Winchester centenials - why the hate?
- Thread starter H Wally
- Start date
- Location
- Winnipeg,Man.
I have a regular Winnie 26" octagonal barrelled rifle that was made in 1906. Still functions like it did when made. Machined parts and by every means "quality". I do have a commemorative Lone star that is unfired ( just for show), but use the "old girl "whenever I can as it rings 200 yard gongs and bowls game over. just give me the old stuff , not the flashy stuff. It does not really matter what they may look like on the outside, it comes down to how they work on the inside.
there are so many commemoratives coming out of the closets as they do not draw "collector money" ( as many thought)....The stamped parts are really faulty and function like doodoo on the post 64 Commems. Nice to look at but as shooters even they do not stand up long if used extensively. There may be exceptions IMO.
there are so many commemoratives coming out of the closets as they do not draw "collector money" ( as many thought)....The stamped parts are really faulty and function like doodoo on the post 64 Commems. Nice to look at but as shooters even they do not stand up long if used extensively. There may be exceptions IMO.
I have little use for most commemoratives. Manufactured "collectors' items" with no intrinsic value. Many were assembled with the worst features of the early post '64 redesign. Have a look at how the forend cap and its cross screw engage the barrel on the octagon barrelled versions.
The one commemorative I was waiting for was the John Crapper commemorative - with little roller type sling swivels, and a porcelain cap box in the stock.
The one commemorative I was waiting for was the John Crapper commemorative - with little roller type sling swivels, and a porcelain cap box in the stock.
That was standard rifle length until the 1920's when the rifle was dropped and the model 55 (forerunner of the model 64) came out.It had a 24 inch barrel and was a real nicely balanced rifle. The old 26 inch 94s look long but they hang real nice offhand. Ask anyone that owns one.
There is a quality issue with the commemoratives, they are post 1964 Winchesters and were more cheaply made. But if you like it and the price is right, buy it.
I've noticed some odd features in some of the commemoratives, most of them still have the good flat mainspring like the pre-64. Many, but not all, have the stamped lifter common to all early post 64 94's. My Dad's Lonestar has the stamped lifter, but the Klondike and Commanche carbines have the cast one. The Commanche has had thousands of rounds through it with no trouble at all, and it remains tight. The Klondike does feel a bit loose and rough, but all 94's of that vintage, at least the ones I've seen, feel that way. I won't use any 94's made from 1964 to about 1983 or so, because I've seen too many parts break in them. I even had one in which the cartridge guides were broken. I use a 1927 vintage .30WCF rifle with 26" round barrel as my everyday bush rifle, and the balance is far superior to the carbines. Your hand carries on wood, not metal. Makes a big difference at the end of a long trek!
I disagree entirely, I've packed both carbine and rifle unknown hundreds of miles, and the carrying and shooting balance of the 26" round barrel rifle is far superior to the SRC. The weight isn't really the issue, it's where your hand holds the rifle. On the carbine, it's right on the receiver, while on the rifle, you hold the wooden forearm. It makes a real difference in the summer, when the metal heats up, and also the winter. That metal gets pretty darn cold! The rifle really settles on the target after a long hike, too, where the light carbine sort of waves about. I can't say how either of them shoot off the bench, I've never used it.
- Location
- Winnipeg,Man.
i shoot a rifle and a carbine regularly. the rifle is much more consistant both offhand and bench rested. For carrying, I do prefer the rifle as balance point is further forward on the wood. As for the extra weight, it is unnoticeable when walking. I only use my 2- 1906 30-30 rifles when hunting bush...the extra length is never in the way and the extra length gives a better sight picture as well as providing a further distance shot....... And I am curious what a regular 94 is.....
I also shoot rifles and carbines in 45-70, 38-55, 32 Special. 25-35, 25-20.
I also shoot rifles and carbines in 45-70, 38-55, 32 Special. 25-35, 25-20.
what do you disagree?????? I'm not talking about how they Carry so much as to hand position. Whatl I said is they weigh more if you like that then carry one. Most guys like lighter when it comes to hiking and heavier when it comes to shooting.Also a 26 round barrel is a LOT lighter than a 26 Octagon. Really no comparison. All the 67 Cent rifles are Octagon.
I too hunt with 94's. I have a lovely 26" round barreled 25-35 (1900) that shoots better than I can hold . But when I go for a days walk I invariably pick a 20 carbine (with peeps) I do agree with the longer sight radius produced with the longer barrel. But I'm pretty certain those 26 inch cent models push 8 lbs maybe close to 9 correct me if I'm wrong. Most of my short ones top out before 6lbs
Me, too, except for the .25-35, and a .32-20 instead of the .25-20. And a few .38-40's, and a 95 in .303 Brit. I believe most folks have forgotten that the "regular 94" was the 26" rifle with a round barrel, until they put rifle sights on the carbine and discontinued the rifle. Such a shame, I think that was a very poor decision. The Marlin 1895 cowboy in .45-70 had potential to be a great woods rifle, but they put the rear sight right where it digs into your hand!
Incidentally, I love carrying and shooting my Winchester 1895. I don't know where Mikey V. is coming from when he says they are poorly balanced and the mag gets in the way. Then again, he doesn't exactly look like he carries his rifles much! Personally I think the Marlin Cowboy again is on the heavy side( for me anyway)
I shoot a 72 Marlin straight grip BO s/n ballard rifled 45-70 that is not too bad.
I'm going to chop the mag on one of my 94 carbines to 3 rds to make a little lighter traveling rifle. I sometimes play with a Browning 92 in 44 mag (5lbs empty) but consider it light for a deer rifle past 60 yds. (only because I do have other stuff that is much better suited. 348-7x30-32 spec-45-70-30-30-250-3000 and a host of bolt action stuff
I shoot a 72 Marlin straight grip BO s/n ballard rifled 45-70 that is not too bad.
I'm going to chop the mag on one of my 94 carbines to 3 rds to make a little lighter traveling rifle. I sometimes play with a Browning 92 in 44 mag (5lbs empty) but consider it light for a deer rifle past 60 yds. (only because I do have other stuff that is much better suited. 348-7x30-32 spec-45-70-30-30-250-3000 and a host of bolt action stuff
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
Several comments:
1. at $375 you stole it, that's less than I paid for mine 15 years ago.
Winchester recognized that they had a problem almost immediately post-64, but it was too late to change back. Somewhere I have an article about the source of the commems, but IIRC it was an employee idea/comments/suggestions drive. The 1867-1967 comm were actually a means of cleaning up the left-over 1866-1966 comm receivers and parts.
The rest as they say "is history"...
On the bright side with mine, I replaced the stamped lifter with the post 1971 cast/machined lifter, and a post 1971 lever with the kidney shaped link slot.
Mine shot like a house on fire, and with a little work cleaned up substantially.
2. In @1970 Winchester changed: cast/machined lifter, lever slot angle and something with the lever link (the part that opens with the lever). This is why some commems are substantially mechanically better than others.
The first guns to demonstrate this are the 1871-1971 NRA commem series.
To tell the "aweful" truth a 1971 to angle eject Win'94 is actually mechanically and materially a BETTER gun than a pre-64 M.94, it just doesn't have the cachet.
1. at $375 you stole it, that's less than I paid for mine 15 years ago.
Winchester recognized that they had a problem almost immediately post-64, but it was too late to change back. Somewhere I have an article about the source of the commems, but IIRC it was an employee idea/comments/suggestions drive. The 1867-1967 comm were actually a means of cleaning up the left-over 1866-1966 comm receivers and parts.
The rest as they say "is history"...
On the bright side with mine, I replaced the stamped lifter with the post 1971 cast/machined lifter, and a post 1971 lever with the kidney shaped link slot.
Mine shot like a house on fire, and with a little work cleaned up substantially.
2. In @1970 Winchester changed: cast/machined lifter, lever slot angle and something with the lever link (the part that opens with the lever). This is why some commems are substantially mechanically better than others.
The first guns to demonstrate this are the 1871-1971 NRA commem series.
To tell the "aweful" truth a 1971 to angle eject Win'94 is actually mechanically and materially a BETTER gun than a pre-64 M.94, it just doesn't have the cachet.
Most certainly not. I have worked on piles of 94's, and generally, the pre-64 models have a worn out carrier, but just need a good cleaning. On post 64's, I've seen three with broken cartridge guides, four of the cast carriers broken, at least three broken firing pins that I remember, plus two of the ones with rebounding hammers that consistently mis-fired. Mind, all of these rifles were heavily used, mostly by local Indians and fisherman. Still, the older rifles are outlasting the newer ones. There are several PCMR 94's still in constant use out here, many of which must have fired thousands of rounds. The only good thing I've noticed about the post 64 rifles, is they seem to be made of harder steel. I haven't seen any with loose headspace, like you often see on well used pre 64 rifles.
