Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Preface: I’ve owned and hunted with two shortwood Model 94 carbines, a 1955 and 1956, both equipped with the same Redfield 70E-h micrometer sight, and a 99% 1951 longwood that I refused to drill and tap, so never hunted with. My sole 1894 these days is a nice 1949 Model 64 Deer Rifle.
So. I’m washed in the Blood, as it were.
But along the way, my late friend, hunting buddy, fellow gun nut, and classmate from many years ago — a quarter- Comanche and a hell of a horseman – I still miss him daily – brought over a shiny new (1995?) Winchester AE Model 94 in .44 magnum with a 16″ barrel. Memory is fading a little but I think it had a rebounding hammer and a crossbolt safety.
Of course we had to go to the range and try it out. Loud little sucker but easy and fun to shoot, so I had to have one to play with for a while. Eventually I needed trading material for something else and it went away.
While I always thought the rabbett in the right receiver wall looked a bit weird, it was done in a workmanlike manner. I used the crossbolt safety when racking live rounds from the magazine but thought it was ugly. When the boys designed the much less obtrusive tang safety, I thought it was a real improvement if you had to have one.
What I didn’t like much at all was the rebounding hammer. Didn’t like the feel of it and remember thinking why didn’t they just block the $%^$ firing pin instead?
But the outrage among my fellow members seems to be mostly aimed at the Angle Eject feature of the current and recent Model 94. While scoping an M94 ruins its utility (to me, ever since my cataract surgery in 2010), the receiver wall relief cut itself seems innocuous.
For those of you who still hunt with an M94, and have actually had your hands on one of the new Miroku-built Model 94 carbines. I would think the overall fit and finish of the piece and the precise and smooth functioning of the action, not seen on the Model 94 for almost a Century, would at least counterbalance this slight visual insult.
What am I missing?
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Bill,
From my perspective, there are several reasons I do not care for them;
1. John Moses Browning did not create & patent the Model 1894 with that feature.
2. “Winchester” did not manufacture them.
3. The Model 94 is an ugly gun with a scope mounted on it.
4. I collect “Winchester” firearms, mostly antique, but nearly all are pre-WW II (I do own one very late production Model 97 manufactured in October 1953).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Bill,From my perspective, there are several reasons I do not care for them;
1. John Moses Browning did not create & patent the Model 1894 with that feature.
2. “Winchester” did not manufacture them.
3. The Model 94 is an ugly gun with a scope mounted on it.
4. I collect “Winchester” firearms, mostly antique, but nearly all are pre-WW II (I do own one very late production Model 97 manufactured in October 1953).
Bert
Good reasons. T/R
Bert H. said
Bill,From my perspective, there are several reasons I do not care for them;
1. John Moses Browning did not create & patent the Model 1894 with that feature.
2. “Winchester” did not manufacture them.
3. The Model 94 is an ugly gun with a scope mounted on it.
4. I collect “Winchester” firearms, mostly antique, but nearly all are pre-WW II (I do own one very late production Model 97 manufactured in October 1953).
Bert
Bert –
I agree with you. The Model 94 (and other Winchester lever actions) have always posed a problem with scope mounting. Here’s an example of turning a M94 into complete ugliness. By the way, I don’t think the angle eject versions helped this all that much.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1052751329
There was an option however that my many deer kills has verified. Here is my .32 Special carbine. You can still grip it around the receiver and the handling is not impacted. You an also shoot a running deer with both eyes open (not conjecture on my part):
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’ve never felt a Model 94 needed a scope. I’ve had no issues with installing scopes on half a dozen or more modern Marlin 336’s and 1895’s. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite. Or confused.
Mike
TXGunNut said
I’ve never felt a Model 94 needed a scope. I’ve had no issues with installing scopes on half a dozen or more modern Marlin 336’s and 1895’s. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite. Or confused.
Mike
Mike –
The ’94 carbine doesn’t need a scope; it is the shooter that has the, “need.” And the carbine stays the same, it is the shooter that changes. I’ve changed in all variety of ways since I first started shooting. One of those ways is my eyesight. Oh, and when I say change, I don’t mean for the better.
On the topic of scopes on a 94 carbine, we know most hunters use the ’94 for close-range hunting. This was true of my my extended family. We hunted the deep woods of northern Minnesota where shooting distances were typically short and a short, fast handling carbine was just the ticket. At times the hunting felt like ruffed grouse hunting in thick cover. I recall passing near thickets where a buck would be laying low. It would explode out of that thicket much like a grouse. Finding it in a regular scope? Not easy.
I was the only one who used a scope on a ’94 (as shown in my post above). It was a forward-mounted long-eye relief scope. Being able to keep both eyes open while shooting was a plus. Perhaps of interest, I have a Remington M600 .308 with this same scope set-up. I used to have a shorter-barreled custom Mauser M98 in .458×2 with the same scope set-up. This was of course inspired by the deep woods hunting.
Edit: writing this reminds me of another carbine that served me well for many years. It was a Marlin M1894 .44 magnum with a Bushnell 2.75 “Command Post” reticule. It too, was short, fast, light-handling and I did well with it – despite it being a Marlin 
No, Mike. It makes you what all Winchester collectors are but most would cut their tongues out before admitting: art collectors.
For men and a few women, personal weapons provoke all sorts of responses way down in the cortex. We know intuitively that Zog had a favorite club, one that looked and felt and worked for him on food animals better than the rest. He carved symbols on it and made paintings of himself holding it on the walls of his cave.
We are not so far removed from old Zog. As his descendants, when we pick up a Winchester 1886, say a particularly graceful Lightweight that eventually morphed into the Model 71, the visual and tactical sensations stimulate biochemical processes that create feelings of comfort, security, well-being, and recall fond memories and visions of future days in the field. Just like Zog’s favorite club.
Like it or not, we are homo estheticus and, while we owe a debt to John Moses Browning, we owe almost as much to Mason, Johnson, Williams, and Sefried, among other storied WRA designers, for refining mechanically brilliant devices into graceful and pleasing objects.
As some proof of this, in his seminal Book of the Rifle Jim Carmichael illustrated a couple of awkward looking, American factory bolt action sporting rifles alongside the stylish Ruger Model 1A.
On my desk for many years and now on my bedroom dresser, is a cast bronze head and shoulders of an Apache dressed for battle, “Mescalero Warrior” by the artist Bob Moline. On the wall behind it is a print-on-canvas of “Bluebonnets and Oaks” by the late Porfirio Salinas. Every morning I look at them and they always make me wish I could afford a Winchester 1866 to keep by my bedside.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Steve, the “Scout” forward mounted scope with intermediate eye relief is something I’ve always wanted to try.
If I can find the mount for it, I’ve got a Model 600M .350 that could use it. Recoil is no worse than taking Marciano’s right jab on the jaw but it’s attention-getting. Moving the scope’s ocular rim further from my face is appealing.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
The ’94 carbine doesn’t need a scope; it is the shooter that has the, “need.” steve004 said
Not merely a matter of ageing eyes–many younger guys have never shot without a scope, think irons impossibly confusing & obsolete; they scope even their muzzleloaders!!! Seems reasonable to believe this was the market for which the AE was intended.
In this country, too, 75 yds would be a long shot, except down a power-line right of way, or across a hay-field.
Zebulon said
Steve, the “Scout” forward mounted scope with intermediate eye relief is something I’ve always wanted to try.If I can find the mount for it, I’ve got a Model 600M .350 that could use it. Recoil is no worse than taking Marciano’s right jab on the jaw but it’s attention-getting. Moving the scope’s ocular rim further from my face is appealing.
I had a M600 .350 magnum once. A very long time ago. I was young enough that I don’t think the recoil made much of an impression on me. I traded the rifle off because it just wasn’t accurate. I did like the .350 magnum cartridge a lot and for years had a Mauser M98 custom rifle in that chambering. As a handloader, I find it very versatile as you can duplicate .38 Special, .357 magnum, .35 Remington all the way up to the full power of the .350 cartridge. The bullet selection is very versatile. I also owned various .358 Winchesters. It seemed both cartridges never had the following I thought they deserved.
If you do put a EER scope on your .350, use larger screws to mount to the barrel. That’s how I have my .308 setup.
Zebulon said
No, Mike. It makes you what all Winchester collectors are but most would cut their tongues out before admitting: art collectors.For men and a few women, personal weapons provoke all sorts of responses way down in the cortex. We know intuitively that Zog had a favorite club, one that looked and felt and worked for him on food animals better than the rest. He carved symbols on it and made paintings of himself holding it on the walls of his cave.
We are not so far removed from old Zog. As his descendants, when we pick up a Winchester 1886, say a particularly graceful Lightweight that eventually morphed into the Model 71, the visual and tactical sensations stimulate biochemical processes that create feelings of comfort, security, well-being, and recall fond memories and visions of future days in the field. Just like Zog’s favorite club.
Like it or not, we are homo estheticus and, while we owe a debt to John Moses Browning, we owe almost as much to Mason, Johnson, Williams, and Sefried, among other storied WRA designers, for refining mechanically brilliant devices into graceful and pleasing objects.
As some proof of this, in his seminal Book of the Rifle Jim Carmichael illustrated a couple of awkward looking, American factory bolt action sporting rifles alongside the stylish Ruger Model 1A.
On my desk for many years and now on my bedroom dresser, is a cast bronze head and shoulders of an Apache dressed for battle, “Mescalero Warrior” by the artist Bob Moline. On the wall behind it is a print-on-canvas of “Bluebonnets and Oaks” by the late Porfirio Salinas. Every morning I look at them and they always make me wish I could afford a Winchester 1866 to keep by my bedside.
Bill –
Your point probably explains my collecting preference. It dates back to my deep woods hunting experience dating back to an early age. I’ve been drawn to ELW 86’s vs. octagon barrel versions, surely because the difference in handling is significant. There is the old adage, “you only need one shooter.” But… sigh
1 Guest(s)
