Winchester 94 rifles

T

triggerman42

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
I read about the Remington 1100 tests done in 1978 , where an 1100 was tested for function , to see how many shots it would cycle without a malfunction , and absolutley no cleaning.
It apparently set a record that stands unbroken to this day . 24,000 . Thats quite an achievement !
Then I got to thinking , about the the Winchester 94's. How many shots would be a normal life expectancy for one of these? Kept clean , oiled , and maintained properly. How many shots would one last ? What would be the life expectancy in rounds?
I know there has been millions of them produced , and many are getting to be quite old , but age alone doesnt add any wear to a gun. A gun could sit in a closset for 25 years and never be fired.
I wonder if there has been any tests done , to find out how many shots one actually lasts?
What parts usually failed first , that kind of thing. I'd be interested if someone has any data?
 
I don't know of anybody that's done an endurance test, and I'm not willing to experiment with mine. The weak link with the 94 seems to be, well, the link. There is a little stud at the front of the link that keeps the cartridges in the magazine. I've seen a few cases where this stud has worn to the point where it caused double feeds. A real pita, since the only way to clear it is to take the cap off the mag and dump everything out the front. I've replaced the firing pin on my brother's rifle, not many rounds through it, but a fair bit of dry firing, so I don't recommend dry firing 94's anymore.
 
It all depends on what you call the life of the rifle??

If you're talking about functional or shot out barrel??

The Remington 1100 test counted more than 24000 shots, but I believe that was a failure to feed or a jammed hull. Not a broken part. My Remington 1100 has more rounds than that through it and it functions flawlessly. Last fall, I replaced the bushing because it was getting sloppy. I have had a few failures to feed, they were my fault from trying to get to many reloads out the hull.

A model 94 Winchester should be able to get 7K to 10K+ rounds through the bore before accuracy becomes unacceptable. Then, time for a barrel replacement and another run. With the maintenance you describe, this could go on indefinitely.

I spoke with a Cowboy Action Shooter who told me he had over 200K rounds through his Mod 92 Winchester and that it was on its 5th barrel. I believe the cartridge it was chambered for was the 45 Colt.
 
Yes , I realize the 1100 comparison was not a good one , as they were just looking for a failure to feed , or eject.
But that is what got me thinking about the 94's , any any tests done for longevity.
Barrels wear ? yes , but the 30-30 / and 32 special ( as most 94 deer guns are) aren't particulary hot cartridges. And with proper cleaning last quite well , compared to hotter calibers. I guess I was wondering about the action itself mostly.
I'm sure there are lots of hunters carrying their grandfathers 94's in the woods every deer season.
Then again , there are alot of deer rifles that only get used for a week or two each year, and even then , may or maynot get shot. So mileage and opinions will vary widely . I guess I just wanted to talk about something besides all the gloom and doom that is going on right now in the hunting / gun community.
I figured the old 94's as good a topic as any. There are lots of folks out there , with fond memories of past hunts with hand me down lever guns !
 
When my uncle was at the peak of his skeet shooting, he would put 24,000 rounds a year out of his Browning Superposed. Even considering the old subsistence hunters and trappers, I think there would be very few ( maybe not any ) 94's that have had 24,000 rounds through them.
 
Most were / are used for hunting. Maybe a box of shells per year max.

I don't recall any application where a '94 would be fired thousands of times a year like some competition / military firearms are.

So the design is good for its intended use; maybe a 1000 rounds over the life of the owner..
 
Likely you won't be able to afford enough ammo to wear one of those barrels. Problem with the link that was pointed out is exclusively post64 issue as far as I know. The links were cast on these in comparison to the forged steel used on pre-64 model. So it's not the design weakness, but rather a production cost saving measures that are responsible for the issues with the link.
 
I have my great grandfather’s ‘94 in .32 WCF with the third sight post behind the reciever. Barrel is completely cooked. Can still see the rifling marks, but they are little more than that. My grandfather thought he picked it up in the mid-late 30’s during the great depression. I have been meaning to date the rifle but i never have. Looking at the marks on it and Grandpa’s stories, it would have seen a few thousand rounds in its lifetime but probably not much more than that.

I would love to get shooting it one day. Iconic rifle, and to squeeze the same trigger that the man responsible for my family in Canada and born in the 1800’s would be pretty special to me.
 
L86 All Terrain said:
I have my great grandfather’s ‘94 in .32 WCF with the third sight post behind the reciever. Barrel is completely cooked. Can still see the rifling marks, but they are little more than that. My grandfather thought he picked it up in the mid-late 30’s during the great depression. I have been meaning to date the rifle but i never have. Looking at the marks on it and Grandpa’s stories, it would have seen a few thousand rounds in its lifetime but probably not much more than that.

I would love to get shooting it one day. Iconic rifle, and to squeeze the same trigger that the man responsible for my family in Canada and born in the 1800’s would be pretty special to me.
Click to expand...

There is a 99% chance the bore was ruined by excessive cleaning or bad maintenance practices and not high round count.
That being said it could still shoot accurately enough for deer, and with a rebarrel it would shoot like new.
 
I have seen 94s with the locking mortises in the receiver so worn that the locking block and therefore the bolt had set back, creating remarkable excess headspace. Primers badly protruding.
That may or may not be related to shots fired; more likely to the number of times the action was cycled, perhaps with no lubrication and/or grit.
Given that a .308 may be delivering acceptable accuracy at 10 000 rounds, I think a .30-30 should exceed that - lower pressure, less throat erosion, never shot hot.
I installed a new mainspring in an old family 94 rifle. Good, clean used gun. Perfectly sound condition, with a fine bore. It had been bought new in 1907, and had been used for hunting in Central Ontario ever since. It had obviously been looked after. I cannot imagine how many pounds of meat it had put on the table.
 
I have an early 70s Model 94 that I acquired around 2001 I am it's third owner. I've only put a few hundred rounds through it. It's previous two owners, who I know, probably only put a couple boxes between the two of them.

I expect that gun will last my lifetime. The finish is absolute garbage on it, but it functions fine.
 
Great thread, good Questions.... interesting.

would be cool to now how the longevity is on the Winnies, an particularly the 3030 barrels..

i have the model 94 'big bore' but basically the same Jam, just a bigger hole and using Cast so barrel life should be longer again yeah?
 
My old model '94 in .32-40 was made in 1910 and has seen a pile of use over the years and the bore & chamber ain't the best, but the action is tight and smooth in
operation. As with my other model 94's, I shoot only cast boolit loads in 'em for hunting/plinking. I'll never worry about cooking a barrel out. ;)
Win 94 .32-40.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Win 94 .32-40.jpg
    Win 94 .32-40.jpg
    106.4 KB · Views: 65
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom