Home Forums Lever Action Central Lever Actions - General Winchester 1886 - 1894??

Could you describe the 1894 as a smaller version of the 1886? What are the differences or simlarities?

NO the smaller version of the 1886 is the model 92. At least if I understand your question.

The model 71 was the closest to the 1886.
The model 65 and 53 were the closest to the 1892.
The model 55 and 64 were the closest to the 1894.
The 1892 was only chambered for small rounds and pistol ammo. 25-20, 32-20, 44-40, 218 bee etc.
The 1886 was chambered for the largest rounds and had the strongest action of the models listed here. Calibers were 50-110-450, 50-110 Express, 45-90, 45-70, 40-82, 40-70, 40-65, 38-70 and 38-56.
The 1894 action was chambered for the 30-30, 32-40, 38-55, 25-35 and 32 special.
All three actions are different mechanicly.

As the story goes the Winchester people came to JMB and asked him if he could shrink down the 1886 to smaller dimensions to handle the smaller cartridges. He got it out so fast they ended up having to pay him a bonus for his work, which was the model of 1892.

As others have said, the 92 is based on the design principles of the 86. As I understand it, the 94 was Browning's answer to Winchesters request for a rifle the size of a 92 that would handle medium sized rifle cartridges, I guess they were playing catch-up with Marlin. The linkage, locking and feeding mechanisms are all different, and to Winchesters good luck, it was also cheaper to build. The 94 made quite a good reputation for itself early on, they went just about everywhere.

Tim

Hmm. I have worked with 92's and 94's and they seem very much the same except the locking lugs at the back. I havnt seen a '86 though.
If the 92 is a scaled down 1886, and the 94 is longer action to handle 30/30, then could you say that the 94 is based on the 1886? (- since very different to other rifles going before like '66 /'73 et all.)

The '92 is not just a scaled down '86. It shares the same basic bolt design, locking bars and extractor. Mechanicly it has fewer parts and a simplified action in comparison to the '86. You could not say IMO that the '94 is based the '86 any more than we could say they are all based on the '66. This should be immediately apparent if you open the lever on the both. The '94 is a completely different beast.

Thanks for that.

Part of the confusion possibly stems from the 94s long production run, where it has been chambered for a wide variety of cartridges, including revolver rounds.
The easiest way to discern if you are dealing with a 94 is to open the action-the 94 has one large locking lug at the rear of the floorplate. The 86, 92, and 71 all have dual locking lugs on the side of the bolt.
The 94 is related to the 86, but is a new design. It was concieved from the start as a smokeless gun. Ironically, the steels capable of handling the high pressure smokless powder would not be perfected for another year, so the 94 started life once again as a black powder number.
The 86-or 1886 if you will was Winchester playing catch up with Marlin. Marlin had introduced the first commercially successful repeating rifle in 45-70, and its sales were devastating Winchester.
The 86 was Winchesters' answer, and many still believe the 86 is the finest full power levergun ever designed. Over the years, the 86 went through a number of changes. Perhaps the greatest was the tranformation into the 71. Its proprietory cartridge, the .348 WCF remains one of the most poweful levergun loadings of all time.
Most appropriately, the 94 stepped in with cartridges of lesser power than the 86, but also with lighter weight, and slightly trimmer dimensions.
Far more 94s were built than 86s, but this seems to be doing little to hold down their prices. Recently saw a saddle ring carbine with original carbine sights and buttplate, made in the 30s, asking price was over $900.
Just a few years ago, it would have been expensive at $500.
I love the 94 for its balance, light weight, and pointability. I'm one of the few folks who admits that I really like the 30-30, I have it with me often, and it stands me in good stead.
My lil carbine is so compact, that a few folks think I'm packin a .22LR! Funny, that, cuz the 9422 is one heckuva gun as well. But thats another story.

"The 94 is related to the 86".

The '94 is not related to the '86 in any way save for the fact that it is a Winchester designed by JB.
The easiest way to tell if you have a model '94 is to read the stamp that indicates which model it is or simply observe the caliber.

"Marlin had introduced the first commercially successful repeating rifle in 45-70, and its sales were devastating Winchester."

Marlin did in point of fact introduce the model 1881 five years ahead of the Winchester '86. However, Winchester was already a household name. The total production on the Marlin was around 20,000 Vs 160,000 for the Winchester '86 alone.
It is important that we put every thing in historical context. Winchester also sold approximately 700,000 model '73's. Many of those undoubtably over that same time frame. The 1881 was Marlins only model available from 1881 to 1888. I'm certain Winchester was aware of the competition but more than likely the only time in history that Winchester was "devistated" by Marlin was in recent years.

All of JMB�s lever action rifles share a lot in similarities. Even though they�re different, you can see 1886 influence in just about every lever action JMB made. You can also see 1894 influence in the 1895. So, while they�re most certainly different rifles from model to model, they all share a whole bunch of similarities.

Well, you answered the question of relationship, just as you were trying to dismiss it.
In regards to identifying the model, apparantly you haven't been around enough to notice that sometimes roll marks become obscured or lost, thus my point about the action.
Re; the introduction of the 86-John Browning was told he had the future of the company in his hands-with his design. Strange words for a company whose reputation was already so well established.
The number of people requiring a 45-70, or other big bore rounds have always been few when compared to smaller cartridges. However, if you conclude that 45-70 sales were of little impact, then you have to explain why such a big deal was made over the 86 by Winchester brass.
Anyway, your dissertation does nothing to address the original question.

If a gun were so degraded that you could not read either the barrel or receiver stamps it's likely a completely moot point. Do you collect or shoot many in that condition?
I think a more appropriate question along your whole side bar pseudo history lesson is why do you see it as unusual that a successful company like Winchester would have the bean counters jumping for joy with a new model that they knew would increase their revenue?

"Anyway, your dissertation does nothing to address the original question."

No it does not. My earlier posts and the posts of others before me answered the OPS's question.

In "simple terms" it a matter of action length and location of the rear locking lugs..otherwise the 92, 94, 71. 86 are all pretty much the same.

I'd go along with all but the 94 personally

Yup. The '94 is a different beast.

I agree......

Just drop the levers and look at the rifles with the actions opened, the differences become obvious.

Tim

.


Any rifleman who can not see the difference should find another hobby.

Grins

.

Re; roll marks...
Excuse me for pointing this out, but have you ever heard of refinishing?
I can think right off hand of several guns that were refinished to the detriment of their roll marks.
Bad roll marks are not indicative of abuse in unrefinished guns-just hard use. Out here in the west, people actually use their guns, and yes, the finish and the roll marks will at times suffer.
Do I shoot these type of guns? Of course I do! But then, I'm just a regular guy, I'm not a super snob collector who can stuff guns in a closet an just look at em on occasion.
This is so obvious that its stupid, but for the sake of the record there it is.
Commiting pseudo history is exactly what you are guilty of in your rewrite of the significance of the 86. If you took the time to check sources, such as R.L. Wilson, you would see the error of your ways.
Note, you are welcome to your opinion, but where it differes from the historical record it is simply your opinion.
I had a couple stetsons over the years, never found em to wear any better than hats of lesser glitz.