|
|
Post by steve88gt on Feb 2, 2024 20:45:06 GMT -5
Why do the Marlin 1894’s get all the attention and the Winchester M94AE’s do not.
I have a beautiful pre-safety AE in .44. I don’t see much about them in the forums. The Marlin’s are way more popular.
Both are drilled and tapped on the receiver top. Both are pretty smooth and Winchester added the safety years after Marlin added it.
Both guns go for a decent amount used.
My dad has a pre-Remlin 1894 in .44. I should take them both out and do a side by side comparison.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by stubshaft on Feb 2, 2024 21:33:25 GMT -5
I own a JM Marlin and a M94AE and like both of them well enough. However, even though I generally prefer Winchesters, I HATE that gawdawful safety on the AE!
|
|
|
|
Post by z1r on Feb 2, 2024 21:53:10 GMT -5
People can complain all they want, I have a 94AE in .45 Colt and it has been nothing but good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 2, 2024 23:17:20 GMT -5
I have an early Winchester Trapper in 45 Colt. The rifle is fantastic except for one thing. The chamber is oversized. I've told to friends that have the same Model year, talking about a handful of these rifles, and all have an oversized chamber. This is in 45 Colt only. Now the good news is Winchester has a 1 int 24 twist. I it's definitely not 1 in 38 like Marlin done with their 94 in bolt 44 Mag and 45 Colt. I have one of their early 94 Cowboys with the octagon barrel and it has the 1 in 38. It's fine with heavy bullets up to 100 yards, but by 200 yards it startes spreading the group. The Winchester does not. Hopefully when Ruger get's around to building the Marlin 94's they will correct the triwt. They already have corrected the twist on the 336 Marlin in 444 Marlin chambering. Hope this helps.
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by jeffh on Feb 3, 2024 13:27:35 GMT -5
Why do the Marlin 1894’s get all the attention and the Winchester M94AE’s do not....
Sincerely, this is just a guess, but I've seen Marlins all over the place and even owned one long ago, but I've never seen the Winchester in the flesh and rarely hear anyone speak of them - good or bad.
I've always assumed they were somewhat rare compared to the Marlin, so if only a few people really know much at all about them, fewer people would have anything to say about them.
There's always that set of drilled/tapped holes running the length of the top of the Marlin receiver which seems to sway many.
I'm not picking one over the other, just hypothesizing based on what little I know - especially about the Winchesters.
Now, if I WERE to pick, I like the Winchester more than the Marlin, but the Winchester 92. So compact and light... So, maybe the fact that the 92 exists in profusion (think clones), the 94 gets overlooked?
|
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 3, 2024 13:42:55 GMT -5
Why do the Marlin 1894’s get all the attention and the Winchester M94AE’s do not.... Sincerely, this is just a guess, but I've seen Marlins all over the place and even owned one long ago, but I've never seen the Winchester in the flesh and rarely hear anyone speak of them - good or bad. I've always assumed they were somewhat rare compared to the Marlin, so if only a few people really know much at all about them, fewer people would have anything to say about them. There's always that set of drilled/tapped holes running the length of the top of the Marlin receiver which seems to sway many. I'm not picking one over the other, just hypothesizing based on what little I know - especially about the Winchesters. Now, if I WERE to pick, I like the Winchester more than the Marlin, but the Winchester 92. So compact and light... So, maybe the fact that the 92 exists in profusion (think clones), the 94 gets overlooked?
The 1892 Winchester is a scaled down version 1886 Winchester. It was basically for revolver cartridges or cartridges that are not as long as rifle cartridges. It's a very strong action. |
|
|
|
Post by z1r on Feb 3, 2024 14:19:28 GMT -5
My take, when 94AE's in pistol cartridges were being made, Win 92's were less common and more expensive. The Marlin, while not cheap, was affordable, especially compared to Winchester and Browning 92's. Further, it was common for the media to lambast the post 64 Winchesters. I know that this is what steered my to buy my first levergun, a Glenfield 30A followed several years later by a Marlin 1894 when I needed a companion for my SBH. The Marlins are heavier but offered trouble free scope mounting for those that preferred optics. Early Rossi offerings were not near as nice as today's versions. I picked up several new Rossis and they operate more smoothly and are less picky with feeding than their predecessors.
I guess I am lucky that my 94AE didn't come with an oversized chamber. For what it cost me, it makes one heck of a truck gun!
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by jeffh on Feb 3, 2024 15:11:05 GMT -5
That all makes sense to me - including factors I'd not even thought of. As a younger man, I was once told by an older/wiser man that the Marlin, which competed with the Winchester 94 when they were both new, was the "better gun." He said that the Winchester was only more common because it was more affordable. Now, I'm not saying either one is better than the other, because I don't think it's that simple, for one thing, and for another, I just don't know.
Still, when a young man is told something by someone older and ostensibly wiser than he, it tends to stick in the young mans mind and serves as the default truth until such time as independent and objective scrutiny stands in the young man's way and demands his attention.
I got my Rossi 92 in 08 or 09. I truly believe that the latest ones are coming out of the factory in MUCH better shape.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 3, 2024 15:30:47 GMT -5
First let me say I'm bias towards 92 and 94 Winchesters. Let me tell some of the things I've learned. The Marlin 336 is not stronger then the Winchester 94 and I doublt the Marlin 94 is stronger then the Winchester 92. I don't like Marlin 336's. They heavier, and most likely from their excess bulkier wood and speaking of the wood they really don't need that bulbous forearm. Even Mike Venturio mentioned that. The Marlin 336 has had problme with it's two piece firing pin. When Marlin chambered their 336 for the 45-70 they originally used acme barrel threads. With some people pushing the limits of the 45-70 in that rifle a weak area appeared. That weak area is the thin metal between the barrel thread hole in the receiver and the magazine tube hole in the receiver. To make a joke about it I call it the "taint" area. They have been cracking there. Marlin rectified that by going to a V thread which leaves more metal in that area then the Acme thread. Winchester wasn't without woes either then they starting chambering such rounds as the 375, 356, and 307 in their 1894's They had to beef up the front and rear of the receivers, thus coming up with the 94 Big Bore. They also have a fatter barrel thread shank on them. I'd say the biggest thing going for the Marlin is it's flat top making it easier to scope. Winchester has addressed that with the Angle Eject, but even when they were top eject there were side mounts to mount an offset scope. I have a pre 64 Model 94 Winchester in 32 Special with a Paul Jagger side mount that the scope can be removed fast and simple by pushing a button on it. I can assure side mounts are solid and being off to the side some thing "well the bullet crosses the line of sight at some point". Well it does, but let me tell you it's way out there. Swiss straight pull rifles with offset scopes can easily shoot to 600 yards with no problems inbetween. So we have it, just like cars we don't all like the same manufacture. It's too bad Winchester quit the Model 88, Savage the Model 99, and SAKO the Finnwolf model.
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by jeffh on Feb 3, 2024 17:45:30 GMT -5
The 1892 Winchester is a scaled down version 1886 Winchester. It was basically for revolver cartridges or cartridges that are not as long as rifle cartridges. It's a very strong action.
Yes, a "mini-'86," so to speak. Quite the neat little rifle and cute as a bug compared to its 'ol man.
I thought (but could well be wrong) the 92s first chamberings in 38-40, 44-40, 32-20(?) were originally rifle cartridges, later adapted to revolvers. Something I've always sort of believed, but never thought to grub around in historical references to verify. But, by '92, I suppose they'd have been adapted to revolvers. I have to dig out some books now.
|
|
|
|
Post by z1r on Feb 3, 2024 18:18:03 GMT -5
As far as I know, you are correct Jeffh. Those cartridges were in use in the '73 Winchester, then adapted to revolvers, and later chambered in the '92. What always intrigued me was that teh '73 remained in production for quite some time after the '92 was introduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 3, 2024 19:21:34 GMT -5
Well I said the 92 was for revolver cartridge and cartridges that weren't long. The 94 was a rifle for rifle cartridges and now they shoot both rifle and revolver cartriges. Y'all know what I meant. My favorite lever currently is my 1886 Browning Winchester Carbine in 45-70. Big block if you will.
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by jeffh on Feb 3, 2024 20:09:03 GMT -5
.... Y'all know what I meant. ...
Yep.   |
|
|
|
Post by z1r on Feb 3, 2024 20:20:38 GMT -5
.... Y'all know what I meant. ...
Yep. Yup, wasn't trying to argue. Your point is well taken though, you can tell this when you cycle the 94 in a pistol cartridge. The stroke is long. Not as fast as either the '73 or '92, but I still like mine. Great for ringing steel, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by revolvercranker on Feb 3, 2024 20:40:24 GMT -5
no no not arguing, just sayin!! You know a long time ago back in say the 60's Winchester made 94 carbines in 44 Mag. Then they stopped for a lot of year, then all the sudden the Trapper's appeared chambered in 45Colt, 44Mag, and 357Mag, but no 41May WHYYYYYYY?
|
|
