Bob

Gunsnfishin said

TXGunNut said
I generally unload my 1894 hunting rifles the same way I load them; through the loading port. Simply depress the cover and manipulate the cartridge case head to clear the stop and the magazine spring pushes the cartridge into your hand, not onto the ground. Saves wear and tear on the cartridge and they don't get dirty or wet. Simplifies muzzle control, don't forget to cycle the action a time or two after removing the cartridges from the magazine to ensure it is unloaded.
 
 
Mike
  

Mike -

Interesting.  I wonder how widespread this practice is?  

Edit:  I'll have to try it - this might work on my Remington Model 141.

Mike

Bert H. said
Steve,
Unless I am missing something, regardless of which safety type a Model 94 has, the loaded rounds still need to be cycled through the action to empty the magazine.
Bert
  

Bert - 

Indeed that is true.  However, with the traditional lever rifle half-cock safety, every time you cycle the action, the gun is ready to fire (i.e. each time you close the action).  It is not ready to fire with the modern style safeties - when those safeties are engaged.

The first repeating shotgun I became familiar with was my Dad's model 1897.  To empty the gun, one would also cycle the rounds through the action.  However, a neat feature on the M1897 was the two little release buttons that allowed the user to empty the rounds in the magazine without going through the action.  

On my Winchester model 62, I prefer to empty it by pulling the inner magazine tube and dumping the cartridges forward.  

On my Remington Model 141 slide action, the only way to empty it is to cycle the rounds through the action.  And they will fall wherever they may.  But in this process, there is the pushbutton safety in the trigger guard that allows this to be done safely - that is - the gun is not ready to fire as the action closes on a new round - as it is with the '94 Winchester.

On my Remington Model 08's, the safety happens to lock the action. You can't work the action with the safety on. You also can't lock the action open if there are cartridges in the magazine.

With my Savage 99's (rotary magazine versions), the safety locks the lever.  You can't work the lever unless you take the safety off.  Hence, you have to cycle all the rounds through with the rifle ready to fire each time.  However, with the Savage, you can sort of thumb the rounds out - which you couldn't do on a Winchester or similar lever rifle.

Of course, with whatever you use, you can simply shoot all the cartridges in your rifle before you pack up.

oldcrankyyankee said
Is the mag tube split?
  

Yes , there is a short split in the mag tube

Other than the special order Lyman No. 1 tang sight, it appears to be a standard "Fancy ELW" TD rifle.

Bert

Unless I am missing something, regardless of which safety type a Model 94 has, the loaded rounds still need to be cycled through the action to empty the magazine.

Bert

I do wonder whether there were Model 94 carbines serialized n the low 2.7m range that were assembled with machined rather than sintered metal receivers. Your receiver doesn't appear to have been black chromed - I don't think it's late enough -- but neither does it exhibit the flaking and mottling of Dulite on sintered steel.  

My understanding of the sintered metal process is it is fully capable of making very precise parts but (1) the initial equipment. investment is huge; (2) the cost of creating a die is great, to the point you need to be making.enormous quantities of a part to justify the cost of the die; (3) the assembly technique of fitting sintered parts is different. You have a bin of the same part before you. You take one and try it. If it is oversized or undersized, you don't fettle it but put it back and try another until one fits. This can be done much faster and by less experienced people than by a skilled fitter with stones and abrasive papers. With excellent results, with practice.

But there is a learning curve. It strikes me that quality of production in 1964 was more likely variable rather than consistently bad. 

I have a late production Colt Trooper Mark III that is absolutely a credit to its maker. The lockwork is sintered and was assembled as above. I have also a 1955 Colt Three Fifty Seven, the Mark III's antecedent made the traditional way. The trigger stroke is different between the two - the later gun has coil springs and doesn't stack -- but both are of very high quality. I have owned earlier Mark III revolvers that were crude by comparison. 

So, like Schrodinger's cat, perhaps the early post 63 Model 94 can exhibit more than one state, inside its box.

1873man said
The gun is a early 38 caliber rifle and when they first made them they came standard with a shotgun butt but some were ordered with rifle butt plates like yours. Later they switched the butt to a rifle butt like the rest of the rifles as standard. The gun has had the barrel cut short. The front sight is too close to the muzzle and there is no magazine band are the two items that gives it away and also the Cody letter tells us what the guns configuration was. The letter says its a rifle and does not say a barrel length so it is the standard length for a rifle which is 24".  Here is your picture of the end of the barrel and I have posted another picture what it should look like. 
The gun looks like nice honest gun except for the cut barrel. It is now a shooter grade gun.
Bob

I had no idea this was the case.  Very interesting.  Amazing this fact has eluded me all these years (decades) (scores of years)

Bob