old Savage
Posting leader...
Posts: 16949
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Model 94 in .348?

Post by Old Savage »

Actually - that is pretty consistent for all of CSI which is almost entirely BS.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...

Image
Post Reply