First, I'm not trying to argue with you. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue. Discussion is how reasonable people either come to a meeting of the minds, or respectfully disagree.
You did write some things that perhaps ought to be expanded on:
there is a distinct difference in how the original guns were made and how Miroku made them throughout the 80's, 90's and how they make them now.
What's that difference? I'm not speaking to the safety. I'm speaking to manufacturing processes, metalurgy, etc. Why do you believe the Miroku makes a worse gun under the Winchester name than they did under the Browning name, when they are both made for Browning (Browning owns Winchester)? Again, I'm not talking about subjective dislikes, like the safety. Why would Browning okay Miroku reducing quality on their guns just because of a name change?
If you ever hold a B92 ..., you will notice just how good they look and feel. This is not true with the later Miroku made Winchesters.
It is in my experience, I've owned both. Just curious what your specific observation was that leads you to this opinion?
I bought one of the Winchester 1886 SRC in 45-70 when they were first introduced, and they were excellent in the fit and finish, but if you tried to open the action just a bit to check to see if it was loaded, it would jam and you couldn't close the action back up like you could with the originals, or the Browning.
I have not experienced that with my 1886 Extra Light. I've only run factory ammo through it: Federal Fusion 300 gr, Remington 300gr and 405gr, and LeverEvolution, all without a hickup. You, unfortunately experienced malfunctions on every Miroku Winchester 1886 you tried. I can't explain it. I've never heard of, or read, anyone else experiencing a 100% failure rate on the Miroku 1886s. But I also don't read a lot of forums.
The 92's are not the quality that the Browning B92 was for a number of reasons. Whether you like it or not, the tang safety is a poor idea and worse is the rebounding hammer. Fit and finish isn't what it was with the B92 either. If you can't see the difference, you haven't looked close or you have never seen a B92.
The safety is a subjective dislike and not a quality issue. I understand purists don't like it. But aside from the safety, what is the difference in quality between a 1892 with a Browning name and one with a Winchester name, and more importan tly, why would Miroku, who made both suddenly reduce quality when its roll marked Winchester? Here is disagree with you, because with respect to the 1892, I have owned both, and both were stellar. And again, let's not compare a high grade or commemorative rifles to a workaday gun. High end guns are supposed to be finished better. Both my 1892s were blued and walnut, as basic as they come.
As far as the Winchester 1895's go, they suffer from the same afflictions mentioned before. The original 1895's are still affordable and shooting an original will always beat shooting a reproduction, especially in the true 1895 calibers such as 38-72 and 40-72. There is a cool factor there that no modern gun can replicate...
Here I agree with you - the originals are cooler. No argument. I have a 1901 made Marlin 1893 takedown with an octagon barrel in .30-30 that my great grandfather hunted turkey with in Pennsylvania. It's a great gun and it's way cooler than any other I own. But it doesn't mean my other Marlins are bad. They're just different. And the newer guns are more reliable. My 1893 jams occassionally. But cool is, again, subjective.
I haven't heard of specific mechanical or quality issues with the Miroku 1895s. I have read opinions from people that own both originals and repros who hold a diametrically opposite position - that they think the Miroku is better. But they don't give much in the way of a reason, either.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/kl0ojCj.jpg)
