Can top eject 94 be modified to angle eject?

[Malamute]

Curious if this is possible. The breech bolt seems to be the major difference in parts, can the rest be modified to work?

[Griff]

Sure. Change out the receiver, bolt, right cartridge guide and barrel... The rest of the parts are pretty interchangeable... Although pre-'64 guide rails can't be used in a post-'64.

Ooops... forgot the

[Malamute]

I believe barrels can be modified to work with the different extractor location.

Receiver I believe can be modified, hopefully with an AE on hand to duplicate the cut.

Right cartridge guide is different? Can the top eject R guide likely be modified to work?

[DPris]

Let's just say no.
Denis

[Buck Elliott]

No need to trash a good 94 for that..
Plenty of AE 94s around, if the idea is just to mount a scope on it..

[BenT]

Angle Ejects are milled receivers while post 64 top ejects are investment cast. Cutting the receiver away for angle eject would affect the structural integrity. Not worth the hassle plenty of angle ejects out there.

The extrator is cut at about 1 o'clock in the barrel instead of 12 o'clock.

[Malamute]

I wouldnt consider it trashing it to modify it in a way that upgrades its usefulness and keeps me using it.

I had a screw made that fits the lever pin screw hole and a post-64 side mount base works, but the side mounts aren't very user friendly compared to a properly mounted scope, so gave up on that. Considered one of the adapter bases for a forward mounted scope, but I don't care for forward mounted scopes compared to regular scopes. I already have a decent scope that would work on it....


Wasn't necessarily talking of a post-64. I wouldn't sell the gun in question for any reason, and what happens after I'm gone is not of any concern to me if I can continue to keep using it (someone else may also appreciate it). Its already been modified in several ways in any event.

So, so far nobody has details of differences in other parts that may be problematic?

I need to lay hands on an AE and get it apart and compare various parts.

It would probably be the only pre-64 AE in existence.

Buying an AE. Its narrowed down right off to one without a crossbolt or tang safety (why settle for those when I already have a gun without them?). I believe they all have rebounding hammers, so replace the lower tang assembly. Many have odd locations of front bands and front sights that aren't appealing to a traditionalist. All would require work to get as desired, such as moving the band, welding up old slots, cut/crown barrel if one that sticks out 2" past the magazine, refinish/coldblue or whatever, and possibly changing front sight type/location. That period gun has squared lower receiver edges, not the nice beveled ones the earlier guns have that are nice to carry in the hand. The serial number is on the side of the bottom, so it isn't simple to grind the bevels on one.

So, yeah, I could buy an AE, and it may end up being as much or more work and cost to get one as Id like it than to convert my present gun to AE configuration, and I may never be as happy with it. Having a gun for 30 years or more, you get attached.

Complete AE bolt, about $100. Drill/tap 4 holes, grind or mill right sidewall. Machine work depends on how Id do it or who I could get to do it. Looks like 1 or 2 passes with a mill. I could probably do it by hand if need be, but with a mill it would be pretty simple.

Just thinking. The more I think, the more modifying the older one seems better.

[Pete44ru]

.

IME, anyone who wants to create a money pit can do usually find a way to do whatever they like with their funds.

Please let us know how you make out.


.

[AJMD429]

Sounds like the only potentially insurmountable hurdle would be if the receiver can't be safely milled.

Maybe not a 'practical' project, but like you said, if your concern is whether the gun sits unused versus your getting to enjoy it, it isn't a crime to at least consider the project. Guns are for shooting and hunting with, not just sitting in safes waiting for an auctioneer to get a good price after you're dead.

[J Miller]

Butchering a pre-64 into an AE is a waste of a good gun. Weather you use it or not, don't ruin a good gun just so you'll use it more.

For the record, the AE models are just castrated Post-64 versions, and other than the receiver, bolt, right cartridge guide they use the same action parts. Most do not interchange with the Pre-64s.

There is a side mount scope mount made (I forget by who) that uses the lever to bolt pin screw hole, and the two receiver sight holes to mount with, no drilling needed.
That's the way I'd go.

Joe

[Griff]

Actually, the only internal parts that differ significantly are the bolt, link and the guide rails; between pre- and post '64s. Hammer and springs, as long as you keep the set (hammer, sear trigger & springs) together, you can ('cause I have) interchange them freely. Only the late AEs differ in the fire control group, but even then the lower tang is the same... I have two post '64 TEs that use a late AE lower tang. The late AE lower link is interchangeable with the pre-64 link, but not the early AE or post-64 TE.

What parts are interchangeable between the Winchester (or USRA) and the Miroku guns is anybody's guess. I've not seen nor tried to fit any of those parts to my Top Eject mdl 94s.

My first answer was not in jest. Although, come to think of it, I have a post 64 carrier in the 1963 receiver, it's attachment is just with a screw on either side, vs. the long screw that goes across the frame... so, even that's interchangeable. And yes, you can modify the barrel by cutting the extractor slot off to the side. Just the opposite of what you'd do to put a AE barrel on a TE model.

[Pete44ru]

There is a side mount scope mount made (I forget by who) that uses the lever to bolt pin screw hole, and the two receiver sight holes to mount with, no drilling needed.

Williams not only makes the "no gunsmithing" side mount, they also make High Central Overbore (HCO) rings that place the scope directly over the bore & just high enough so the scope won't interfere with ejection (Midway carries both)

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/148233 ... fgodBkANCA

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/959690 ... fgodD20D9A





.

[JOHNNY WACKO]

[quote="DPris"]Let's just say no.
Denis[/quote

what he said

or replace everything but the wood and back site..

[J Miller]

There is a side mount scope mount made (I forget by who) that uses the lever to bolt pin screw hole, and the two receiver sight holes to mount with, no drilling needed.

Williams not only makes the "no gunsmithing" side mount, they also make High Central Overbore (HCO) rings that place the scope directly over the bore & just high enough so the scope won't interfere with ejection (Midway carries both)

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/148233 ... fgodBkANCA

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/959690 ... fgodD20D9A





.

Yes, that is the one I was thinking of. Thanks for looking it up.

Joe

[Malamute]

Butchering a pre-64 into an AE is a waste of a good gun. Weather you use it or not, don't ruin a good gun just so you'll use it more.

For the record, the AE models are just castrated Post-64 versions, and other than the receiver, bolt, right cartridge guide they use the same action parts. Most do not interchange with the Pre-64s.

There is a side mount scope mount made (I forget by who) that uses the lever to bolt pin screw hole, and the two receiver sight holes to mount with, no drilling needed.
That's the way I'd go.

Joe

Joe, Ive used the Weaver side mount, I don't care for the offset.

The Williams high over bore may work, though one of the reviews said it interferes with ejecting shells. Wish there was some way to get the shells to eject at an angle or something,....hey, wait,....

The central over bore mount also wouldn't allow a receiver sight, its using the same holes. They look a bit tall. Being tall also isn't helping get a fast sight image in the glass. Would like to see one in person.

So, if I died in the mountains with my gun and it was rusted away to nothing, or I decided to be buried with it, is that a waste of a gun also? Not sure how adapting my gun to be more useful is wasting it. Not changing it in any way to satisfy someone elses sensibilities of whats right, or their ideas of its value after Im dead and gone isn't any part of my thinking on what to do with my using guns. They all get drilled for good sights (if not from the factory) and sling mounts, this one has sights changed (like ramp removed, front band moved forward to early carbine location, early carbine front sight reproduced, old band slots welded up, different wood. If changing it is wasting it, then its already wasted.

Totally baffled how using a gun is wasting it. Not using it seems like a waste. The old saying "good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere" comes to mind (for some reason). My favorite carbine goes nearly everywhere with me. Leaving it at home for an upstart newcomer seems more disrespectful to my gun than carefully modifying and updating it and letting it remain the favorite that gets to go everywhere, and can keep up with the younger ones. This isn't a once a year deer gun, its a daily carrier/user/truck/everything else gun. Theres a lot of history together already.

I supposed at some point Ruger single actions of semi-recent vintage will be considered collectible, but the ones I have/had have all been modified. Some, almost every part has been changed in some way. They may be wasted or ruined, but they wouldn't get used very much if at all if left stock.

Yes, it may be a money pit, but when looking at the differences between working on the older gun, and modifying a newer one to get it how Id want it, it may well cost more to do the newer gun. The stuff Ive done on a couple Rugers may seem like a money pit (I did most of the work myself in any event, so there wasn't a lot of money involved) but it totally changed the guns handling and visual appeal to me, and since doing the work, no other Rugers give me the same warm fuzzy feeling. I suppose my modifications may be someone elses butchering.

And,...Holy Cow guys, its a user grade 94, its not like they are scarce or hard to find. They are all over Gunbroker for reasonable prices if one looks. If anyone wants to rescue a gun, they can buy one off Gunbroker and save it. Pre-64 seem to get put on some sort of pedestal. Yes, they are nicer than post-64 guns, but hardly the pinnacle of the gunmakers art level that they sometimes seem elevated to. 1920s and earlier guns probably shouldn't be hacked up too much if original,...though, taking a stripped parts gun and rebuilding it to something usable doesn't bother me. Guess I'm weird like that.

Will report in if theres progress.

[J Miller]

Malamute,

My mind doesn't work as quick as it used to. When I first read your question it tried to form this thought, but couldn't.

The original top eject models are built and heat treated with two sides to the top of the receiver. What, if anything did they do to the AE receiver to compensate for the loss of strength caused by the removal of the metal to make it an AE?
Also what will removing this metal from an original top eject model due to the strength?

That is my biggest concern with this type of modification.

Joe

[Griff]

How 'bout just swapping off the TE for a like model AE? You might just find a few takers right here... If I find a "user grade" 94AE, what barrel length, chambering, & do you want a rifle or carbine? Some folks might even throw up a little cash to sweeten the deal... I'm not TE poor, Blaine already accuses me of tryin' to corner the market!

[Streetstar]

Learn to use a long eye relief scope and mount it forward of the receiver , scout style

[Malamute]

The strength/heat treatment question is also one I had guys. I just don't know, or know who to ask. I am somewhat heartened to recall Buck Elliots work with the different guns rebarelled to 454. I recall that a 1920s gun lasted longer than more modern guns (by a few rounds), so my take away from that is the older guns probably arent just soft iron or anything goofy like that. I know they've been forged since way back. The heat treat, I don't know though. Sure, it isn't ideal to lower that side rail, but in the actual real life effects, if using it as a plain old 30-30, I'm guessing it will probably be OK. Ive also though of not taking the sidewall down quite as much. I want to lay hands on an AE gun and see exactly how the shells comes out. It may work fine with less metal taken out. It reminds me of the early GI 1911, they had a pretty small ejection port, they are all now lowered quite a bit in current production guns. The old ones seemed to work in GI form, so I'm not sure how much difference there is. As a side note, the lowered port didn't hurt the 1911 slides, though its not the same as a receiver on a 94.

The older gun in question isn't going anywhere in any event. It has a lot of sentimental attachment. Ive had it for about 30 years or so, and its made the same year as me. It would seem sad to leave it home alone when I was out sporting around with a newer gun.

Still, besides the extra cost of the newer AE gun, the changes Id likely make to get it how I like them may end up costing more than converting my old one. Not positive, its possible though.

I'm not a big fan of the forward mounted scopes. I don't think they are as overall user friendly and useful as a good regular mounted scope. The one simple adapter mount that's available isn't very attractive either (If theyd bevel off all the edges it would look a lot nicer). I had thought of having some bases for Ruger rings machined to fit the barrel and screwed/sweated on, but its still a forward mounted scope.

I appreciate everyones thoughts and comments. Still thinking all this over. If it ends up being mainly a complete bolt as the main cost other than work, I may proceed. The available half cock lower tang assemblies available now cost more than that.

[tman]

There is a side mount scope mount made (I forget by who) that uses the lever to bolt pin screw hole, and the two receiver sight holes to mount with, no drilling needed.

Williams not only makes the "no gunsmithing" side mount, they also make High Central Overbore (HCO) rings that place the scope directly over the bore & just high enough so the scope won't interfere with ejection (Midway carries both)

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/148233 ... fgodBkANCA

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/959690 ... fgodD20D9A





.

Interesting concept! Might try this out on my old trapper. THANKS!

[Pete44ru]

The Williams high over bore may work, though one of the reviews said it interferes with ejecting shells.

Wish there was some way to get the shells to eject at an angle or something,....hey, wait,....

Ejection issues with HCO rings in a sidemount are usually disappeared via rotating the scope 90-degrees to the left, making the elevation turret into the windage adjustment, and the windage turret into the elevation adjustment.

The rotation prevents the scope turret that usually protrudes over the ejecting shell's path from obstructing ejection.

I do the scope rotation on most of my scoped rifles as a matter of course, to give me more open access to the bolt, or in loading a boltgun.


.

[Malamute]

I did that with the Weaver side mount.

[Buck Elliott]

Malamute,

My mind doesn't work as quick as it used to. When I first read your question it tried to form this thought, but couldn't.

The original top eject models are built and heat treated with two sides to the top of the receiver. What, if anything did they do to the AE receiver to compensate for the loss of strength caused by the removal of the metal to make it an AE?
Also what will removing this metal from an original top eject model due to the strength?

That is my biggest concern with this type of modification.

Joe

In a word: nothing..

Back when I was torture-testing 94s, a rebarreled .375 Big Bore AE failed sooner than any of the regular old 94s..
Right side receiver wall stretched and bent..

[Malamute]

Based on your experience, do you think it will stretch a late pre-64 if altered to angle eject and used as a 30-30?

I was spitballing, but based on recalling your old work, that the pre-64 probably wasn't soft, as you had a 1920s gun that did fairly well didn't you?

I also recalled that someone in Az was converting 94s to a wildcat 444 type round in the 60s. May have been before the Marlin round came out. They seemed to do OK. A friend in Az told me about them, he was familiar with them I believe, and it was mentioned in print somewhere, perhaps Cartridges of the World? Point being the older guns (within reason) probably aren't poor metal/heat treat.

[Buck Elliott]

You're right, Bill..
A 1920s vintage 94 held up against 65,000 psi better than any of the other lever guns tested.

None of them "blew up", but all of them were beaten, twisted and bent beyond being operable..
Winchester's forged, nodular iron receivers were the cream of the crop..

I seriously doubt that .30-30 pressures will have any bad effect on such a modified rifle..

[Malamute]

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Still thinking it all through. If I could update my old favorite, Id sure like keeping it at the top of my useful list.

[mitchellc375]

I know this is an old topic but for those who want to know I have just completed a conversion of 375 Big Bore top eject to angle eject. Very simple, put the AE bolt in, check the headspace, mark the location of the new extractor slot, take the barrel out and cut it, drill and tap 4 holes for the mounts and then work on the side of the action until the bolt closes (this has to be done because the extractor now being on the side cannot jump over the rim of a shell because it jams on the inside of the receiver), re assemble everything and then work on the side of the receiver until it ejects reliably, you don’t need to take out as much as they did in the factory but an aggressive angle needs to be filed or machined in to create a better leading edge.

[Scott Tschirhart]

Thanks for the update. I did not respond to the initial post because I simply did not know.

But I was interested in the experiment.

[AJMD429]

.
If you have any pictures of what you did that would be cool.

Did you use a Dremel, or hand-file, or what (for the receiver work)...?

I do agree that unless one has an 'irreplacable collectible' that is is fine to modify it if you need to (after all it is YOUR gun). If there is an affordable new gun that can replicate exactly what you want, and the original is something scarce that many other people would appreciate un-touched, it makes sense to swap or whatever instead, but think how many times we come upon an old gun that was 'modified' by someone a long time ago, and instead of being angry at them, we are intrigued, and love to speculate as to the circumstances and history around the modification. We are similarly un-upset if the modification is being done to a brand-new current-manufacture gun, but somehow if it is an intermediate thing timeline-wise, we start criticizing the person who did the modification.

Anyway, sounds like a practical modification YOU needed on YOUR gun, so I'd have done the same; I don't take well to forward-mounted optics, but have old enough eyes that I need optics unless the light is bright and the target close. I have found that 'side' mounts work ok though, so probably that would have been my answer, but that doesn't mean you should do the same.

[Malamute]

I know this is an old topic but for those who want to know I have just completed a conversion of 375 Big Bore top eject to angle eject. Very simple, put the AE bolt in, check the headspace, mark the location of the new extractor slot, take the barrel out and cut it, drill and tap 4 holes for the mounts and then work on the side of the action until the bolt closes (this has to be done because the extractor now being on the side cannot jump over the rim of a shell because it jams on the inside of the receiver), re assemble everything and then work on the side of the receiver until it ejects reliably, you don’t need to take out as much as they did in the factory but an aggressive angle needs to be filed or machined in to create a better leading edge.

Thanks for the post, quite interesting. I suspected that not as much metal really needed to be removed from the sidewall.

To update my situation, I ended up buying an AE gun, I managed to find a clean example without crossbolt, though does have the tang safety. It doesnt bother me as much as I though it might, but my favorite bolt guns are tang safety Ruger 77s. The 16" so-called "trapper" guns seemed a couple to several hundred more dollars than 20" guns when I got mine, so being poor and cheap, I bought a 20" and cut it down myself. It has Leupold 2 piece bases and low rings (lowest type setup I could find) and older used Leupold 1-4 scope. I turned the scope 90 deg to the left to give more room for ejecting shells and to make single loading/unloading easier. It has become my primary truck gun, it has an elastic butt cuff with spare rounds and some more handy next to it.

As with so many recent (last 30-40 years) Winchesters, the AE gun had numerous sharp edges on the link and other parts, the common square lower receiver edges, and required some time to clean up all the crappy finish work the factory failed to do. I added a long wood fore end, and walnut butt stock, it had the econo-cheap hardwood stocks. Sling mounts, so far only the mag tube band type, Ill do the nice stud in the rear band when I get ambitious.

It in no way seems to elicit real pleasure and joy of ownership that the older guns do, at least for me, especially compared to a birth year gun Ive had since the early 1980s and carried, shot and hunted with it. The AE is a utilitarian tool. Sitting looking at it, it doest feel slick, smooth and nice in the hand, same for carrying it. It serves a purpose, but doesnt give back much. I cant just sit and admire it out on some rock in the hills or mountains. Its more in the realm of a glock compared to the older ones. Lots of people like them, which is great, they just dont trip my admiration and appreciation trigger like the late pre-64 carbine in question or my cut down 1927 gun. Id add that I feel about the same with newer vehicles, they just dont spark much interest for me, which is convenient, since I cant afford them.

I havent shot it much yet, life hasnt been conducive to much shooting the recent years, but im hoping I can get back close to normal now. I rough zeroed it relatively close, then tried it on the rocks at 300 yards. Its easy to hit 5 gallon bucket size rocks at that range, good enough for now. i'll get a fine zero off a solid rest at 100 yards at some point.

I still think I may do the pre-64 gun at some point, its my favorite 94 overall. Bolts can be had on ebay for $25-$35, I think I can modify any other parts or buy them reasonably on ebay if need be. Its astonishing all the gun parts available on ebay, and often pretty reasonably if one looks around.

94 AE-1.JPG