[Reb]

J Miller,
Read about you swapping the lower tang assembly on a Winchester 94 to "correct" the rebounding hammer problem.  How about some details.  Was this an easy fix?  Was it a standard 94 or a Big Bore?  Any major snags?  Trigger improvement?  Tell all!!

Reb

 

[J Miller]

Reb,
Sorry about my late response.  I hadn't read this area lately.  
My Mdl 94 started it's life as a 16" trapper in .45 Colt.  At the time this was the only long gun in my favorite caliber.
It was pre safety, but as I said had the rebounding hammer action.
So I took it apart, took my pre USRAC Win 94 apart and compared the lower tang assemblies.
Where they mount into the reciever they are identical.
The only difference is the floppy hammer.
I put the standard lower tang in, it just went right in, and put the screw in, put the stock back on and went shooting.
It worked perfectly.  No problems in over several thousand rounds.
The only difference you will see is that when the breech bolt drops down the hammer will move forward more than a pre rebounding hammer gun will.
This is because the metal just in front of the hammer, a little wedge shaped piece, is narrower in the new guns to make room for the new action.
Thats all there was to it.
I still need to get a trigger job done on the lower tang I bought, but other than that it was money well spent.
As for trigger improvement, yes there was. I am still using the lower tang from my old 30-30 because of needing a t.j. on the new tang, but any standard 94 lower tang can have a much better trigger function than the rebounding ones.
I don't know if this swap will work on the guns with the cross bolt safetys though.  I have never had one apart to look at.

(Edited by J Miller at 8<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->8 pm on Feb. 6, 2002)

 

[Reb]

Thanks for the Info J.
I have a Winchester 356 Big Bore that has the rebounding hammer but no safety.  I think replacing the hammer with a non-rebounding type may clear up some misfires that I think may be due to light hammer fall or hard primers (CCI 200).  I have heard that the Big Bores had metric threads and some other differences that will preclude a simple tang swap.  Guess there is nothing to do but to bite the bullet and try it.

 

[J Miller]

Reb,
From the 94 Big Bores I have seen the lower tang is the same as the standard guns.  And as for metric, I doubt it.  I believe that gunmakers in the US anyway, use what is called "Machine threads"  it is a different size than some of the stuff you buy at the hardware store, but not metric.  I could be wrong about that.
Anyway, the only screw that actually threads into the lower tang is the long tang screw for the stock.
The screw that goes crosswise threw the reviever does not thread into the lower tang.
And if you get the newer lower tang with the coil springs, the hammer is held to the tang by a hollow pin.  The reciever screw passes right through it.
That is why I ordered a "Lower Tang Assembly" when I ordered mine from Gun Parts Corp.  
They will ask you the serial number of your gun because of the many variations.  So find someone that has a later model Pre rebounding hammer gun and use his serial number.
The earlier lower tangs with the flat main spring wont fit in the later guns if you use the later stocks.  At least not without modifing the stocks.
One other thing, when I ordered my tang arse. I noted on the order form that I prefered New.  Best used otherwise.  I got new.  FYI

 

[Nathaniel]

If you get one of the lower tang assemblies from the late 60s or early 70s, you may have to grind the "ears" or tabs off of the sides to get it to slide into the receiver. No big deal. I did it and all went very well. No more lawyer BS.

 

[kdub]

WoW !!!


An 18 year old thread brought out of the darkness from long ago.