Weaknesses in the Winchester 86, 92 and 94
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.
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.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:25 pm
- Location: Indiana
Weaknesses in the Winchester 86, 92 and 94
Are there any inherent weaknesses in the Winchester model 86, 92 or 94?
I've never heard of any. I've had all good experience with all three models but I haven't done nearly the amount of shooting with them that some of you have.
Another approach is: Can any genuinely good improvements be made to them?
Seems to me, for what they are, they are perfect.
Don McCullough
I've never heard of any. I've had all good experience with all three models but I haven't done nearly the amount of shooting with them that some of you have.
Another approach is: Can any genuinely good improvements be made to them?
Seems to me, for what they are, they are perfect.
Don McCullough
-
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 2569
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:51 pm
-
- Levergunner 3.0
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:04 pm
- Location: Eastern NM
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/model71_info.htmBen_Rumson wrote:Mebbe in the 86, if there were any, they got fixed w/the 71?
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
- Old Savage
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 16742
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
- Location: Southern California
-
- Advanced Levergunner
- Posts: 2569
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:51 pm
- Old Ironsights
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 15084
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Waiting for the Collapse
- Contact:
IMO it's tough to compare the 94 with the 86 & 92... they are totally different animals.
I MUCH prefer the 86/92 action over the gut-schucking 94.
(I wish I could get an 86 (71?) in Stainless...)
But then, I like pistol calibers & .45/70 but the .30-30 not as much.
I MUCH prefer the 86/92 action over the gut-schucking 94.
(I wish I could get an 86 (71?) in Stainless...)
But then, I like pistol calibers & .45/70 but the .30-30 not as much.
Last edited by Old Ironsights on Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
The main weakness in design in all three models is the fact that the locking lugs are at the back of the receiver. Very high pressure loads could cause the receiver to stretch. In all modern guns the locking lugs are at the front of the bolt which is the better design and the quality of the later steel used is also better. The cartridges developed for the three models took this into account and are safe to use as pressure is kept to a level that does not stress the bolt, receiver and locking lug design. The earlier M.86 and 92 also used steel in the earlier years that wasn't as strong as later guns, both in the receivers and barrels. The M.94 was designed for smokless loads from the beginning and even the earliest M.94's had better steel than the other two models at that time. But, over the years all models had improved steel, including attempts to use stainless steel barrels. This was very hard on tooling and a satisfactory bluing method was never perfected and Winchester discontinued the use of S.S. for this reason. Reloaders should never "hot rod" these various calibers and always stay to a safe pressure in all calibers and models. And as a precaution ALL old Winchesters should always be checked by a competent gunsmith before firing. The M.71 was an improved M.86 with modern 20th century steels but the 348 cartridge used is very tapered for easy extraction and the downside to this taper is a greater back thrust on the bolt face.
- Sixgun
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 18776
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
- Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside
The 1886 has this weakness--caused by a dummy who loaded and shot 1800+ warm rounds out of his BP 1886 over a period of 25 years or so. Finally gave out.
I really don't think any Winchester levergun from the 1886 on has any weakness's. I have shot tens of thousands of loads out of the old guns and they keep on running. (except one of 'em )
For the loads and the uses for what they were intended for, they cannot be improved. I cannot think of any part that is inherently weak.--------Sixgun
I really don't think any Winchester levergun from the 1886 on has any weakness's. I have shot tens of thousands of loads out of the old guns and they keep on running. (except one of 'em )
For the loads and the uses for what they were intended for, they cannot be improved. I cannot think of any part that is inherently weak.--------Sixgun
- Ysabel Kid
- Moderator
- Posts: 27918
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
- Location: South Carolina, USA
- Contact:
Hey, no kidding. I just laughed the first time I cycled a 94.I MUCH prefer the 86/92 action over the gut-schucking 94.
Agree with Gun Smith. Rear locking lugs are for the birds, but hey, you just use them within their design parameters.
Which brings up a question. I think I've seen it in a loading manual or two that one or two max loadings in cases is enough; then the cases have to be retired. This due to the stretching induced by having rear locking lugs. Is that so? Is that all you get out of your cases? Or do you wait until you see an incipient case failure?
I for one don't mind the 94 action design, I think it's very well concieved and built. It allows a long action that's rather thin, and very easy to carry.
I have 30-30 brass that I've been loading for years and had no trouble with. Other than a few rounds that I use for light loads, the vast majority have been full power loads.
"Another approach is: Can any genuinely good improvements be made to them?"
The sights can generally be improved, and newer guns with short forends can be replaced with long wood forends. Decent slings can be installed. The ones that had the ring thing on the side can be easily improved, and a nice filler screw installed in the hole. Would've been better to have never had a hole for a ring thing, but they didnt figure that out for a long time, a good 30 or 40 years after the military gave up on carbine slings. That is at least one advantage of the newer guns over the earlier carbines.
I would like to see some newer 94's that are made for the 307 and 356, and without crossbolt safeties, rebound hammers, or angle eject. In other words, one that looked more like earlier guns, but in the newer calibers.
I have 30-30 brass that I've been loading for years and had no trouble with. Other than a few rounds that I use for light loads, the vast majority have been full power loads.
"Another approach is: Can any genuinely good improvements be made to them?"
The sights can generally be improved, and newer guns with short forends can be replaced with long wood forends. Decent slings can be installed. The ones that had the ring thing on the side can be easily improved, and a nice filler screw installed in the hole. Would've been better to have never had a hole for a ring thing, but they didnt figure that out for a long time, a good 30 or 40 years after the military gave up on carbine slings. That is at least one advantage of the newer guns over the earlier carbines.
I would like to see some newer 94's that are made for the 307 and 356, and without crossbolt safeties, rebound hammers, or angle eject. In other words, one that looked more like earlier guns, but in the newer calibers.
There are no design weaknesses in the 86, 92 or 94, at least in their original form. They do exactly what they were intended to do with as close to 100% reliability, durability and safety as any mechanical device can get. Saying that their inability to handle pressures in cartridges designed 100 years after the rifle was designed is a weakness just doesn't make sense. Design limitation maybe, but certainly not weakness.
Have you hugged your rifle today?
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:25 pm
- Location: Indiana
No gun model bats 100% on reliability. Yours may but not all of them made.
If these models "go bad" what's usually the problem?
And....what makes them especially strong in terms of reliability?
I bought a post-64 model 64 and it had excess headspace from the start. Did not keep it long. Of course mistakes have been made with all guns, even the best.
It's for sure the lever gun world would be a much, much poorer world without these 3 outstanding guns.
Don McCullough
If these models "go bad" what's usually the problem?
And....what makes them especially strong in terms of reliability?
I bought a post-64 model 64 and it had excess headspace from the start. Did not keep it long. Of course mistakes have been made with all guns, even the best.
It's for sure the lever gun world would be a much, much poorer world without these 3 outstanding guns.
Don McCullough
- J Miller
- Member Emeritus
- Posts: 14885
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
- Location: Not in IL no more ... :)
This is the key phrase of the week, I couldn't have said it better.For the loads and the uses for what they were intended for, they cannot be improved. I cannot think of any part that is inherently weak.--------Sixgun
Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts .***
- Sixgun
- Posting leader...
- Posts: 18776
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
- Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside
Thanks Joe, And I would like to add a pistol--the 1911 That ole John Browning was really something. To be able to invent many designs of guns can cannot be improved, despite the innovations of technology in over 100 years, boggles my little mind.------SixgunJ Miller wrote:This is the key phrase of the week, I couldn't have said it better.For the loads and the uses for what they were intended for, they cannot be improved. I cannot think of any part that is inherently weak.--------Sixgun
Joe