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

Well when your right your right. You don't know for a fact any more than I do nor does "Wilson", George Maddis, Norm Flayderman etc. ad nauseum what the good folks at Winchester were laughing or worrying about over 100 years ago.
As far as refinishes go I've seen some that were pathetic. Even worse. I don't believe I've ever seen one done with such poor work that you can't read either the receiver or barrel roll stamp. The models we are discussing here had very deep stamps. It's not exactly rocket science to re-set the roll stamp when refinishing a gun.

"Do I shoot these type of guns? Of course I do!"
Yes but do you actually own any or are you just another internet opiner regurgitating some one elses work? With all respect for your humorous barbs (thinking about changing my handle to Hat Snob) your posts clearly show that you have little if any actual hands on experience.

Not all rifles using the 1894 action are marked as such. The Model 55 and Model 64 (itself made in a couple of variants), for example, use the 1894 action.

Similarly the Models 53 and 65 use the 1892 action, and the Model 71 the 1886 action.

Each of these actions is different, and the differences are fairly obvious. The 1886 introduced the dual vertical sliding locking bolts, and it is a fairly massive action designed for long large calibre black powder rounds. Incidentally it wasn't Winchester's first .45/70 repeater, that honour goes to the Hotchkiss, but the bolt action Hotchkiss was not popular.

The 1892 is similar in principle but greatly scaled down and somewhat simplified, while the 1894 is rather different and has that distinctive dropping link at the bottom, to which the lever is hinged, to enable long cartridges to be cycled through a comparatively short receiver:

Nice drawing, shows exactly the single rear locking lug and dropping floorplate that is so evident in the 94, and makes it so obvious to identify. Apparantly, some find it amazing that it was designed by the same guy who also designed the 86 and 92.
Now that we all know that roll marks never become obscured, and that I don't know anything, its refreshing to see a diagram that makes the matter clear, and takes my foolish prattle out of the picture.

You see we do agree on something.
Other variants of the '94 not being roll stamped the same as the '94 is good info but really not pertinant to your statment;
"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 simple fact remains that the easiest way is to read the stamps or identify the chambering on the barrel. Clearly there are those that have a hard enough time just doing this or identifying which chamberings came with specefic models let alone learning the idiosyncrasies of each.
To illustrate this we have a self proclaimed expert allegedly working for museums that believes the '94 was factory chambered for the 44-40 in pre-'64 guns.

I don't work for a museum.
The 44 WCF was chambered in the 94 for a short run in the 1970s
I've seen roll marks on 94s that were unintelligable.
The best way to ensure that you actually have whatever you have is to know and understand the design and operation of your firearm.
It is also the easiest way to be certain.
Roll marks, like safeties can fail.
History is not a living document, nor is it opinion, nor is it a mystery. History is available to any who are willing to do the research.
We will never agree on anything.

"I don't work for a museum."

Seriously?


"The 44 WCF was chambered in the 94 for a short run in the 1970s."

Well once again your only partially correct. Winchester made several special runs of 94's in 44-40 post '64 including a run just before Winchester shut down. Perhaps you didn't understand PRE '64?


"The best way to ensure that you actually have whatever you have is to know and understand the design and operation of your firearm.
It is also the easiest way to be certain"

No sir. It would just be the best way if your gun was in such poor condition that all of the markings were illegible or if you had no idea at all what the chambering was. It will always be helpfull to understand the differences between the models.


"Roll marks, like safeties can fail."

Well ok. I guess you learn something new every day but I've personally never seen a Roll mark with a switch or even heard of a roll mark AD.


"History is not a living document, nor is it opinion, nor is it a mystery."

That's one opinion. Right or wrong. I can think of several mysteries of the past. I'm sure that some one has written an opinion about each. Doesn't make it factual.


"We will never agree on anything."

Wrong Again! LMAO

Stetson

Good post, and more accurate historically than any other posters i've seen here, man some people just love to start pissin matches

Stetson
I don't work for a museum (I did for a while once) and while I'm inclined to agree that rollmarks and stampings are a good way of identifying a rifle the differences between the 1886 action, 1892 action and 1894 action are obvious enough to allow differentiation between the three even when one is too far away to see the rollmarks.

.264bore
Er, yeah, right, whatever.

I agree. However in the case of those who are unfamiliar with the different models the stampings would be the obvious place to start.

The history of Winchester is no mystery, S.
In regards to roll marks, you can't grasp that a gun can be in safe, usable condition with roll marks illegible, apparantly 264 thinks this is just pissing, but it is a significant point.
Funny that you make a big deal about production runs, but are willingly obtuse about those facts which conflict with your conclusions.
Regardless, the important facts are that the 1894 is designed by the same guy who designed the 1886. By vitue of this fact alone, both gun designs are related.
You can nit pick all you want about the 1886 vs. the 1894, but the design concept-tube magazine, top eject, lever actuation remain the same and are thus related.
If you choose to believe that twin locking lugs vs. a rear lug and dropping floorplate are so significant as to make them unrelated, well fine, but your conclusion is based on detail, not design concept.
By virtue of the timing of the designs, JMB moved into an action of sufficient strength and less cost than previous models. This is called development, evolution, and as such proves that JMB continued to develop and refine his ideas.
I'm certain you will concoct some ascerbic reply or other, or your fan club will, however we simply do not agree on certain issues.
While you certainly have a leg up on production runs, it continues to stray from the original question.

I chimed in on this before the real pissin started...Any reason why this explanation was insufficient to ward off the pissin contest?

"Funny that you make a big deal about production runs, but are willingly obtuse about those facts which conflict with your conclusions."

Which facts are those?
You might recall that you are the one with the production claims that are short on fact and stray far from the topic at hand.
My conclusions that differ from yours;
I don't see how Winchester could have been overly concearned about loosing their market share to Marlin as you claim. The numbers produced by Marlin Vs Winchester in that time frame simply do no substantiate that theory.
I dont see how any one could completly over look the obvious that roll marks and stampings would be the place to start to identify one of the Winchesters in question. Personally I think a blind man could tell the difference between an '86 and a '94.
While I do grasp that there may be usable guns butchered by hacks or destroyed by age and wear with indistinguishable marks IMO their numbers are so small in the realm of collecting and shooting that it's a completely moot point.
You believe that history at large is not a mystery and all the answers are "available to those who do the research". Would you kindly mind telling us exactly what happened to all of that confederate gold? Or explaing the real history of the 1863 Remington? Of course I know you will recant and wish to narrow that to Winchester. In that case exactly how many '94's and in what years were they shipped to the belgian congo? Can you produce special order specefications for exact serial numbers from 1907-1925?

I belong to no fan clubs, and I'm not looking to pile on you, but at least come up with some legitimate arguements, make it interesting.

If Browning's name makes 86's and 94's related, how do they relate to the BAR, Colt 1911, Winchester 1897 or the Superposed?

If they're related by concept- ejection, magazine, and lever - then aren't they just as related to the Winchester 73 & 76, Marlin 1881, and I believe, the Bullard, and possibly others?

If you believe the locking system and linkage differences are insignificant, why was Browning issued patents on them?

I disagree that the 94 was an evolution of the 86, it was a stand alone design created around specific ammo to Winchester's specifications. The 86 couldn't be modified or resized to do what the 94 did. The 86 instead evolved into the 71. One of Browning's primary tasks for Winchester, was, as he put it, "building fences". Winchester looked to him for new designs and patents for sales, and also for turf protection, they were quite capable of refining his ideas and designs into well put out products.

Tim

Well, If you folks refuse to see any design similarities, sorry, its beyond any ordinary guy to help you. I can talk until I'm blue in the face and it won't make the slightest difference. You will find some nit picking point, and expound upon it ad adnauseum. As K.G. said, similarities abound.
Hat guy-I mention this because you have problems sticking to the point-THE HISTORY OF WINCHESTER IS NO MYSTERY. Last I looked, this post wasn't about gold, or remington, now was it?
You took issue with written history, and with conclusions regarding relationship and fact. I've tried my best to answer you, but you just continue to wander all over the place like a drunk on sunday.
I'm really, really tired of spending time with this, it gets nowhere. You are not interested in conversation, you are interested in bickering and arguing.
Have a great day.

"I know you will recant and wish to narrow that to Winchester. In that case exactly how many '94's and in what years were they shipped to the belgian congo? Can you produce special order specefications for exact serial numbers from 1907-1925? "


YAAAAAAAAWN.

If you scaled up a mod 94 to take the 50-110 and fired it, your corpse would have all kinds of gun parts sticking out of it.

Wayne

Gosh, thats really funny. Be careful, with posts like that folks will begin to realize what an idiot you are.

Speaking of idiocy I'm still waiting on those '94 Belgian Congo exact numbers and years.

That just makes no sense at all

You are saying "if you scaled it up to suit .50/110 it wouldn't suit .50/110", which simply defies logic. Scaling it up "to suit" means making it as big and strong as necessary, surely?

In any case I think you're confusing size with the strength the action needs. The .50/110 , while a large case which would require a commensurately large action to feed, is not a high-pressure load. It is after all a black-powder cartridge, with a big case running at low pressure, and the standard factory ballistics are nothing special by modern standards (300 grain at about 1600 fps)

Of course, you may have been joking, and if that was the case then I'm not laughing at you, but with you

Okay for gods sake dont you lot go acting like this is the optics forum now....

My question was about how much in common the 1894 design has with the 1886 - Not that I had a rifle and didnt know what model it was....
I havnt seen an '86 before otherwise I'd get it out and look at it.
Anyway, I think we have the answer, sort of.