Weaknesses in the Winchester 86, 92 and 94

getitdone1 · Post by **getitdone1** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:20 pm

Are there any inherent weaknesses in the Winchester model 86, 92 or 94?

I've never heard of any. I've had all good experience with all three models but I haven't done nearly the amount of shooting with them that some of you have.

Another approach is: Can any genuinely good improvements be made to them?

Seems to me, for what they are, they are perfect.

Don McCullough

JReed · Post by **JReed** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:54 pm

The only weakness I know of is that Winchester isnt making them anymore.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:32 pm

Mebbe in the 86, if there were any, they got fixed w/the 71?

morgan in nm · Post by **morgan in nm** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:38 pm

The weakness lies with the inability to just own one.

Seriously, the only weakness I know about is the 94's are said to have a weak tang. I have seen many of them broken but in every case, it has been due to a horse accident.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:42 pm

The nut on the stock is the weak part.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:50 pm

Ben_Rumson wrote:Mebbe in the 86, if there were any, they got fixed w/the 71?

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/model71_info.htm

Post by **Old Savage** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:09 pm

They are good for what they are good for.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:12 pm

Thanks Tycer...I dunno how missed that article..

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:15 pm

IMO it's tough to compare the 94 with the 86 & 92... they are totally different animals.

I MUCH prefer the 86/92 action over the gut-schucking 94.

(I wish I could get an 86 (71?) in Stainless...)

But then, I like pistol calibers & .45/70 but the .30-30 not as much.

awp101 · Post by **awp101** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:16 pm

JimT wrote:The nut on the stock is the weak part.

Funny, ALL my firearms have that problem...

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:33 pm

JimT wrote:The nut on the stock is the weak part.

Jim, you never fail to amuse me with your wisdom--------Sixgun

Gun Smith · Post by **Gun Smith** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:44 pm

The main weakness in design in all three models is the fact that the locking lugs are at the back of the receiver. Very high pressure loads could cause the receiver to stretch. In all modern guns the locking lugs are at the front of the bolt which is the better design and the quality of the later steel used is also better. The cartridges developed for the three models took this into account and are safe to use as pressure is kept to a level that does not stress the bolt, receiver and locking lug design. The earlier M.86 and 92 also used steel in the earlier years that wasn't as strong as later guns, both in the receivers and barrels. The M.94 was designed for smokless loads from the beginning and even the earliest M.94's had better steel than the other two models at that time. But, over the years all models had improved steel, including attempts to use stainless steel barrels. This was very hard on tooling and a satisfactory bluing method was never perfected and Winchester discontinued the use of S.S. for this reason. Reloaders should never "hot rod" these various calibers and always stay to a safe pressure in all calibers and models. And as a precaution ALL old Winchesters should always be checked by a competent gunsmith before firing. The M.71 was an improved M.86 with modern 20th century steels but the 348 cartridge used is very tapered for easy extraction and the downside to this taper is a greater back thrust on the bolt face.

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:47 pm

The 1886 has this weakness--caused by a dummy who loaded and shot 1800+ warm rounds out of his BP 1886 over a period of 25 years or so. Finally gave out.

I really don't think any Winchester levergun from the 1886 on has any weakness's. I have shot tens of thousands of loads out of the old guns and they keep on running. (except one of 'em

)

For the loads and the uses for what they were intended for, they cannot be improved. I cannot think of any part that is inherently weak.--------Sixgun

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:52 pm

JimT wrote:The nut on the stock is the weak part.

Hey! I resemble that remark...

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:28 pm

The weakness is mine - I can't resist them!!!

PaulB · Post by **PaulB** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:26 am

I MUCH prefer the 86/92 action over the gut-schucking 94.

Hey, no kidding. I just laughed the first time I cycled a 94.

Agree with Gun Smith. Rear locking lugs are for the birds, but hey, you just use them within their design parameters.

Which brings up a question. I think I've seen it in a loading manual or two that one or two max loadings in cases is enough; then the cases have to be retired. This due to the stretching induced by having rear locking lugs. Is that so? Is that all you get out of your cases? Or do you wait until you see an incipient case failure?

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:47 am

I for one don't mind the 94 action design, I think it's very well concieved and built. It allows a long action that's rather thin, and very easy to carry.

I have 30-30 brass that I've been loading for years and had no trouble with. Other than a few rounds that I use for light loads, the vast majority have been full power loads.

"Another approach is: Can any genuinely good improvements be made to them?"

The sights can generally be improved, and newer guns with short forends can be replaced with long wood forends. Decent slings can be installed. The ones that had the ring thing on the side can be easily improved, and a nice filler screw installed in the hole. Would've been better to have never had a hole for a ring thing, but they didnt figure that out for a long time, a good 30 or 40 years after the military gave up on carbine slings. That is at least one advantage of the newer guns over the earlier carbines.

I would like to see some newer 94's that are made for the 307 and 356, and without crossbolt safeties, rebound hammers, or angle eject. In other words, one that looked more like earlier guns, but in the newer calibers.

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:40 am

There are no design weaknesses in the 86, 92 or 94, at least in their original form. They do exactly what they were intended to do with as close to 100% reliability, durability and safety as any mechanical device can get. Saying that their inability to handle pressures in cartridges designed 100 years after the rifle was designed is a weakness just doesn't make sense. Design limitation maybe, but certainly not weakness.

getitdone1 · Post by **getitdone1** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:52 am

No gun model bats 100% on reliability. Yours may but not all of them made.

If these models "go bad" what's usually the problem?

And....what makes them especially strong in terms of reliability?

I bought a post-64 model 64 and it had excess headspace from the start. Did not keep it long. Of course mistakes have been made with all guns, even the best.

It's for sure the lever gun world would be a much, much poorer world without these 3 outstanding guns.

Don McCullough

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:41 pm

For the loads and the uses for what they were intended for, they cannot be improved. I cannot think of any part that is inherently weak.--------Sixgun

This is the key phrase of the week, I couldn't have said it better.

Joe

wm · Post by wm » Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:53 pm

OOOOPPPPPS I misread your post......I thought you were asking for those that HAVE a weakness for Winchester 86, 92 or 94s!

I've never known anyone to wear one out.....I've seen neglected and abused to destruction but never worn out beyond repair.

Wm

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:53 pm

J Miller wrote:
For the loads and the uses for what they were intended for, they cannot be improved. I cannot think of any part that is inherently weak.--------Sixgun
This is the key phrase of the week, I couldn't have said it better.

Joe

Thanks Joe, And I would like to add a pistol--the 1911

That ole John Browning was really something. To be able to invent many designs of guns can cannot be improved, despite the innovations of technology in over 100 years, boggles my little mind.------Sixgun