Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Even at a factory, such as Winchester was in its hey day, something will occasionally get by inspections. How do we explain the August 14, 1894 patent dates errors on the Model 1894s? That shouldn’t need have happened either, but it’s did. And not just to one rifle / carbine, quite a few got out the door. Maybe it was just made on a Monday or Friday. Good luck!
Matt74 said
Even at a factory, such as Winchester was in its hey day, something will occasionally get by inspections. How do we explain the August 14, 1894 patent dates errors on the Model 1894s? That shouldn’t need have happened either, but it’s did. And not just to one rifle / carbine, quite a few got out the door. Maybe it was just made on a Monday or Friday. Good luck!
Matt – I can see something getting past the inspectors… but how did it get past the assemblers? You’d think it would have stopped them in their tracks.
This has been an intriguing thread.
Winchester, Colt, and the US Mint made mistakes! I have seen collectors repair the mistake only later to find out the factory made the error not only on their gun but others . How long did the worker make the mistake before they caught it. When the finish is real so is what”s under it. I have seen 73s with the barrel address offset, top and bottom lines not over each other, they did it more than once. Colts with the US upside down. And don’t get me started on coins. It’s a factory and they did not throw away minor mistakes.
If Winchester did it, I’m not going to change it. T/R
TR said
Winchester, Colt, and the US Mint made mistakes! I have seen collectors repair the mistake only later to find out the factory made the error not only on their gun but others . How long did the worker make the mistake before they caught it. When the finish is real so is what”s under it. I have seen 73s with the barrel address offset, top and bottom lines not over each other, they did it more than once. Colts with the US upside down. And don’t get me started on coins. It’s a factory and they did not throw away minor mistakes.If Winchester did it, I’m not going to change it. T/R
Very true but the mistakes you mention do not affect the functioning of the gun and, as you also mentioned, many of the errors were repeated. I have never seen nor heard of the issue with my 94 which is also a mistake that affects the functioning (disassembly) of the gun. I understand that the factories did not throw things in the trash but it sure seems like someone would have caught the mistake and fixed it.
Winchester DID do it so I’m not going to change it either!!
steve004 said
Matt – I can see something getting past the inspectors… but how did it get past the assemblers? You’d think it would have stopped them in their tracks.
Quite simple, that hole is used strictly for disassembly and has no function what so ever in the assembly process. One has to remember factory work, doing the same thing 8 hours a day for 5 days a week. Repetition at it’s finest with a whole bunch of routine. As long as everything went together properly and passed the function test no need to look any further. That little 1/8″ hole is pretty easy to overlook as far as the assemblers, especially when they expect the parts they have been given to assemble were properly inspected and are good to go.
Erin
I agree with Erin on this. There is no way the hole has to be used unless there was a reason to disassemble the gun and I wouldn’t drill a hole unless absolutely necessary. It makes the gun very unique.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
It’s interesting to ponder what Winchester, back in the day, would have done if the rifle were sent back to them with a request to repair a broken firing pin.
They would of drilled the hole and fixed the gun.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Legally, absence of evidence is not evidence. So the evidence that 100% of receivers have the hole is not evidence that this one does too. The OP’s receiver must stand or fall on its own merits. From the pictures inside and outside there was never a hole drilled. Not hard to understand that if one has ever worked in a production factory.
CJS57 said
Legally, absence of evidence is not evidence. So the evidence that 100% of receivers have the hole is not evidence that this one does too. The OP’s receiver must stand or fall on its own merits. From the pictures inside and outside there was never a hole drilled. Not hard to understand that if one has ever worked in a production factory.
I’m not saying I would have a hole drilled in the receiver of this rifle. I would first try the other methods suggested here. I still think some interesting philosophical questions have been posed. On the one hand, we have the general sentiment that a hole shouldn’t be drilled in the receiver, when Winchester didn’t drill one. However, Winchester didn’t chose to not drill the hole. It was a manufacturing, and subsequently, an inspection error. Had it been caught, they would have sent it back and drilled the hole. Had Winchester made some other manufacturing/inspection error that hindered the mechanical functioning of the rifle, to make a modification to make it functioning, probably wouldn’t draw as much negative sentiment as the idea of drilling a hole in the receiver. Had the firing pin never broken, I’d think it would be cool to own a ’94 without this hole. And that’s why I would try the other methods to replace that firing pin.
Another reason I’ve enjoyed this topic is my mechanical understanding of the ’94 action is greater than it was. I get more out of these threads then some of you do – because I know less 
CJS57 said
Legally, absence of evidence is not evidence. So the evidence that 100% of receivers have the hole is not evidence that this one does too. The OP’s receiver must stand or fall on its own merits. From the pictures inside and outside there was never a hole drilled. Not hard to understand that if one has ever worked in a production factory.
Very well said. I think the first response to this post was a clear assumption that 100% of 94 receivers have the hole so mine has to have a hole also. Some folks just assume if it is out of the ordinary it is incorrect or modified. Then again the same poster did not understand how a model 94 functions. I have been collecting/shooting Winchesters for about 30 years and have never seen a 94 (mine or anyone else’s) absent the hole. I have since talked to several collectors and dealers who handle thousands of 94s and have never seen a receiver without the hole. I have high hopes that the smith at WWG will be able to extract the pin so that I can replace the firing pin and get the old gun shooting again.
mark minnillo said
Very well said. I think the first response to this post was a clear assumption that 100% of 94 receivers have the hole so mine has to have a hole also. Some folks just assume if it is out of the ordinary it is incorrect or modified. Then again the same poster did not understand how a model 94 functions. I have been collecting/shooting Winchesters for about 30 years and have never seen a 94 (mine or anyone else’s) absent the hole. I have since talked to several collectors and dealers who handle thousands of 94s and have never seen a receiver without the hole. I have high hopes that the smith at WWG will be able to extract the pin so that I can replace the firing pin and get the old gun shooting again.
It was response #11, and I clearly stated that of all the Model 1894 receivers I have examined, 100% of them had the machined hole. Please try to correctly interpret what I stated, and do not make assumptions.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I’m not sure what the big deal is over this hole or lack thereof. Even if the only verified Model 1894 in existence that lacks it, I wouldn’t pay a premium for it.
Bert H. said
It was response #11, and I clearly stated that of all the Model 1894 receivers I have examined, 100% of them had the machined hole. Please try to correctly interpret what I stated, and do not make assumptions.
Yep, and you said mine is no exception. Why is that? You always assume that if it’s odd or out of the ordinary it’s incorrect or not possible. This only makes your opinion less needed.
mrcvs said
I’m not sure what the big deal is over this hole or lack thereof. Even if the only verified Model 1894 in existence that lacks it, I wouldn’t pay a premium for it.
Me either!! I just think it’s kinda cool!
mark minnillo said
Yep, and you said mine is no exception. Why is that? You always assume that if it’s odd or out of the ordinary it’s incorrect or not possible. This only makes your opinion less needed.
So be it then…
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Sorry , I see no evidence of a previous hole. But I’m NOT disparaging any other opinions. The blurry pic of the inside of the receiver convinced me. If there is a plug, and is wasn’t welded (no evidence) or threaded ( even more likely to leave evidence — but not visible by me), it should come out with a careful application of a thin punch through the threaded access hole on the opposite side of the receiver. NOTE: careful. It’s chancy, but if it works, it works. If you don’t get an immediate indication of something moving, it’s truly an unusual mistake and will make a great conversation piece. I have never come across this error either, but… remember the adage — never say never regarding a Winchester.
Or just leave it alone – as said earlier you CAN remove the pin with some finagling in any account.
Good luck on whatever path you take.
B
mark minnillo said
Yep, and you said mine is no exception. Why is that? You always assume that if it’s odd or out of the ordinary it’s incorrect or not possible. This only makes your opinion less needed.
Well, Bert…It appears that you and God have something in common: you two are not allowed to make mistakes, even though we all know you do.
A first hand inspection would answer a lot of questions. Having said that, no matter how much of an expert we think we are, there will ALWAYS be an exception to the rule. We should always keep an open mind. Experts can be wrong, too. If you think you know it all, you’ll never learn anything.
November 7, 2015
Offline
mark minnillo said
Yep, and you said mine is no exception. Why is that? You always assume that if it’s odd or out of the ordinary it’s incorrect or not possible. This only makes your opinion less needed.
Wow, Mark! You seek opinions and then discard the ones you disagree with. Why bother, just save us the keystrokes. It seems the only answer can be reached with a careful hands-on examination. It’s possible there is a lot to be learned from this gun, if you will keep an open mind.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
