Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Winchester 1894 RANGER


Come On Christmas

Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...

So even though they are Winchesters you would stay away from them?

 

 

Well... in truth... they were made under license from Winchester, by USRA (US Repeating Arms), and depending on whether it's a "pre-'93", they were then bailed out by FN (Fabrique Nationale), and ultimately bought out by FN. So saying it's a "Winchester" ain't exactly correct. Frankly, I wouldn't buy anything after 1982, before the factory was sold to USRA. But, they've sold about 2 million of those 94AE models, so some folks like 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine was bad to wear out the tab on the link (or so I was told after I had traded it). Bought new in 1999, started letting shells from the magazine slip under the carrier and locking everything up. And it wasn't all the time. Once I got so frustrated I threw it downrange. Felt good. Picked it up and traded it for a Marlin the next weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Winchester Jack, SASS #70195

I started shooting SASS with a 94ae and yes it were a pain. For plinking maybe okay, I dont hunt so I dont know (mine is a 357) if it works okay for that. Mine just sits in the back of the safe and never gets shot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine was bad to wear out the tab on the link (or so I was told after I had traded it). Bought new in 1999, started letting shells from the magazine slip under the carrier and locking everything up. And it wasn't all the time. Once I got so frustrated I threw it downrange. Felt good. Picked it up and traded it for a Marlin the next weekend.

 

I started shooting SASS with a 94ae and yes it were a pain. For plinking maybe okay, I dont hunt so I dont know (mine is a 357) if it works okay for that. Mine just sits in the back of the safe and never gets shot

The Winchester 94 was designed with "rifle" length cartridges in mind. JMB's edict from Winchester was to make a lightweight carbine that would feed their new .30WCF cartridge. The 1892 filled the bill to fire the shorter cartridges, commonly referred to as pistol cartridges today, even though they were mostly introduced in the 1873 Winchester. Fast forward to the 1980s, and USRA was losing market to Marlin with it's 1894. Instead of BUYING another license from Winchester to re-introduce the 1892, they cheaped out and redesigned the feed system to accommodate these shorter cartridges in the 94AE. But who got really cheated was the unsuspecting buyer. According to my dial calipers, a random .30-30 round has a rim diameter of .496"; while a random .357Mag has a rim diameter of .430". The specifications from SAAMI indicate that the .30-30 should be .506"±.010, while the .357 is .440"±.012, so the nominal differential is .066". Since the cartridge stop is just a tab at the top, front part of the link, manufacturing tolerances have to be held tight to keep the much smaller .357 from slipping under the carrier. Secondly, a flimsy "stop" was added to the lever to help. Each of the cartridges originally used in this model were based on the .38-55: .25-35, .30WCF, .32-40 & the 32 Winchester Special. And while tab wear might eventually allow a cartridge under the carrier, it's not from manufacturing "stack-up", (a condition caused by the cumulative effect of parts made to a specification with a ± allowance for error, by continually using sub nominal dimensioned parts, the total of the individually allowed allowance might exceed the total allowed). While I've never had a tab wear on one of the 20+ .30-30 Winchester 94s I have, I have read of many in the pistol calibers. I've also read that USRA had received batches of links that were too soft.

 

From folks that assembled the rifles at New Haven has come descriptions on how they assembled the guns. They grab a frame out of a bin, and then grab other parts in turn as they assembled them. If a particular part didn't fit... they'd just grab another out of the bin assigned to that part, and put the non-conforming part back it. Manufacturing "stack-up" at its worst. And this wasn't just after USRA took over, this occurred over the life of Winchester Repeating Arms. In view of that, it's surprising any of their guns actually worked well. This was done in lieu of hand-fitting parts. Which is time-consuming and adds time to the assembly. Ergo, the cost would have had to risen.

 

Any wonder that comes from having a mdl 94 fail to feed .357s is simply naiveté. My first mdl 94 was a '69 .44RemMag that I paid a whopping $39 for in 1972 thru the Navy Exchange. It was a great shooter... but... it had problems feeding anything with a semi-wadcutter.

 

For fixing the feed problem, take some "hard-face" rod and weld up the tab and file it until the cartridges feed onto the carrier again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.