Can Win 95 w/ rebounding hammer&tang saety be "fixed?"

[Goat]

Can a later version of the Winchester or Browning 1895 with the rebounding hammer and the tang safety be converted to John Browning's design without these unnecessary changes? Can it be fixed to work like it was designed to? I'm getting the "itch" again for a '95 but don't think I could stand the silly tang safety and the rebounding hammer. Maybe I could since I have never handled one in the first place but they really seem like like an answer looking for a question to me. Are they really as bad as I think, or am I unsettled over something just because it is not like John Moses designed it? I suppose the safety could just be left in the "off" position and brought to the "cocked" position when ready to fire. Someone out there has the answers or at least an opinion, please share what you think.
Goat

[Don McDowell]

Just flip the darn thing forward to fire , and forget about it. That's what I've been doing with mine for 10 years.

[Leverluver]

Of all the models (86, 92, 95) that were made by Browning as well as the "newer" Winchester (whatever iteration), the 95 seems to be the least affected by all the additional "safety" equipment. Yes, some of the 92s and a lot of the 86s have had issues with light primer strikes. It is rare to hear of that problem with the 95. Mine has no such issues and obviously, neither does Don's. Yes, there are more parts to break or get dirty but I can tell no difference in reliability, smoothness of action, or trigger pull between my 30-40 Browning or my Winchester (USRAC) 95 in 405. Now if it is just the asthetics that bother you, all that takes is money.

[OJ]

My man had me "fixed" - I wasn't broken - and I haven't been the same - since it amounted to removing valuable parts.

Do you really want that rifle "fixed"??

[Goat]

Thanks OJ!! That gave me a good laugh.
Goat