View Single Post
Old November 5, 2012, 11:07 AM   #24
musicmatty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 30, 2009
Location: Eastcoast
Posts: 140
Quote:
And there are many who feel the original design has been bastardized beyond endurance, rather than made better.

Parts & processes have been altered & added that do not improve the gun.
With the rebounding hammers in 86s, 92s, and 94s came stiffer actions, heavier triggers, and in some cases reduced ignition reliability.
The angle eject was only an improvement for the 4% of Model 94 owners who mounted glass.
The crossbolt safety has been known to activate itself on occasion.
And, the current slider can be uncomfortable against skin & in the way of a tang sight installation.

With the possible exception of the scope users, very few of the over 6 million Model 94 fans & owners since the model came out ever asked for any of that.
Denis


I don't agree with your opinion on this..and here's why...

somethings, we have no control over..ie, heavier triggers...We don't buy Leaded fuel at the pumps any longer Regulations, do and will change things over the course of time. As for the assertion, that only a 'Few' model 94 owners ever asked for Optic accommodations, ...what data/Proof do you have to offer and back this up

Different field conditions/layouts, can dictate, if a scope should be used...Whats wrong with having that option I have taken game with and Without Optics. I have 2 model 94s..(pic below)...one with a scope and the other without...I prefer a scope for a more compassionate take down, then without. I have No problems/ego with excepting my own personal limitations and taking advantage of a scope.

As for paying the sum of $1000. or so for this gun..at the present, there is Zero debate about the quality and reliability with these new Winchesters..in fact, there is very high praise. Cannot say the same with Rem or Marlin or even Moss these days.

Just my take on all of this ...carry on
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20111116_2.JPG (126.2 KB, 21 views)
musicmatty is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05127 seconds with 8 queries