Bought my first Winchester 94 in 30-30

[Wag]

bamaranger, thank you kindly. Something I never knew before.

--Wag--

[akinswi]

Originally Posted by bamaranger

I can't say what type of firing pin the '94 uses, but resting the hammer fully forward with a cartridge in the chamber is not a good idea and negates the half-cock feature.

I think there is a tab on the bottom of the wrist at the grip, that the lever loop depresses when gripped correctly, that also has a safety function. Hmmmmm!, could that be the Marlin instead?

No, its on the 94, that saftey I removed because if its not depressed all the way in and I mean all the way in the hammer will not fall. I had to grip mine so tighly that I could not shoot accurately. When I removed it , became a completely different gun

[musicmatty]

As a lever gun owner I’ll chime in on a few of the points being made. I have zero issues with the lever gun having a safety button. I find that they are hardly noticeable unless you’re really looking for them. None of my Levers have a safety button.. if they did, it would not be an issue for me.

I have a late 80s Angle eject Winchester with a scope mounted. I should also note it features microgroove rifling. This Lever has been a workhorse and looks just as good today as new 33 years ago. I mention this particular Lever because you often hear about pre-64 Winchesters as being the best. In 1983, Winchester returned to solid forged steel receivers. This late 1980s ranger that I have could not be crafted any better. I base this on more than 30 years ownership and surviving the elements of snow and rain all these years.

If you do go for a post 64 Winchester Lever, they commemorative models were made at a much higher standard but you also paid a higher price.
****. What I can’t live with simply this, I could never own a Winchester that’s not made in the USA. It’s a shame that they have moved production out of the country. That would be like buying a Ford F150 made in China.****

Henry has taken the Lever action to the next level. They are built to perfection and built like a tank. They also feature a sliding transfer bar safety so the rifle will not fire unless the hammer is cocked and the trigger is pulled. I should also add, the customer service at Henry actually exist… It’s not just a concept.
It also appears that the Henry’s are built off the old JM Marlin platform.


Henry 3030 side gate.




1989 Ranger3030 with Birch stock. 100yd Target.



Henry 410 and 3030.





1969 Winchester Golden spike commemorative. This along with my Henry 410 are my woodsman companion. The 410 holds six in the tube and one in the chamber. I usually load PDX defender and slugs… lots of fire power for the woodsman.

[Paul B.]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaranger View Post
Be sure and understand the use and function of the half-cock safety, many don't. No insult intended.
Um, at the risk of sounding like an idiot, I don't know that. Can you enlighten me?

Thank you!

--Wag--"

Something seems missing here plus I see a huge error.

First off, the half cock as some have mentioned IS NOT a safety. I have four Winchesters, Two M94s, two M64s which use the same action as the M94. a Marlin 336 and a Browning clone of the 1895 Winchester. All have basically the same working system. There are three notches on the hammer. The full cock, half cock and the safety notch. Remember the old saying, "going off half cocked"? My point is the half cock notch is not the saftey as some have stated.
Paul B.

[Blue Duck]

On all pre-Angle Eject 94's, the half cock, is the hammer position you need to carry the rifle in when hunting if a round has been chambered. It's not a safety per say, but it's the only position remotely safe for carry with a loaded chamber.

When the Angle eject came out, Winchester changed to a rebounding hammer, and that left only two positions, full cock and in the rebounded position. Then a few years later, they added the crossbolt safety in addition to the rebounding hammer. Then later on when Japan started making them, they went to a top tang safety, and dropped the crossbolt safety.

The main advantage the cross-bolt safety provided was in unloading the rifle. The bad thing was for us old timers, we would sometimes forget the crossbolt safety was engaged, being used to the older rifles, and take aim on a game animal and get a click instead of a boom. This made the safety very unpopular with us old diehards, who grew up, hunting with the older pre-angle eject Winchesters. The half-cock position was the only safety we needed or wanted on our rifles, and I still prefer it that way.

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by akinswi

Hawg,

My angle eject has been fabulous. I agree its useless if your not mounting an optic. But does come in handy if you decide too.

Jim, Yes your are 100% correct that cross bolt saftey is good insurance. Its the only saftey on my 94 now.

Bamaranger
Its my understanding that 94 uses a free floating firing pin. I wonder if there would be enough interia to cause it to fire a round with the hammer resting on the firing pin

I can't conceive of putting a scope on a lever action. I have gone to full buckhorns and if my eyesight gets worse than it is now I'll go to a Marbles tang sight.

[Classic12]

Congratulations on your purchase, I am sure you will enjoy it tremendously. I always wanted a trapper in the original 30-30 caliber, and finally bought one NOS a few years ago









With the 16 inch barrel it’s quite lively

[highpower3006]

I always wanted a trapper in the original 30-30 caliber, and finally bought one NOS a few years ago

I am just the opposite of you. I have been looking for a reasonably affordable Model 1894 in .30WCF with the 26" barrel for several years now. I have literally been from one side of the U.S. to the other stopping in at pawn shops and gun stores, but no luck so far.

What started all the madness is that several years ago I picked up a very nice Marlin Model 1893 in .38-55 with a 26" barrel and I got the urge to have a early '94 with the same length barrel.

For some odd reason I don't have a picture of the Marlin by itself, just this one with my 1888 vintage Model 1873.

[bamaranger]

I passed up a used trapper in the mid 80"s and have always regretted it, though these days, I couldn't manage the short sight radius bead and blad anyhow.

What would work would be a 26" bbl with a tang sight, I've shouldered several, but very pricey.

[Jack O'Conner]

Across the decades, I've toppled several dozen deer with my Glenfield 30-30 carbine. My longest shot was about 125 yards or so. 30-30 is a keeper! - Jack

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Not being a hunter I never felt the need for a classic deer rifle like the Winchester Model 1894. But a few years ago I couldn't pass this one up. It is not a carbine, it is a classic rifle with a 26" octagonal barrel, the old fashioned curved buttplate, and it came with a nice tang mounted peep sight. It is pretty old, it left the factory in 1895.






Yes, the Model 1894 has the same kind of lever safety the Model 1873 had. The lever has to be closed all the way, or the trigger cannot be pulled back to release the hammer. For some reason the lever safety was not incorporated in the Model 1892, but apparently the engineers at Winchester thought it would be a good idea to revive it for the Model 1894. Again, not a modern lawyer driven safety, this photo is of the lever safety on my 1894 which left the factory in 1895.

[musicmatty]

Thanks for sharing this 1895 classic! Do you ever fire this rifle? This rifle looks to be in great shape.

[44 AMP]

The tang button requiring the lever to be fully closed isn't what I consider a "safety". It is a safety feature, and some might consider it a passive safety, but its function is as a disconnector.

IT keeps the action from being fired (by a trigger pull) until the action is fully closed.

Functionally it does the same job as the disconnector on semi autos and some other repeaters. So, I don't consider it an actual safety. If you have to hold the lever closed (especially firmly) something is not right, probably a bit worn, and should be repaired.

Call it what you like, but personally, I think calling it a safety is a bit misleading. I believe a "safety" is (Or should be) something the shooter activates deliberately, and it should stay ON, until the shooter takes it OFF.

I think grip safeties also fit that definition, though the action is exactly the reverse. The shooter takes it OFF with the proper firing grip and allows it back ON by removing their grip on the gun.

Passive and Active are the terms in common use today, and are generally accurately applied. Generally...

[Driftwood Johnson]

Please pardon my ignorance for calling the part in question a Lever Safety. Uberti calls this part the Safety Bar in their diagram of their replica of the Winchester Model 1873 rifle. In his book Antique Firearms Assembly/Disassembly, David Chicoine, who forgot more than I will ever know about antique firearms, also calls it a Safety Bar referring to the part in original and replica Winchester 1873 rifles. Chicoine calls it a Safety Catch in his diagram of the Winchester Model 1894.

So I will continue to call the part in question a Lever Safety.

What I find curious is that although this part existed in the Model 1873 Winchester, there was no lever safety in the Model 1892 Winchester. I always thought that was because the lock up of the 1892 would not allow the hammer to strike the firing pin until the rifle was completely in battery. I am intrigued with why Winchester felt it necessary to put this part back into the Model 1894 just two years after the Model 1892.



Yes, I have fired my classic Winchester Model 1894 rifle. Not a whole lot, but enough to see that it is quite accurate. Yes, this was only at 25 yards, but it is a nice tight group, despite being high and to the right. With its iron sights I'm sure it would be as accurate as my old eyes could make it, out at 100 yards, which is where the berm is at my club.

[Polinese]

The lockup on the 94 is a little different than the 92. Maybe those changes allowed adding the safety back into the design. Was it present on the Winchester 86?

[bamaranger]

In the "American Rifleman" there is a column that appears routinely entitled Favorite Firearm. In the recent Sept issue, the featured gun is an 1893 with an interesting back story....an 1893 Marlin.

In the writer's (reader's) account, as a kid he chambers a round and attempts to lower the hammer. A thumb slip and no doubt a finger lingering on the trigger in the process, produced an accidental discharge. Very thing we've been discussing in the traditional lever rifles, and the reason I'd never allow a neophyte to hunt with one.

[44 AMP]

The lockup on the 94 is a little different than the 92. Maybe those changes allowed adding the safety back into the design. Was it present on the Winchester 86?

I have a friend who is more experienced with Winchesters than I am, and he checked his 86, and like the 92 it does not have the Safety Bar disconnector that the 73, 94 and 95 have.

The 86 and the 92 designs share design feature, the twin rising bar lockup, and use it as the method to prevent firing with the action not fully shut. The 94 is different and reverted back to the lever safety bar disconnector. As my friend also said, if you want to know why it is that way, ask JM Browning.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Model 1886 chambered for 45-70 at the top of this photo.

Model 1892 chambered for 44-40 at the bottom.

Neither have a lever safety.