The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

The Winchester 94 is not suited to pistol length cartridges. It was designed for the rimmed rifle cartridges of the day. Because of the b****** of the design it is weaker in both components and operation. Couple this with the ever ending pursuit of the then WRAC to cut the costs of manufacturing, several aspects of the rifle were sacrificed for a price point. Metal finish, wood and internal parts are prime examples. Ever wondered why Winchesters were often adorned with gilted banners, credits and busts and one commemorative model or another? To hide the appalling finish then charge a premium when decent wood was used!

The Marlin rifles, despite being a simpler, better design with better operation and the utilising of proper materials and finish from the start, offered out of the box what "gallery rifle" shooters at the time were looking for. There was also a steady stream of guns coming in then too. But, I imagine the main reason you'll see far more Marlins than Winchesters is simply that not everyone who shoots is a "gun person". It always surprises me how many actually aren't. Couple that with the new people starting out and they just look at what everyone else is using....

We have the lot in my club---I have an original Winchester '92 made in 1902----nothing has gone wrong with it in 30 years of my use. The '94 was modified and the action made by Miroku in Japan, resulting in a nice looking rifle on which you could mount a scope---the angle eject model. They break. You cannot easily get parts. Rossi's are indestructable, but not scope friendly. Just after the pistol ban, our club had a lot of Winchesters and a few Rossis. Now, there are still a few Rossis, but all but one of the '94AEs have gone and have been replaced by Marlins. The current trend is to plastic and alloy AR15 look-a -likes with lever release.
Fred

I have always had a soft spot for lever-action Winchesters. Never owned a lever action Marlin.

I have three Winchesters: a Model 94 Golden Spike commemorative (left to me by a favourite uncle who was a railroad man), a Model 94 Trapper and a 2nd Model 1894 (marked City of Toronto - dates from 1913) - all in .30 WCF. None of them are angle-eject, none has the completely unnecessary safety (either version of the God-awful, unnecessary safety) , nor would I own one that had either feature.

I also have a Rossi Model 92 in .44 Magnum, and my wife has one in .44-40.

rossi 92 all the way got mine running like a swiss watch only thing i would like to do is mount a bolt peep sight

greenshoots

greenshoots wrote:rossi 92 all the way got mine running like a swiss watch only thing i would like to do is mount a bolt peep sight

greenshoots

Skinners Sights do a barrel mounted peep sight. Mount one on the bolt and effectively it could actually be in a different, granted a tiny, tiny, minute amount, position every time the gun is cycled.

You can get a side mounted receiver sight.

You can get a side mounted receiver sight.

might go with that shes wearing a rear mounted peep at the moment but i want to get it as far back as possible

greenshoots

Why not try a tang sight?

Redcat

I have a marbles bullseye ghost ring on mine, no complaints from me, except that i've lost the sight riser slide. not bothered me as not shot over 100 yrd with it

Why not try a tang sight?


i dont find them comfortable to use had one one a trapdoor which was epoxied on ended up selling the rifle

greenshoots

Tang sights get in the way of getting a proper grip in the rifle - well they do for me anyway.

I have one on a Pedersoli Sharps carbine and I am always very careful that the recoil doesn't cut my hand. it's actually a bit distracting.