Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Brought home a .38-55 yesterday. The rifle appears to have been well-cared for. Bore is excellent. Parts are clean. Stock has “normal” dings and wear.
The rifle cycles alright when empty. With cartridges in the magazine, regular force on the downstroke of the lever will not elevate the carrier. At the end of the stroke, an additional jolt forward on the lever is needed. Or–one can snap the lever down and forward forcefully, and the carrier will elevate with the cartridge.
This is the first 1st Model 1894 I’ve handled. The extra force needed seems to be abnormal when compared to later 1894’s, and when considering it cylcles easily without cartridges on the carrier.
Also, the metal on this rifle shows very little abuse–except on the carrier and nearby it on the inside of the receiver: scratches, dings. It appears someone else had trouble in this area.
I’ve compared the carrier in this rifle with the carrier in another of our .38-55’s. 800 and 7000 serial number range. The base of the carrier in the problem rifle has a different shaped underside than in the 7000 rifle. The two appear similar when looking down into the open receiver.
What might the problem be?
(Maybe Clipper47 would like to sell me his original carrier that he notes in his thread, “First Model 1894 Flips. . . .”!)
As you mentioned, could be something wrong with the carrier. Either the carrier is worn out or possibly one of the “forks” at the end of the carrier is slightly bent outward to the sides of the receiver causing it to rub against the cartridge guides. However, if it cycles ok without a cartridge, it wouldnt be bent.
Could be a problem with the carrier spring.
Does the cartridge hang up (bullet end) in the receiver opening for the magazine–not clearing the magazine opening in the receiver (if its not, could be the magazine tube spring).
If the loading gate was slightly bent or bowed, it could bear against the cartridge, if so, you would see a mark on the cycled brass. Ive seen them bent or sprung where they can be a problem.
Does it hang up when you are cycling only one cartridge through the magazine? Have you tried two cartridges in the magazine to see if the first one feeds correctly and the second one doesnt?
Check the bolt & hammer. At that point at the end of the cycle, the bolt has already cocked the hammer/sear and the hammer again begins to bear against the bolt.
If you have an extra carrier spring, would try that first.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
The bullet end of the cartridge clears fine. The problem is there no matter how many cartridges are in the magazine.
The hammer involvement doesn’t seem to be a fault. Wouldn’t a hammer problem show itself when unloaded?
A carrier spring problem–If that is so, what should I look for to make the determination? This might be the problem. Something is amiss in that last lever-travel that initiates the carrier lift.
I had the rifle apart yesterday, but didn’t remove the carrier. Looks as if that carrier and I will spend a bit of time together this morning.
The problem is not the carrier.
The left cartridge guide has a small tab near the front that is causing the gap to be too narrow for the cartridge to easily pass through. The area of the case where the lower portion of the bullet sits is pinched between the cartridge guides by the left tab.
I found the symptom by loosening the screws to both guides, cycling a cartridge through several times, and then tightening the guides on one side/cycling, then the other side/cycling.
The left guide with its screw 1/2 turn toward loose allows the cartridge to clear.
Does this mean the guide is slightly bent and tightening narrows the frontal gap? If bent, how can it be straightened without breaking it?
Would filing/stoning the tab cause other problems?
More discovery–
The tab is a flat spring protruding from a slot in the cartridge guide. Spring is badly mangled. I’ll attempt to de-mangle it, and to maybe cant it a bit toward the base of the receiver. That way, maybe the cartridge will more smoothly engage the spring, and the spring will then flex as the cartridge rises with the carrier.
———————–
Yes I added a comment suggesting it might be that flat spring but your last post beat me to it. I have heard that the gun should function without that spring so perhaps try that. The carrier if original should also have a small matching crescent milled from the left side that allows the carrier to lift up slightly past the flat spring arch. I only have one carrier with the cut out which I need for my first model.
Your right, that little flat spring can cause some problems too. Especially if they are bent or there is a lot of hard crud behind them. Not too many things that can cause problems with these guns. Just hard to figure out which one unless you have the gun sitting in front of you. Glad you got it figured out.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Thank you, fellows, for your ideas. I was busy with the rifle, and didn’t get to read your posts until after I’d done and written the following–
After smoothing the spring and its arc, it still is an obstacle in the lifting of a cartridge. With the spring removed, cartridges are not hindered.
What is the purpose of this spring?
The rifle has another problem. Often the nose of the bullet is guided to the top of the chamber’s mouth–much too high. The bullets have a meplate that is small enough that it should not interfere in chambering the cartridge.
Which leads to the question: Does the spring in the cartridge guide function to help align the nose of the bullet?
And now I’m wondering if the carrier is not an original. Perhaps a smith’s copy. It is not as well made as carriers I see in later rifles. It had many sharp edges this morning that scratched the heck out of the cases. It looks as if someone has “customized”/bent the front fork. No bluing/case-hardening color.
———After reading your ideas–
The internals of this rifle were clean–and now they are even cleaner. So, no crud is involved.
In studying the flat spring and its housing, I’m tempted to shorten the spring’s length. As it is now, there seems to be no flexing when the cartridge contacts it. With the guides in place, the spring’s ends have nowhere to move. Even if I bent the spring to protrude a bit more from its slot, the ends would have to move to their present position as the cartridge pushed on the spring.
Shortening the spring or taking metal off the carrier could lead to a nightmare. Since I “only play a Gunsmith on TV,” I could ruin the parts and end with a non-functioning rifle.
Do any of you have a picture of one of these flat springs? And a photo of an original 1st model carrier? Maybe the spring is not original. It seems quite inflexible for a spring in this guide.
November 7, 2015
Offline
When you cleaned did you clean behind the cartridge guides? I’ve heard if they ever get loose a little grit can push them out and change the clearance.
Mike
FromTheWoods, If you PM me with your email address I can send you photos of the spring and the carrier. I believe that the Spring only guides the carrier and should not compress when the carrier is lifted or the cartridge is entering the chamber. There should be a cut out on the left side of the carrier that allows it to lift up without striking the arc of the spring and under that cut out there is a ledge that stops the carrier from lifting further. Difficult to explain so I can send you photos of the carrier and the spring as it sits behind the guide. Maybe I am wrong as I have my own issues with my 1894 but that is the way it appears to work on my gun.
Yes, Texas, I removed the guides to check for grit. They were clean, and I ran patches along them to be certain. That rifle is one of the cleanest 1894’s I’ve brought home! Someone before me appreciated it, kept it clean everywhere. –Or someone cleaned it well recently. But the only corrosion on it is in the last six inches of the magazine spring. Even the magazine tube is free of corrosion. No DNA deposits in the bolt nor in the lower tang. A near perfect bore!
I’m looking forward to shooting it. If I can get the cycling figured out, it will be a rifle to hunt with. Which causes another problem. I have enough Winchesters that I’d like to take elk and deer with that I might not live long enough to satisfy that itch. From your conversations on this forum, I think you may be having that problem too!
Clipper,
From your description, I do understand what the carrier should look like, but the photos would be a plus. Thank you.
After looking inside my rifle again, I may have a bit of customizing to do to a carrier. I’m still thinking my carrier is homemade.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’m looking forward to shooting it. If I can get the cycling figured out, it will be a rifle to hunt with. Which causes another problem. I have enough Winchesters that I’d like to take elk and deer with that I might not live long enough to satisfy that itch. From your conversations on this forum, I think you may be having that problem too!-FromTheWoods
You’re exactly right but it’s a wonderful problem to have. I have a handful of old Winchesters that deserve one more hunting trip and I’m hoping to be the lucky guy who gets to take them on that trip. Some need a bit of TLC and load development but the payoff is incredible. Good luck on getting this old girl back in the field.
Mike
I miss my game warden days when I could take any of my old Winchesters along and use them in predator, nuisance bear control or to dispatch an injured deer or moose. My old 1894 .38-55 went along on many a tour and performed very well on large game even if only used as a single shot .
With Clipper47’s help, cartridges now elevate without excessive force on the lever. Seems the spring in the guide was beaten up and shaped incorrectly.
The carrier continues to deliver the bullet to the chamber mouth much too high. The nose gets jammed into the top of the chamber’s opening.
As I said earlier in this thread, the carrier appears to have been modified. I’m thinking its front fork has been bent upward. That bend seems perfect for delivering the nose of the bullet 1/2 inch high to the chamber.
I’ve attached photographs of the First Model’s carrier–the one with the extra bulk and holes. The other carrier is out of an 1894 serial range 31,000. This newer rifle does have the cutout for accommodating the cartridge guide spring. The guide in this gun also has the slot for a spring, but has no spring. In case it makes a difference, this rifle has close-coupled triggers.
Is the bulkier carrier an 1894 First Model part? Do you recommend bending down the forward section of the carrier to lower the cartridge’s delivery to the chamber?
That carrier with the hole and extra block on the bottom is apparently an early first model carrier so I would be reluctant to try and bend that one. I would look for another more common one. What is the serial number of the gun it came from? Compare it to this photo.
The rifle is 800 serial range.
I’d rather use the original carrier in it, so I talked with our “real” gunsmith in the next town over. The rifle is in his shop, waiting to have him straighten the carrier ramp.
Thank you, Clipper47, for all of your help. You made trouble-shooting this rifle’s cycling problems a success.
I agree that keeping such a rare 1894 in original condition using its original parts is the proper thing to do. I wonder how or why the carrier became bent? I wish I had the answer why someone modified the guides on my First Model also? We will probably never know. I appreciate your kind words. Thank you.
You are welcome.
I’m thinking, with the pry-marks inside the receiver and with the mangling of the guide spring, someone was having trouble in there. Could have been that the mangled spring wouldn’t allow the carrier to complete its lifting of the cartridge, so. . . .bend the carrier’s front portion upward–all problems solved!
They must have been shooting a slightly smaller diameter bullet than those I’m using. That would have allowed the cartridge to pass through the spring gap.
Or maybe they pried and mangled and bent and ended frustrated, putting the rifle up for sale?
Whatever happened, I’m pleased the rifle came my way.
Whoa, nearly forgot. While looking around at Winchester Parts on ebay, I came across this. Clipper47, it seems to be a tad similar to one of yours.
1 Guest(s)
