Shooters Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Read through the 2003 Winchester/USRAC catalog today at my local gun dealers. The Model 94 is finally being restored to its old, clean lines - for 2003 that "MOON CRATER DIVOT" hammer block safety is being moved to the tang (ala the limited run M92/M1886 style). Evidently a lot of shooters must have expressed their dismay at the eyesore the hammer block safety was on an otherwise very pleasing receiver design. I made a point at the NRA convention in Charlotte a few years ago to stop by the USRAC booth and tell them I would only buy older/used guns without the eyesore safety. At any rate the pictures sure show a better looking gun - they even have 5 versions of the 9410 lever-shotgun. Odessa
 

·
Beartooth Regular
Joined
·
5,220 Posts
That is good news. That was the ugliest blemish on a fine firearm I've seen in a long, long time. Now how 'bout them getting rid of that safety altogether? Never quite understood why we need an additional safety on an exposed hammer gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Because some idiot shot himself accidentally. I heard he was climbing a tree or fence? He could not face the fact that he was at fault. So with our "victim" society he figured it had to be the fault of the weapon. So with help from a greedy lawyer they decided to sue the manufacturer. The manufacturer settled out of court and both parties are mute on the subject. And there you have it, a new safety device.

Now some group is trying to sue the fast food companies because they are fat. They can't control themselves from stuffing their faces. It possibly can't be their fault they are fat. So some shrink tells them it is not their fault. The blame is passed on to their parents but they have no money. Hey, we can blame the fast food companies for making me fat. They have plenty of money.

I wonder if Rosy will blame the silverware manufacturer for making her fat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
It would be nice to see if Marlin would do the same. I seem to remember an article about a gunsmith somewhere in the mid-west i believe, that manufactures a "plug" to fill the hole left in the Marlins receiver after the crossbolt safety is removed. Does anyone have the web address for the gunsmith i am referring to??
Thanks,
Scott
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
145 Posts
PRAISE THE LORD!!!

Winchester is finally doing away with the CRATER in the side of the 94?!

I had the misfortune of buying a Wrangler in 44 Mag. the first year they came out with the godawful thing. As usual there was no advanced warning of the change. I opened the box at the gun shop and said "What the ****?"

I never got over that initial disapointment and swapped it off for a Savage about 4 months later.

I might have to start actually looking at new 94s again.

Reb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
That's GREAT! Now if the produce as promised the 480 in the 94. Odessa, I heard that it is supposed to be in the 2003 catalog again, is that true?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
739 Posts
:D This news makes me happy. I did't like the Angle Eject feature when it came out, but can live with it.
But that horrible safety. I will never buy one with that ignorant design.

Now I wonder if I can replace the rebounding hammer action with an older one? Kinda like I did with my presafety AE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Combat Diver, yes the 480 Ruger was in the catalog as I remember. I didn't get to keep it as it was the only advance copy sent to the gunshop for their use. Hopefully the new catalogs (and tang safety M94's) will be out soon. I had two of the CBS type and like Reb and J. Miller above I just couldn't stand to look at it, so I traded off both guns, even though they shot just fine. I might like one of those .480 Rugers myself, then could add a Super Redhawk, hmm.........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
Odessa-Thanks again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
J Miller,

Yes you can replace the rebounding hammer with the gawd awful safety. The only problem is the hammer will never contact the safety regardless the position the safety is in. You will notice that on your pre-safety AE the hammer sits further into the receiver contacting the bolt. This could lead to someone somewhere down the line think the safety was engaged when it really is not. It is no big deal as long as you know about it. But if someone who didn't know??

I have the same problem. When I get the chance I am going to have the hammer fixed so that it will contact the safety. I am going to have a gunsmith add some metal to the hammer just like on the rebounding hammer. I do not care for the safety myself. But if I removed the safety it would leave a big hole. I can live with the safety. It's my kick around truck/trunk rifle thats goes everywhere.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
739 Posts
Yanqui,
My comments about replacing the rebounding hammer action was directed at the new 2003 version that is supposed to have a "tang" safety like the Japaneese 92's and 86's.
I would not even purchase a 94 with the cross bolt safety.

Currently I have an early 94 AE without the safety that I have converted back to the original action.
As for anyone using my guns that don't know about such things, it won't happen. I don't allow anyone to handle my guns untill they are well informed about the safe handling of them.
Safetys such as the ugly crossbolt that Win. puts in the 94 are gadgets. The only real safety for any firearm is the person that is using it.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top