Converting Miroku/Late Model Winchester Rebounding Hammer & Tang Safety to Traditional

[348win]

Lots of mixed reviews on eliminating/converting Rebounding Hammer and Tang Safety to Traditional Half Cock style.

How straightforward is this job and are parts available these days?

I don't really want a frustrating project, but if its what I got to do to get my son and I the truck gun/working gun that will serve us a lifetime then so be it.

I ain't scared and have worked on internals on other stuff in the past.
I am concerned about the supply chain these days. But if the old parts interchange there aught to be "millions" out there

[OldWin]

As the saying goes, there's more that one way to skin a cat. I used to have all the part number written down as to what will work, but I'm not sure I have that anymore.
One of the biggest issues is making sure you have the right diameter hammer screw, as they changed it over production.
Parts sourcing will be the biggest hurdle, and gets harder every day. I lucked out in that my buddy had a drawer full. I could measure and compare at my leisure.
The carbine I did was an early Angle Eject from around 1990 I think. The easiest swap was a complete lower tang assembly from an early post 64 example.
Here are a few pics that I still have. You can see the 2 complete lower tang assemblies. Identification is easy by the rebounding hammer strut and coil spring.
The only thing that keeps it from being a direct swap is the two tenons on the earlier lower tang. This is a leftover from the Original 1894 design, where the receiver and tenons locate the lower tang location. Later guns eliminate this and just use the stock for this (garbage).
The tenons are being shown by the pointer in another picture. Simply file these off flush with the tang, touch up the finish, and the whole assembly slips right in.
I found this the easiest way to go for this swap.

[Chaser]

Following along, 348win. I bought a new 1886 last year and would like to do similar.

If I can ask what is the benefit to removing the rebounding hammer?

I asked this to a group of supposedly knowledgeable lever fan last year and they acted like they didn't know lever guns had rebounding hammers. My only guess was they only owned older originals.

[348win]

I never owned a rebounder

But there ain't no reason, for function, to stray away from original half cock w no extra sheenanigans

Yes most old levergunners would not know about rebounding hammers as they are only fitted to late models.

In my opinion there's lot of guys out there who don't shop the new stuff. I'm partially that way.

The old M64 is looking to be my solution, as no project, back round where I began this quest

[Chaser]

I've only owned newer ones (mid 70s and newer), so all I know is rebounding hammers. That doesn't bother me so much as the tang safety. I'd like to get rid of that hideous eyesore.

[LeverGunner]

On my Turnbull finished Winchester/Miroku 1892 there has been some significant changes. They shortened the lower leg of the strut, cut a proper half cock notch in the hammer, welded the rear end of the firing pin, removed all of the associated firing pin block guts.

They have left this part in the firing pin, as opposed to having a hole in the firing pin, but modified it so that do not do anything. It retains a short firing pin, and a small firing pin rebound spring on the front end, which keeps the firing pin held rearward. Without this spring, the firing pin is not long enough, and if in the forward position, would misfire as the hammer would only strike the back of the bolt.


Not the best picture. I didn't disassemble it for photography.


I really don't know all of what else was done, there is at least one extra screw hole that I saw. I wish I knew someone that had an unconverted Winchester that I could compare with.

[1972RedNeck]

Lots of mixed reviews on eliminating/converting Rebounding Hammer and Tang Safety to Traditional Half Cock style.

How straightforward is this job and are parts available these days?

I don't really want a frustrating project, but if its what I got to do to get my son and I the truck gun/working gun that will serve us a lifetime then so be it.

I ain't scared and have worked on internals on other stuff in the past.
I am concerned about the supply chain these days. But if the old parts interchange there aught to be "millions" out there

I am trying to do the same on my new 1886. Looks to be straight forward, but the parts to do so are currently unobtainable as far as I can tell. Needs to be the Browning Miroku parts. Original Winchester parts won't work from what I have read. Turnbull or any good Smith is your only option.

[348win]

It is very discouraging to see that, in all industries, support is becoming unobtanium.

Yes the Mirokus are from what I understand, metric / Japan, so I doubt any OEM Winchester parts will interchange w any of them.

Buying something that's "runs and done" is seemingly the smartest choice of all these days.

The quality on Miroku stuff is outstanding in my point of view, but hard to compete w Made In America: something like a Genuine Winchester M94 or maybe M64, 1886, 71 where there SHOULD be stock of parts by "the thousands" floating around.
One is inclined to think!

Miroku Japan PARTS, I doubt there is any, those rifles shipped out complete... who know how many spare parts were made.

Gunsmiths would have this kind of info, a better insight of market.

As these old timer smiths age and die off, collections of OEM Winchester parts must come to market?????
Someone's got to have some stock.

I don't like owning things there no support for....but that's the result of Greedy American Industry, sold everything out overseas or themselves out by trying to make more $ and cheaper products.

[348win]

Turnbull replied

Only converting 1886 & 1892 Models

*NO CONVERTING to M94's*

[Nath]

Rebounders get a bad rap because they can cause misfires.
I don't mind them and understand them.
Light strikes can be easily overcome by removing some material from the lower portion acting on the hammer to rebound it. And it doesn't take much but it will improve reliability.

[LeverGunner]

All of the screws are metric, except for the top screw hole for the tang sight which Turnbull added.

I don't particularly like rebounding hammers, but I'd rather have a rebounding hammer than a safety.

[Turdyturdy]

Didn’t know I had a problem with my Miroku Winchester 94 38-55. It is the basic carbine model, no checkering or fancy wood. I have fired it over 300 times and it has gone bang every time.

[LeverGunner]

I've had several late model Winchester 94's with rebounding hammers - I think I've had 4. There was one that gave me trouble with misfiring, and replacing the firing pin solved the issue when shortening the lower strut leg would not.

I don't mind a rebounding hammer, but it's a slight annoyance for me. With a standard half cock type hammer, I use the hammer position as an indicator of a loaded chamber. If the hammer is down, it's an empty chamber, or a fired case; With the hammer on half cock, there is a live round in the chamber.

[OldWin]

I do think in extreme cold, snow, or other conditions, light strikes can happen with the rebounding hammers. There is definitely reduced energy with that type of ignition.
Even the original half cock mainsprings were much heavier in the earlier rifles than the post war examples.
On one occasion, several of us were caught out in a bad blizzard at camp. We were all armed with either very early round bolt 336 Marlins and one 1894 Winchester from 1899.
When we got ourselves back to camp, my cousin and my 336's hammers couldn't be retracted from safety to full cock. The actions couldn't be opened either, as the fit of the round bolt in the receiver had been frozen in place.
My dad, with his old 94 laughed at us as he easily drew his hammer to full cock. However, when attempting to lower it, it wouldn't go beyond the safety position with any spring power. The action could still be operated, though.
I could only assume a rebounding hammer would have failed to operate long before this point.