Home Forums Lever Action Central Lever Actions - General Winchester 94AE in .30-30 - ???s

William, I am not intending to revitalize the M vs W fight. I am fortunate enough to own both, and I didn't even realize there was a "fight". I am speaking only for myself, and only from my own experience.
Various types of stock design have come and gone from both manufacturers, however, it is generally true that M. prefers a large, in my opinion, overly large forearm, which negatively impacts handling.
Not all Winchesters are light and nimble, but the 94 certainly is.
Yes, aftermarket sights have long been available, and thankfully, marbles, williams, and other continue to produce them.
Thanks for writing about your experience, it was insightful.

Sorry, I didn�t mean to make it sound like that. This is actually a very civil discussion compared to some!
Between 1900 and about 1908 there was quite a fight in the magazine shooting columns between Marlin and Winchester fans. It seems to have started about the time of the �Game hog� fights and the coming of game bag limits and seasons. Then the big bore and small bore fans started a fight over killing power: The .45 and .50 caliber fans disparaging the .30 U.S. Army and the Newton and Ross cartridges - and then their rifles. Then the inevitable fights over whether the 32 Winchester special was a better killer than the 32-40 or the 30-30. The fight gradually became: �My Marlin is better than your Winchester.� It ended up with John Marlin releasing a book titled: �The Original Game Hog� which slandered Shields. At this time there was also a fight over whether the pump shotgun was a sportsman�s weapon and then there were accusations that Peter�s shells wouldn�t extract from a Winchester Model 12 and Peters pulled their advertising, which caused the subscribers to write in with tales of success and failure with Peters shells�
If you remember the old Marlin talk forum where passions sometimes became heated you know the pot is still simmering 100 years later!

I agree we should be thankful that Marbles, Lyman, Williams and others still make sights. I wish Marlin had not decided to stop drilling their rifles for a side mounted receiver sight. The new Williams sight for the Marlins interferes with your thumb. I also wish Lyman had built a sight for the Angle Eject Winchesters. There are a number of advantages to the Lyman receiver sight over the Williams but Lyman appears to have been very short sighted with their marketing plan.
I enjoy discussing iron sights and snap shooting. My eyes are very poor and I cannot affectively use the newer fiber optic sights and the floating dot sights don�t seem to appeal to me.

Good history lesson there...sorta puts things into perspective. I guess its best said that most people who love rifles have their favorites, and are often overbearing about their choices. I've made this mistake more than once. I actually think there is no one size fits all rifle. Experience brings a greater perspective to life-at least it can.
My problem with the Marlin sights largely lies with the combination of shallow v express type rear-with a front post/bead which is impossible for my eyes to pick up in low light conditions. Even their semi buckhorn barrel sights don't seem to allow enough light in on both sides of the front post to allow my eyes to easily pick it up.
When I find myself hunting for the front sight, I know I need to choose something different.
I actually thought about replacing the front sight with a Marble's green fiber optic for visibility, but it seems you are suggesting that fiber optic sights are less precise than irons.
I have not used fiber optic sights enough to actually know how they might impact my shooting.
Winchester iron sights have a much better arrangement for my eyes. I find it simple to pick up the front sight, even in full shadow.
I don't know that receiver sights actually aid in accurate shooting, but I do believe they make getting the rifle into battery a faster proposition.
Anyhow, if you could go into more detail regarding your experience with fiber-optics, I would appreciate it.

I've been using FO sight exclusively on all my rifles that carry iron sights, some F/R, others front only w/peep, steadily converting them since FO sights came on the market, years ago.

As posted above, each human is a little different, in both their eyesight and the way they look at sights.

Added to that, some have no idea that FO front sight beads are available in the exact same sizes as their cherished Ivory and Gold Bead front sights ( 1/16"/fine and 3/32"/not fine ) and in two different colors (red or green) from various manufacturers like Williams, TruGlo, and Hi-Viz.

There can be a quantum increase in accuracy from a rifle just by switching from an open rear barrel sight to a receiver or tang peep sight - why do you think International target shooters use them when they're allowed ?

IMO, the reasons behind those having "problems" with a peep sight are that:
usually too small an aperture is used for hunting (often a small target arp ILO a larger ghost ring),
and ( the biggie) attempting to center the front sight in the peep aperture ILO simply looking through the aperture w/o looking at it, and looking instead at only the front sight, placing it on the target (game).

.

I agree neither maker, Winchester or Marlin provides ideal open sights for their rifles.
In West Texas there are areas of chained brush which have been allowed to grow back with mesquite, cactus and cedar. These are exciting areas for hunting, turkey, deer and pigs. The ranges are short and the shooting fast, the game is in motion when you first sight it. The open sight has a place here and for my eyes, I have found little difference between the tang, receiver and open sight when the shot is taken at 30-yards or closer. For me the size and color of the front sight has been the most important aspect of �shooting close.� My eyesight is poor; there is no other way to describe it. The variables of frontal light and side shadows are tough for the fiber optic front sight to overcome. I shoot better with the large white bead or a flat top post � the Sourdough is my favorite. With the light on my back the gold insert shows up well but generally I see the black flat top post. The Sourdough combined with the Marbles flat top folding s for me, a very fast combination to acquire.

I have only met one person who could shoot the fiber optic sight well and I believe this young man could shoot any sight well. I am certain there are others for whom the FO sights works well but when facing into the morning or afternoon sun, I cannot acquire it.

When the shooting distance gets much beyond 50-yards the tang and receiver sight are for me, superior rear sights.

If you are interested in close shooting a good place to start is an article by Ken Warner in the 1964 issue of Gun Digest titled: �Practice for Pointblank Precision.�

I am no expert on sights but have owned probably (12) Model 94 variants and (6) Model 336 variants (counting the 1895's). The marlin Microgrooves are more accurate and probably the cut groove barrels as well, than Model 94 Winchesters. However, I like tha looks and feel of the Model 94 better and all of the ones that I have fired have shot 3-1/2 inch groups or better at 100 yards. The Model 1895 that I own, on the other hand, can shoot MOA with handloads.

The Model 94, .32 Win Spec. that I use now, is accurate within 2 inch groups at 100 yards and will push a 170 gr bullet at 2400 fps. This is faster and has more energy than any .30-30 load.

I like both rifles and hope that they retool and make Model 94's again and keep making Model 336's and it variants, including the 1894 Marlin. There is a place in the woods for both. They both have earned the respect that they receive.

Well, the reason I question whether a receiver sight actually aids accuracy is because I can't tell if I shoot any more accurately with one or without one.
Some of my best shooting has occurred with the semi buckhorn barrel sight. I like receiver sights more than I like barrel sights because they are much faster, and for my needs in the steep and brushy mountains, faster means greater chance of getting a good shot off.
I think target shooters of various types have used receiver sights for over 100 years, so it could be as much tradition as any reality of excellence.
In my limited experience with fiber optic sights, I have found them to be extremely bright. What I think William is getting at is that this brightness throws off standard viewing of the front sight.
It is interesting to consider that there are different size fiber optic beads/tubes. The question is, does the difference in size offer a measurable difference in brightness?
I have heard from at least one other who uses fiber optics regularly that he finds them to be less precise than standard irons.
I don't think that riflemen or riflemakers of the past were quite as caught up in the marketing hype and newer is better stuff thrown at us today. There was a reason to go with gold or ivory beads, and it has a lot to do with picking up light-but not too much light.
I never got a chance to put it to a field test, but a friend had gotten ahold of one of the few 94's chambered in .450 Marlin. This gun was set up with a tall post front sight and a large aperture rear. What was unique about the front post was the white line insert. I believe the manufacturer was A-O sight systems. Wish I could have tested it, I felt it had promise.