Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Five digit 1894 .38-55. Clean action.
I’ve recently begun shooting this rifle, and something is amiss. Maybe half the time–with the lever fully forward, the hammer is not pushed far enough to engage the full-cock notch. When the hammer’s travel is short, on closing the bolt, the hammer comes down to the half-cock position.
I’m thinking it is the bolt–that somehow metal has been removed from underneath where it rides across the hammer. Or perhaps the hammer is missing metal where it meets the underside of the bolt. Or both. –I have other rifles I can compare these parts with.
The hammer screw is not bent and rotating. The screw-hole in the hammer is fine. The bolt isn’t sloppy in its travel.
Why would the malfunction be sporadic?
Do you folks have thoughts/experiences regarding this problem?
Online
Most of the time it accumulated wear of all the parts, hammer, bolt, lever and all of the pivot points. They wear to the point the hammer barely catches the sear. To fix it you would have to add metal by either replacing a part or building up a part with weld or remove metal from the sear/hammer contact.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Gotta agree with 1873man. Check to see how the notches on the hammer match up with the sear. Have had this happen to a couple of 1886’s. One was due to a prior owner filing down the full cock notch in an effort to create a “hair trigger” and the other was a sear that was badly worn to where the mating surface was rounded.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
When the hammer is not pushed far enough by the bolt, I’ve used my thumb to test, to push it until it is properly engaged. Would/could this condition still involve the sear?
The suggestion that it might need material removed from the sear: That would allow the hammer notch to accept the sear when the hammer is short-stroked? The hammer would have less travel time to the firing pin and a bit less strength in its fall?
What cautions come with attempting this sear shortening?
I don’t believe that removing metal from the sear will solve anything. If that is done, the bolt still pushes the hammer down to the same level and the full-cock notch will not engage the sear. I believe that if the sear is the problem it needs to be built up or replaced, not filed down.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
FromTheWoods said
When the hammer is not pushed far enough by the bolt, I’ve used my thumb to test, to push it until it is properly engaged. Would/could this condition still involve the sear?The suggestion that it might need material removed from the sear: That would allow the hammer notch to accept the sear when the hammer is short-stroked? The hammer would have less travel time to the firing pin and a bit less strength in its fall?
What cautions come with attempting this sear shortening?
The problem you are having is the hammer is not going back far enough so the sear can drop in the hammer notch. That is why pulling it with your thumb will engage it properly. Shortening the sear or filing the hammer notch will give you slightly less hammer distance to the firing pin and filing the sear or the hammer notch can change the pull of the trigger making it more hair or harder pull if done incorrectly. These are the possible issues you can run into when you play with the sear. The safest cure is to have another gun to steal parts out of ( a known good one) to test which part or parts are the cause but there still could be wear in the frame itself.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Thank you two for your help with this.
I don’t get to swap parts today, nor post with you fellows. Likely have time tomorrow.
Our youngest son asked if it short-stroked only when the rifle was hot from shooting. This morning, with the rifle cold, it functioned properly–Huh. I’d warm it now, but for some reason its against the law to step out on your porch in a residential area and touch off a snappy spate of lead!
Its worth a try since metal expands when it gets warmer but it will not help fix the problem. You can always heat it with a hair dryer but I would advise against a oven or microwave. The bolt would be the only thing that would warm from shooting since the heat has to migrate from the barrel back and thats if you did a bunch of shooting.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
There are a lot of variables that can cause the sear to not fully engage the hammer notches, here’s a list starting with the most common:
Crud in the notch, or crud between the trigger and sear,
Broken sear/hammer notches,
Improperly modified sear/hammer notches,
Weak/loose trigger spring,
Sloppy fit between lower tang and frame-changing the sear angle to hammer relationship.
Wear on the back of the bolt or face of the hammer,
Slop between the bolt and frame guide slots allowing the bolt to ride over the hammer too soon.
Heat of firing should have little to no impact on sear/hammer engagement, the rifle just can’t get hot enough to expand metal that much.
Shortening the sear is a remedy for some of the issues stated above, the shorter the sear = less travel the hammer has to do to engage the sear. But, it should only be done by someone who understands the sear angles.
The winner might be “wear on the back of the bolt AND face of the hammer.”
I swapped out #1 hammer–not good. Swapped out # 1 bolt and put back in the #1 hammer–Didn’t work well. Left #2 bolt in and swapped in #2 hammer–Action seems to work just fine.
I’ll load more cartridges, shoot, and let you know how the rifle worked.
Shot the rifle today. All functioned just fine.
I forgot to note in the above post that I also swapped out the sear. The one from the rifle appeared to not be square across the top of it where it engages the hammer.
hi, I presented the problem stated above.
my win. model 1894, carbine, production year 1913 is doing the above. about a month ago I took it to a gun smith and they felt the hammer was worn at full cock and they replaced it with a new one, however, the problem did not go away. they had no solution only trial and trial. I stopped all work, payed my bill, and now have the rifle at home.
I read all your comments and found the thought that the bolt and possibly the frame could be the problem. possible, just before the hammer goes in full cock, I notice the bolt seems to raise. it might be the frame or the bolt, or both. the gun smith said something that I can’t understand: if they remove the stock no problem. I’m no gun smith, but I have had a number of guns. the hammer spring seems awful stiff and feel this has caused undue wear. the gun smith was not concerned. I don’t want to replace the frame. I’m not sure how far i’ll go. the rifle is in nice condition and does not appear to have excessive use.
I’m a senior and for personal reasons I cannot do much myself. any advice, is appreciated. I have considered removing the stock and filing the hammer spring to take the stress off the bolt. just a thought.
thanks for your time.
milt pietz
Milt:
Never had this problem on an 1894 but several times on 1886’s and 1892’s. The problems I’ve encountered have never been the underside of the bolt or the upper edge of the hammer. They have always been a mating problem between the hammer full-cock notch and the sear.
In your case, since the hammer has been replaced and there was no improvement (I hope you saved the original hammer) the problem could very well be with a worn sear. I wouldn’t do any filing on the mainspring. On the Model 1894, when the bolt is fully retracted you should have a fair amount of tension between the end of the bolt and the top of the hammer. The hammer will push up on the bolt a little and as you lower the lever and the bolt moves forward you should notice a release of tension as soon as the bolt clears the hammer.
I suppose you could have excessive wear in the bolt grooves within the receiver but that would seem hard to do. Possibly the flanges on the bolt sides themselves are worn, undersized or have been filed down.
Does the hammer engage properly when cocked by hand? If so, does it fire when cocked by hand?
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
You can lighten the hammer spring by unscrewing its screw in the lower tang. There are two screws in the bottom of the lower tang–two sizes of screws. The larger is the hammer spring screw. The other, I don’t know what it is called, but it can be screwed tightly enough to put pressure on the hammer spring. If you –loosen–the larger screw, then you can loosen the smaller one.
It would be best to have the butt-stock off your carbine, so you can see to not unscrew the hammer screw to the extent that it is not safe–or to the extent that it comes out of the spring while the spring is under tension.
I use the small screw to help set the tension of the hammer spring. I believe a hammer spring can be broken by improperly adjusting these two screws. Before you are finished, if needed be certain to snug up the small screw so it stays put in the tang.
I adjust the tension on my 1894’s to suit my preferences. Smooth, medium/light fall of the hammer.
As for lighter spring tension helping to solve your problem, I don’t know. I would suppose it wouldn’t make a difference in why your carbine is having this problem.
Those forum folks who know more than I do regarding this, please add your opinions and advice.
Cant offer much more wisdom than has already been expressed by others above.
Never really had this problem with an 1894 that I can recall but have with a number of 1892’s Ive owned in the past. With the 1892 the main cause of the hammer not engaging the sear when cycling has been wear on the hammer where it engages the bolt when cycled. The solution was to replace the hammer with one that is not worn down–would suspect some of the ones you find on the internet for sale are those that are already worn out. Its frustrating, and I can relate that when you take off the butt stock and try, the trigger sear works. I found that it sometimes can be remedied if the buttstock screw is tightened as tight as possible. There seemed to be a sweet spot, its been some years since I tinkered with one, but seem to recall that the tighter I was able to get the buttstock screw, the less likely the hammer was to fail–still havent figured out why even after swapping out hammers and bolts.
Had several where they would function correctly without the wood, then slide the wood in place to within a frogs hair of being snug in the receiver and they worked (without the buttstock screw in place), but when sliding the wood all the way snug into the receiver they didnt work even without the buttstock screw in place. But when the wood was off the gun and you screw the buttstock screw snug between the upper and lower tang (not too tight though), it worked every time. That being the case I took a small file and removed any grime or proud wood in the upper tang channel and tried again and it worked after that. Cant tell you how many hours Ive spent tinkering with this very problem on 1892’s–It can drive you to drinking 
Would try swapping out parts with ones you know are good starting with the hammer, bolt, then lower tang or trigger, and finally the buttstock to find the weak link. As FromTheWoods mentioned, you can relieve some tension by loosening the mainspring tension screw, leave the mainspring screw as is (the larger one on the lower tang). The only other thing Ive encountered is one (it may have been an 1894 short rifle that was used pretty hard) in which the bottom rail on the inside of the receiver was worn allowing the bolt to travel higher and not push the hammer back far enough to engage the hammer sear. After swapping the hammer, bolt, and all the other parts to no avail, I ended up having a gunsmith add some metal to the underside of the rail and mill it back down to fit correctly reducing the amount of slack in the receiver rail that the bolt grooves slide upon/in and it fixed the problem.
Whether 1894 or 1892, when the gun is cycled the bolt will rise slightly at the end of the cycle when it bears over the top of the hammer–if it rises too high it wont fully engage the hammer. Ive seen hammers on but 1894 and 1892’s that have had a bead of solder or have had the hammer face built up to better engage the bolt when cycled.
As mentioned above too, make sure there isnt any grim that would prohibit proper function. Have had several that were packed on the inside with hard grease coating all the parts and that surely kept them from cycling properly.
Good luck.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1 Guest(s)
