Opinion on pre AE Winchester 94 in 44 Mag?

[Stopsign32v]

Just curious what the overall opinion is on the pre AE Winchester 94s in 44 mag. Is there anything to love or hate about them for a casual shooter and not a cowboy action gun?

[Preacherman]

Great! But not a cowboy gun for sure. I started with one not knowing that it is horrible for cowboy. However, I loved the idea and bought a 16" trapper and killed the biggest 10 point whitetail that I ever got, 1 shot with a 240g Hornady jacketed hp. Great fun.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

They are actually pretty good.   Much better than their reputation makes them out to be.

Here's a video of me shooting mine.
 

 

 

And for comparison, here's me with a pre-safety Rossi 92 in the same caliber.   Just ignore the shotgun... 
 

 

 

Generically, I believe pre-83 Winchesters to be better than anything made after that date.  And these .44 Magnum ones are a perfect example of them.   I have seen people try to run an angle eject 94 in .44 Magnum, and they did not run nearly as well as this one did.  Also, I did have a chance to look at an AE 94 .44 once.  I test threw the lever once and put it down.

 

[Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971]

They would make a decent pig hunting rifle.  They won’t feed 44 Specials reliably unless cycled slowly.  

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Good luck get any parts for it....

[Griff]

I bought a NIB '69 mdl 94 in 44RemMag in 1972.  It was stolen in 1974...  Along with a mdl 64A in .30-30... I replaced the 64A... I have enough .30-30 mdl 94s to take a different one to the range each day for a month (as long as it's one of the 5 that don't have 31 days)...  'nough said.  the .44 was pleasant enough with Specials, but... didn't feed most lead bullets very well.  Back then all I could find were Keith style SWCs, (I didn't cast yet), and the lip of the forward band was forever catching on the mouth of the chamber.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

I guess I should point out that I use a 200 grain RNFP bullet of .430" diameter.  I do not run Specials in either rifle.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I have owned several over the years .

Never had a issue with one of them .

Great gun .

It will never be much more then a post 64 Winchester. 

It is what it is .

I would rather have one for a shooter and leave my pre-64 guns in the safe for occasional range use .

Rooster 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

7 hours ago, Rooster Ron Wayne said:

I have owned several over the years .

Never had a issue with one of them .

Great gun .

It will never be much more then a post 64 Winchester. 

It is what it is .

I would rather have one for a shooter and leave my pre-64 guns in the safe for occasional range use .

Rooster 

 

As far as I know, all of the .44 Magnum Model 94's are indeed post 64's.   The non angle eject ones are pre-83, and the angles are post 83.

 

 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

As far as I know, all of the .44 Magnum Model 94's are indeed post 64's.   The non angle eject ones are pre-83, and the angles are post 83.

That's correct... The first ones were one year production, 1969.  I don't know of any between then and 1983.   AFAIK all the rest are 94AEs.

["Big Boston"]

Winchester also made commemorative 94s chambered in 44-40. They were likely of the same ilk as the non-commemorative ones in 44 Mag. I started shooting Cowboy with a borrowed one. These had a funky stamped steel spacer in the action to make it possible to feed short cartridges. 

 

I ran the one I borrowed for a few matches and it started to eat itself. The actions were made of some molded metallic like material of dubious composition. The barrel was decent and accuracy wasn't an issue. I hated it and would never buy one.

 

I have owned several Commemorative 94s, 30-30s and a 38-55. IMO Winchester was experimenting with molded metal, some were not bad. The Saskatchewan Jubilee I had was pretty decent. I kept a Bat Masterson in 30-30, it is made well. In that post 64 era, Winchester had quality control issues, again IMO. 

 

BB 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

25 minutes ago, Griff said:

That's correct... The first ones were one year production, 1969.  I don't know of any between then and 1983.   AFAIK all the rest are 94AEs.

That sounds about right.

I went here...

https://winchestercollector.org/dates/

 

,,,and put my rifle's number in, and it did indeed come back as 1969.    But, sadly, Cody has no records for these specific guns.   Nor does Browning.   

Edited October 13 by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

[Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428]

I know the AE are spoken about like they, are lepers or something... but my 94 trapper in 44mag is an AE and I have had no issues at all as long as I am shooting 44mag ammo.  It will not feed specials reliably.  And it only holds 9 mag's, so it fell out of favor quickly when I starting playing this game, but I still bring it out occasionally because I do love a trapper length rifle.  I just end up loading 1 on the clock.   Great brush gun for hunting!

[Griff]

23 minutes ago, "Big Boston" said:

Winchester also made commemorative 94s chambered in 44-40. They were likely of the same ilk as the non-commemorative ones in 44 Mag. I started shooting Cowboy with a borrowed one. These had a funky stamped steel spacer in the action to make it possible to feed short cartridges. 

 

I ran the one I borrowed for a few matches and it started to eat itself. The actions were made of some molded metallic like material of dubious composition. The barrel was decent and accuracy wasn't an issue. I hated it and would never buy one.

 

I have owned several Commemorative 94s, 30-30s and a 38-55. IMO Winchester was experimenting with molded metal, some were not bad. The Saskatchewan Jubilee I had was pretty decent. I kept a Bat Masterson in 30-30, it is made well. In that post 64 era, Winchester had quality control issues, again IMO. 

 

BB 

BB, methinks you judge the post '64 too harshly.  All the post '64 to 1980 guns were made of sintered steel *, very similar to Ruger's investment casting.  Any quality control issues with these guns are in the component parts, not the receiver, excepting the finishing process.  Winchester struggled to apply a traditional "hot blue" type finish, using several methods with varying success.  I have several, from 1967 to 1980, plus some Commemoratives.  The biggest problem was the stamped steel carrier.  And those were only used thru about 1971(ish).  I have a 1972 model 64A which has a cast carrier, as does all the later ones I have, a 1976, 1978, 1979, & 1980.  the commemoratives were likely to receive a plating, either of silver, pewter, or brass.  None of these that I have, have any finish issues.  My 1967 Canadian Centennial was refinished using a process unknown to me, but its only issue is the finish has "rounded" or partially filled the original engraving.  I've seen original samples that are still pristine.  My 1970 carbine exhibits some "flaking" of its finish.  There is a web inside the action that ties the middle of the receiver together, it, and other places inside the receiver, when fully disassembled show a plum color where WRA's color process didn't quite take.  Some vintages were steel clad and then the cladding was blued in the traditional manner.  Some were iron clad and a black finish applied.  My 1979 carbine, which I customized in 1989-90 with its receiver color cased using a traditional bone & charcoal method.  The "Antique", introduced in 1967 was also color cased hardened from the factory.  Although not generally recommended for a model 94 and its variants due to its rather long, unsupported sides, a CCH finish can be done w/o warping the receiver if a block is fitted inside the receiver and clamped.  Mine came out perfect.  One of the "plus" changes in the post '64 was the move from cartridge guides that attached from inside the receiver to attaching from the outside.  The change from solid pins to roll pins is, IMO, a non-issue.  The change to a coil main spring around 1977 is seen by some as a negative... but I rather like the feel.  The change from a stirrup at the bottom of the hammer to a flat hammer is also degrinated by some.  While I don't like it as much as the coil mainspring, it has a slight difference in "feel" from the stirrup type hammer and its mainspring.

 

As far as the stamped steel carrier, while I heard many a story about how horrid they are, I haven't found an issue with any of mine.  But, my theory is that if you have ammo feeding issues and attempt to force the cartridge thru the action, you'll bend the stamped steel carrier.  So... I don't force anything.  However, the new cast part can be prettied up very nicely!

 

*  Sintered steel is a metal alloy produced by pressing steel powder into a desired shape and then heating it in a furnace below its melting point, causing the particles to bond and fuse into a solid part. This Powder Metallurgy process creates parts with high strength, durability, and excellent machinability, often used in the automotive, appliance, and power tool industries due to its low waste, customization, and wear resistance.   

[Griff]

1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

That sounds about right.
I went here...
https://winchestercollector.org/dates/

,,,and put my rifle's number in, and it did indeed come back as 1969.    But, sadly, Cody has no records for these specific guns.   Nor does Browning.   

While posting above I looked at my catalogs to verify a couple of things;  and found that the 44Mag mdl 94 was cataloged in 1967, but not in 1968.  The one I had also numbered as a '69 production.  I don't have a '69 catalog... so can't comment if it was in there also.  I have a gap up to 1982, but it wasn't listed.  Then I have another gap to 2001.  Many are available from Cornell Publications.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

I have a Trapper in 45 Colt.  I used it a couple of times when I started CAS, but switched over to '73s as the '94 could only hold nine rounds and the lever throw was too long.  I did replace the lever with a loop lever (ala John Wayne).  It doesn't do anything for speed, but I like the look.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

6 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

As far as I know, all of the .44 Magnum Model 94's are indeed post 64's.   The non angle eject ones are pre-83, and the angles are post 83.

 

 

Im just stating 94's in general. 

 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

My .44 Magnum 94.

 

 

 

 

[Stopsign32v]

14 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

My .44 Magnum 94.

 

 

 

 

 

You needing to move that thing on? 😉

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

8 hours ago, Stopsign32v said:

 

You needing to move that thing on? 😉

Heh heh.   No.   It was hard enough to FIND it.   To lose it would be a tragedy.

 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Just a quick thought.  The '94 was not designed to digest "short" cartridges.  The rifle was designed and built to run 30-30.  While it can and will run 44 manglem at sporting speed (hunting), the '94 never will run at CAS speed reliably with short cartridges.  Doesn't mean it's a "bad" gun atall.  Just means it was never suitable for CAS even though "Winchester" wanted to case in on the CAS Gold Mine.  Winchester also got Miroku to "remake" the 1866 and 1873 too late in the game to make a real difference.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I bought a New in the box

un-fired 94 44 mag this year .

Its a Trapper Model. 

Love it !

 

 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

33 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Just a quick thought.  The '94 was not designed to digest "short" cartridges.  The rifle was designed and built to run 30-30.  While it can and will run 44 manglem at sporting speed (hunting), the '94 never will run at CAS speed reliably with short cartridges.  Doesn't mean it's a "bad" gun atall.  Just means it was never suitable for CAS even though "Winchester" wanted to case in on the CAS Gold Mine.  Winchester also got Miroku to "remake" the 1866 and 1873 too late in the game to make a real difference.

 

For a top shooter, I'll agree with you 100%.

But as you can see in the above videos, a mid range at best, bottom tier shooter if I am honest, like me, it works just fine.   In fact, I think it ran better than my pre-safety 92.

Now, my 94 .44 Magnum is one of those rare pre-83 made in 1969 ones.  In general, those are of a much better quality than the post 83s with angle eject, cross bolt or tang safety and rebounding hammer.   It would be interesting to see someone compare the two side by side to see if the later ones are not as good as the early ones.   I suspect that they will be inferior.  And, both guns need to be factory stock, or tuned in the exact same way, for it to be a fair comparison.  (Mine is stock.)

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

For a top shooter, I'll agree with you 100%.

But as you can see in the above videos, a mid range at best, bottom tier shooter if I am honest, like me, it works just fine.   In fact, I think it ran better than my pre-safety 92.

Now, my 94 .44 Magnum is one of those rare pre-83 made in 1969 ones.  In general, those are of a much better quality than the post 83s with angle eject, cross bolt or tang safety and rebounding hammer.   It would be interesting to see someone compare the two side by side to see if the later ones are not as good as the early ones.   I suspect that they will be inferior.  And, both guns need to be factory stock, or tuned in the exact same way, for it to be a fair comparison.  (Mine is stock.)

Would I use one in SASS ?  NO !

I would definitely use s 92 , 66  73 But Not a 94 Winchester or Jamomatic Marlin. 

Just Sayin. 

Rooster