Winchester brings back the model 94

[ursavus.elemensis]

I see that Winchester has brought back the model 94, but only with 2 fancy models that have lots of commemorative stuff engraved on them. Very pricey, too. Not the way to get anyone interested in, or buying a model 94 except for collectors. Very happy to see they are bringing it back, but totally, completely, and absolutely disappointed that they're not making a model 94 lever rifle for general use and instead they're just making these expensive rifle sculptures to hang on the wall. Oh well, with a few million perfectly fine model 94's in circulation, maybe they figure that the world doesn't need any more.

Oh, also, it looks like these are model AE's, although they're not labeled that way. Why the heck would you bother making it an AE when these are just for wall display? May as well make them the old way with top eject.

I did not see this mentioned on the forum, and I did a "search" to see if I'd missed the post that mentioned it. Did not find anything, so I am starting this thread.

[J Miller]

We talked about them some weeks or so back. Nobody was overly impressed. With the exception of some collector types with deep pockets nobody said they'd buy.

As for the AE, rebounding hammer and safety, they (Browning / Winchester, et al) are committed to it. They can't seem to get it through their pea brains we don't want it. Considering that USRAC went down the tubes it isn't hard to see. But they don't care.

No big deal, Brownchester hasn't made anything I'm interested in since 85 or so.

Joe

[.45colt]

We can't blame the Girly Men at USRAC-Winchester or whoever else they may call themselver if people line up to buy that junk. We all know what P.T. Barnum said.

[buckeyeshooter]

We beat this topic to death when the plant closed. I said then that the 94 would return like the 1886 or 1895 special runs at big money. Glad to see Winchester is keeping with the marketing plan.

[Pete44ru]

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... 10#p263000

AND, more recently

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... 10#p291405

.

[Wrangler John]

Good thing Oliver Winchester and John Browning weren't lawyers, or nobody would buy anything they designed!

[Rimfire McNutjob]

Did these fancy ones have the lawyer safeties? The pictures on GunBlast didn't seem to show a cross-bolt. Perhaps they have a sliding tang safety?

[AJMD429]

With the exception of some collector types with deep pockets nobody said they'd buy.

Yeah, I could buy four Rossi Puma's for that kind of money, and if one of them gave me problems, likely still have enough left to have NKJ slick it up and replace whatever parts weren't to spec...

[Pisgah]

>Perhaps they have a sliding tang safety?


Yep. Rebounding hammer, tang safety. If there's gotta be a #@!$ safety, that's the one I'd opt for.

They're nice-looking rifles, and the couple of reviews of them (where they test-fired the $1500 "economy" model) indicated they were good shooters.

But when I can pick up a decent 94 shooter for half the price, or less -- no, thank you. If I win the lottery, I'll maybe buy a couple and salt 'em away.

[jlchucker]

Did these fancy ones have the lawyer safeties? The pictures on GunBlast didn't seem to show a cross-bolt. Perhaps they have a sliding tang safety?

The last time this was discussed, a couple of months or so ago, the photos shown indicated that there actually was a sliding tang safety. It was either accidentally or on-purpose kind of faded out in the photos, but if you looked sharp you could see it.

[DPris]

Angle eject, rebounding hammer, tang safety. The three features 99% of us don't want.
Looked at both guns at SHOT briefly literally in passing, no real interest.
If they bring out a working gun instead of a wall-hanger it may be a different matter.
Denis

[Old Savage]

All these examples are in the chain of 94 production and will be collectible items. Pay attention here - the legal climate is not going to encourage any company to make a return to 1939 or so model no matter how much the small group of traditionalists rant and rave. Business exists in all the factors of the market. Apparently they are able to produce these runs profitably because they keep doing it - so - the only source is going to be existing models.

And - Griff has most of those.

[DPris]

I was told during discussions with "Winchester" in development of the Japanese 94s that their attorneys wouldn't allow a return to the older "uncluttered" guns.

Meanwhile, Chiappa turns out 92s & 86s without safeties.....

Denis

[J Miller]

It's good that Browning only makes limited batches of these lawyered up guns. If they were to put them into full continous production they'd go broke. By keeping the supplies limited they sell them all.

Yeah, that's a sound business practice. They're probably thinking that as time goes by the older pre-rebounder, pre-safety guns will dry up, or those of us who prefer them will just die off, and then they'll have an open door to make what ever junque they want.

Well, let 'em. I'll keep buying the older guns, the younger folks and apologists can have the new trash.

JMHO you understand.

Joe

[Bogie35]

As usual, USRAC is in no way concerned about what their customers want. That's why they can't keep up with the others. I'm becoming more and more convinced that USRAC is owned by liberals who want guns to be nothing more than nostalgic wall decorations.

bogie

[kaschi]

Just glanced through an article by John Taffin in a gun magazine(can't remember which one) while at the supermarket the other day. The new 94 HAS the tang safety, which he referred to as "unobtrusive" but I think he should have been truthful and said "useless". The rifle is pretty but it also has the "useless" rebounding hammer and angle eject. John further said that the tang safety sure beat the crossbolt safety from earlier 94's. That may be true, but look at a Marlin receiver and you can't even see the crossbolt one so at least this could be done more discreetly. The ones Winchester had done using that style look like the crater of a volcano on the receiver's right side! (Marlin's also retains the half cock safety which is why they alway goes bang and the Winchesters do not!)
If Winchester made a true pre 64 Model 1894 with top eject and half cock safety, I would buy not one but several in various calibers and configurations!
Maybe we'll just have to be patient and wait for a company like Big Horn or USFA to come up with what we all really desire in a 94?

P.S. I see that Winchester is continuing to make the Models 86, 92 and 95 with the tang safeties/rebounding hammers. Maybe some of our gunsmith friends here could seize the opportunity and make the parts necessary for converting them back to the configuration they were designed to be???

[J Miller]

<snip>
P.S. I see that Winchester is continuing to make the Models 86, 92 and 95 with the tang safeties/rebounding hammers. Maybe some of our gunsmith friends here could seize the opportunity and make the parts necessary for converting them back to the configuration they were designed to be???

I doubt many gunsmiths would tool up to produce parts to "fix" the Mirokuchesters problems. Too much liability problems for them.
To be honest I was pleasantly surprised when NateKiowaJones started making the bolt safety plug for the Pumas. And although many of us on the forums hate these parts and have emptied out Numrich and other parts sources of the old half cock parts, I doubt there is enough over all demand for these parts. I could be wrong though.

Joe

[Lawyer Daggit]

As well as a few other surprises. I wonder when a genuine Winchester 71 will follow....

[Old Savage]

Why Joe - I am shocked.

[Old Savage]

kaschi - the safeties are not useless - they perform a function - you may not use them or like them but ....

And on Miroku - they do make these guns and they would not otherwise be available.

[wilko]

kaschi - the safeties are not useless - they perform a function - you may not use them or like them but ....

Agreed.. i use mine.

[kaschi]

Everything "performs a function". The original Winchesters have a safety that works just fine too. Believe what you need to believe.