I first checked the owner's manual to see if there was any information that I could use for this task, but it just told me how the safety was to be used. My first task was to understand how the wart was fastened to the gun, the insides of this growth. I would either fix this or go to the Winchester plant and kick the person responsible for this new "improvement" right in the rear. I refused to loose another chance at an animal, or even a soda can because of this ugly design flaw. After I forgot the safety for the fifth or sixth time I came to the conclusion that my no bull hunting gun was not so bull free. I used up the box of shells, but this problem turned into something I could not work out. I would have to get use to popping the safety to the fire position. On my first attempt to shoot the gun I discovered a problem. I took mine straight to the range to try it out with the Winchester 170 grain Silvertip ammo I had purchased with the rifle. These were Winchester Model 94 Rangers in. I reluctantly decided to try it out, and we laid out the $220.00 each for our new rifles.
Then all the recent information about accidents replayed in my head.
I had just about decided to forget the new ones, and try to find an older model used in a gun shop, when the sales lady at the local Kmart discovered the two guns they had in stock had back to back serial numbers. When I first looked at the new version of the Model 94 I was uneasy about the safety. We had gotten caught up in the fallacy that we needed more power. I first experienced this safety when a hunting buddy and I decided we missed our 94's that we had sold some years before, a move I regretted the moment after the money had changed hands. I have always thought of the 94 as a no bull type of gun. Yes, maybe not as slick as some of the guns that came later, but it did the job. Not to mention it just plain did the job. I have liked the Winchester 94 ever since I purchased my first one for its easy handling and history. John Browning, the designer of the Model 94, probably did a back flip in his grave when Winchester pulled this one. The cross-bolt safety is probably the worst addition ever made to the rifle. The angle eject has holes originally intended for scope mounts, but Williams makes a receiver sight that can be mounted into those holes with no problem.What was Winchester thinking? They take one of the most recognized guns in history, a rifle many people recognize just from its outline, and they grow it a wart. the 1967 model came drilled and tapped for receiver sights. Once you get them squared away you might want to keep them. You could buy both of them, as Iceman says.
If you bought the older one, with its stamped lifter, you'd sooner or later have to find one of the newer carriers (not cheap any more) and fit it to your "older" 1967 Model 94. Those were used from then onward, right into the end of Winchester's production, and are pretty much trouble-free. Around 1971 or so, Winchester changed that, and started selling their 94's with an investment-cast carrier. Then you had to take the link screw out, and drop the jammed cartridge out of the bottom of the receiver. The 94's of that era had a cartridge carrier that was a flimsy piece of stamped sheetmetal, and eventually would bend. You said that the older one was made in 1967. I'll tend to disagree with Stan in SC with all due respect though, when he says to take the older one. I've put over a thousand rounds through it-cast bullets mostly, and never had a problem with the rebounding hammer. It came out a little before those angle ejects started getting the button safety. My 44 mag Trapper has a rebounding hammer, and no lawyersafety. What is the general feeling among the levergun community? (Only seen photos though)Īlternatively I have located another carbine from 1967 that is beat up and worn silver on the outside, but with a mint condtition barrel and for much less. I am tempted because its just such a beautiful rifle.
Going by serial number probably made about 1988 - 90 so does that mean it will have some other space age thing, like another additional tang safety or something? I don't scope leveractions so the AE is not a feature for me. 30/30 Carbine and this '94 AE model has come along - absolutely mint, deluxe wood and checkering, 100% blueing and very nice, but I just wonder if the newfangled stuff would annoy me over time - the rebounding hammer - the AE flicking cases into my right eye.or whatever it does. I suddenly discovered to my horror that I no longer had a. How do you guys feel about the AE rifles - with the rebounding hammer? I have only had the older ones, (including a 1952 carbine I should never have sold ) Gentlemen, had to register again, so Im not really new.but I do have a question about a like new Winchester 94 AE deluxe.