Winchester Safety

[Haycock]

What year were the first safeties added to the 94s?

[Pete44ru]

Which safety were you interested in ?

In chronological order, there's the lever safety, the crossbolt safety, and then the tang safety.

The first was the lever safety, and IIRC, it was a loooong time ago.

[Haycock]

Would a 1981 model have been built with the CB safety?

[Pete44ru]

No, AFAIK the CB safety came into use with the introduction of the 94AE in 1982.

[Haycock]

Thank you, sir.

[J Miller]

Actually the Cross Bolt Safety was introduced in 1992 and the tang safety was introduced in 2004.

I can verify this as I purchased a brand new Win 94 AE Trapper in 1986 and it did not have any safety.

Joe

[OD*]

Would a 1981 model have been built with the CB safety?

No Sir, the CBS was intro'd as Joe stated. The angle eject and reintroduction of the forged receivers started in late '83.
The rebounding hammer was introduced in 1981.

[Pete44ru]

I stand corrected - Thanks Gents - I know the CB safety as only on AE's, and when the AE was introduced, but since I've only bought a couple of later AE's (.444BB94, .444 Timber Carbine, & .450M Timber), which all had CBS's - I mistakenly thought all AE's had 'em.

Wal, at least I was right - in that the 1981'er didn't !

[Haycock]

Would a 1981 model have been built with the CB safety?

No Sir, the CBS was intro'd as Joe stated. The angle eject and reintroduction of the forged receivers started in late '83.
The rebounding hammer was introduced in 1981.

Did ALL calendar-year 1981 rifles have the rebounding hammer or was the "feature" introduced during the year sometime, such that SOME of the 1981 rifles may not have a rebounding hammer?

[OD*]

Would a 1981 model have been built with the CB safety?

No Sir, the CBS was intro'd as Joe stated. The angle eject and reintroduction of the forged receivers started in late '83.
The rebounding hammer was introduced in 1981.

Did ALL calendar-year 1981 rifles have the rebounding hammer or was the "feature" introduced during the year sometime, such that SOME of the 1981 rifles may not have a rebounding hammer?

IIRC, the rebounding hammer was intro'd late in '81. USRAC, didn't take over until July 1st, 1981.

[Haycock]

Would a 1981 model have been built with the CB safety?

No Sir, the CBS was intro'd as Joe stated. The angle eject and reintroduction of the forged receivers started in late '83.
The rebounding hammer was introduced in 1981.

Did ALL calendar-year 1981 rifles have the rebounding hammer or was the "feature" introduced during the year sometime, such that SOME of the 1981 rifles may not have a rebounding hammer?

IIRC, the rebounding hammer was intro'd late in '81. USRAC, didn't take over until July 1st, 1981.

Thanks.

[OD*]

You're welcome Sir.

[Haycock]

OD - According the this article the rebounding hammer was added at the same time as the cross-bolt safety and as a result of it for engineering reasons (the key comment is in the 6th paragraph from the end). If true, that would imply the NO 94 made in 1981 has the rebounding hammer. Whaddya think? Is the author smoking crack?

http://www.hobbygunsmith.com/Archives/M ... erview.htm

[OD*]

OD - According the this article the rebounding hammer was added at the same time as the cross-bolt safety and as a result of it for engineering reasons (the key comment is in the 6th paragraph from the end). If true, that would imply the NO 94 made in 1981 has the rebounding hammer. Whaddya think? Is the author smoking crack?

http://www.hobbygunsmith.com/Archives/M ... erview.htm

They're wrong, what can I say?

I have an 1985 rebounding hammer, no cross-bolt safety. There are a number of '81 thru '91 owners here, they'll tell you the same thing.

[J Miller]

Haycock,

I scan read the article and found this paragraph:

"It is important to understand that the hammer and trigger sears do not come in contact with each other on the New Model 94. There is a lever safety that protrudes through the lower tang and must be depressed by the lever in order to release the hammer. Essentially, the trigger engages the lever safety and the lever safety engages the hammer sear. This is the cause of one of the biggest problems with the New Model 94, which causes the trigger to have over a half inch of travel before engaging anything. Do not tamper with this safety feature because it prevents the gun from firing before the bolt is securely locked in place."

The information is this paragraph is false. First of all the hammer and sear does indeed come into direct contact. There is little difference in hammer, sear, and trigger function between the rebounding hammer action and the original hammer assembly. The sear engages the hammer notch at full cock, the trigger moves the sear to release the hammer.
The trigger block this author refers to as the "lever safety" does not contact the hammer at all. ALL it does is physically block the trigger from being pulled if the lever is not held fully against the lower tang. This ensures that the action is totally locked. That is all it does, it doesn't contact anything else.

Based on the incorrect information in this one paragraph I'd not trust the rest of the article on bit.

Now, as I stated earlier, and as OD has stated, the rebounding hammers were introduced late 81. No safety's were incorporated into the actions at this time.
The cross bolt safeties were introduced in 1992, that means that the rebounding hammer action predates the introduction of the cross bolt safeties by at least 10 years.

As I also stated for an example, in 1986 I purchased a verified 1985 vintage Winchester 94AE Trapper model that came with only the rebounding hammer action, no safety of any kind. So the information in that article that states the rebounding hammer and cross bolt safety were introduced is patently false.

Joe

[OD*]

I didn't read the article Joe, but that paragraph you quoted tells me not to waste my time.

Thanks Joe.

[Haycock]

See now..... that is why I love this site! Quick, incredibly well informed responses.

Gents... you rock! Keep on keepin' on!