Author Topic: 94's coming Back (Read 3154 times)

jjamna · « **on:** January 10, 2008, 06:51:07 AM »

It's on page 88 Predator Xtreme Magazine. 94's coming back looks like in 2009

dave hall · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2008, 10:04:06 AM »

I wish.I would love to have another 94 Timber in 450 Marlin.Its the only gun I ever regret selling.Sold it for $375 four months later they were on Gunbrokers for $2000.I miss using it more than missing the money train.The other 94 I enjoyed was my 44 Mag with the John Wayne loop.Dave

TonerGuy · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2008, 08:46:02 AM »

Quote from: jjamna on January 10, 2008, 06:51:07 AM

It's on page 88 Predator Xtreme Magazine. 94's coming back looks like in 2009

Will Winchester be producing them like before?

curtism1234 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2008, 10:17:19 AM »

I hear FN will be making them - same as the model 70

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2008, 10:31:32 AM »

the guys in Conn. had to have time to move to South Carolina !

Dee · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2008, 08:50:12 AM »

FN DID buy them out, and they WILL be making the 94 at the beginning of 09 if not a little sooner. I hope the s#@t can that awful safety and go back to the original model. I think that safety hurt sales as much as any thing. JMO

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2008, 09:10:08 AM »

shouldn't have to idiot proof a rifle , shouldn't let an idiot have it in the first place !
can we do that ?

Dee · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2008, 09:31:26 AM »

There ya go SHOOTALL. I have had the same Model 94 Winchester since 1957, and it ain't went off accidentally yet". Neither has my Model 92, and I have had it about 4 years.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2008, 09:43:01 AM »

well Dee guess you just plain ain't an idiot !
and that my friend is a good thing !
while on this subject , the other day on the job i was recharging tool batteries in the truck , so i left the truck running to save the batteries in my truck ! now get this ya can't lock the truck with the door lock while the key is in the ign. ( i carry an extra door key in wallet ) bet that was a selling point to idiots !

Keith L · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2008, 10:21:36 AM »

I had a car that had a keypad on the door to unlock it. I found out the hard way that the pad didn't work to unlock the door if the engine was running. I guess I can claim the idiot title, but I also grant it to the guy who designed that feature.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2008, 10:33:28 AM »

sad thing we pay for this stuff !

coyote trapper1928 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:24:06 AM »

Quote from: Dee on January 18, 2008, 08:50:12 AM

FN DID buy them out, and they WILL be making the 94 at the beginning of 09 if not a little sooner. I hope the s#@t can that awful safety and go back to the original model. I think that safety hurt sales as much as any thing. JMO

Are you talking about the tang safety just behind the hammer? I find that safety very easy to use.

Dee · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:27:28 AM »

No I am talking about ANY safety they put on the 94, whether it be tang or receiver mounted. It isn't necessary. I have been carry one without either since 1957, and it never occurred to me to need one, and still doesn't. It is a politically correct nuisance.

giturgun · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2008, 03:24:59 PM »

Only safety on mine is the hammer , on 1/2 cock it's a safety, on full cock it's ready to rock.

blackpowderbill · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2008, 12:32:29 AM »

I agree that a safety on a levergun is just plain dopey; but, we live in a dopey, litigious society. At least the safety put on the Win 95 and presumably the new 94 is not a big button on the side (Marlin) of the reciever. It unobtrusive and you can easily ignore it.

LEO · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2008, 08:13:17 AM »

I agree with Dee the safety is unnecessary, but unfortunately in our society no one is responsible for their actions it is always something or someone else's fault. Several years ago the agency I worked for at the time had several 94s in the armory, they were perfect for what we used them for, long patrols by horse or foot in remote areas. Well one of the supervisors was showing one of the receptionists how the rifle worked (thats another story that I wont go into) with live ammo. Well the receptionist let a round go unintentionally. Rather than chastising the supervisor for his actions, they said the rifles were unsafe and got rid of them, disregarding the fact that none of us who were supposed to be handling the rifles had ever had a problem with them. But I do hope they bring them back I would like to have another Trapper in 30-30, probably the best truck/atv/tractor rifle I have found.

Bullseye · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2008, 07:24:22 AM »

I would like to see the 94 come back.

Most of mine have the safety. Luckily I do not get emotional about the safety. I took a kid deer hunting for the first time this year. When he shot the gun before season and when hunting there did not seem to be a big concern over the safety. He just used it. I really do not get it, but that is just me.

Dee · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2008, 10:46:52 AM »

Did some one get emotional about the safety? I didn't notice that part. I just noticed that some (myself included) remarked that it was a politically correct waste of time, and spoiled the lines of a near perfect rifle. Emotional? Political correctness has reached an all time high when opinion becomes an emotion to some.

Keith L · « **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2008, 02:02:11 PM »

I have seen the kits that disable the safety on Marlins, and have never really considered using them. I see the posts about not using reloads for personal defense rounds because of the added liability. What do you suppose would happen if an accidental discharge occurs with your rifle, and the safety has been disabled. Talk about increased liability.

Oldtimer · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2008, 04:01:55 PM »

I was hunting hogs at a lodge in Tennessee and the owner told of a State Trooper who came with a safety equipped Marlin. He emptied all but the last round before he realized he had not taken the safety off. He killed the hog with the last round close enough to put powder burns on the hog. I wonder if any of the lawyers thought of what would happen if someone were injured as a result of the presence of a safety, like that trooper almost was. Now that would be a lawsuit I could support.

Dee · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2008, 05:48:45 PM »

Quote from: Keith L on January 22, 2008, 02:02:11 PM

I have seen the kits that disable the safety on Marlins, and have never really considered using them. I see the posts about not using reloads for personal defense rounds because of the added liability. What do you suppose would happen if an accidental discharge occurs with your rifle, and the safety has been disabled. Talk about increased liability.

LOL. What do these kits consist of? I just sold an 1895 Cowboy in 4570, that I PERSONALLY disabled the safety. You've seen these "kits" to disable the safety? Come on. All it takes to disable the safety on a Marlin lever is to take the stock off and tighten the retainer screw on the safety with an ALLEN WRENCH. That LOCKS THE SAFTY. If you want to you can mark the safety, and file off the protruding metal and re blue it. Kit?

And the case law about using reloads for personal defense. Where's is the case law. THERE AIN'T NONE. Never has been. It's Internet lawyer talk. Talk about BORROWING TROUBLE. Why not just sell all your guns. No Wait! They might be used in a crime and then you could get sued. Melt them down and bury the scrap. Then know one will know you ever owned a gun. But then if the rust from the scrap got into the water supply. It's over man. You might as well go ahead and turn yourself in.
Political Correctness, has taken control of rational thought, and put the fear of the government on our population, to the point they are afraid to mess with their own property. Good grief!

NYH1 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2008, 06:22:45 PM »

I don't mind the cross bolt safety on my Marlin 336 or the 444 Marlin's we had. I use it when I'm unloading the rifle. Other then that, the safety is off and the hammer is at half cock. As far as the model 94 go's, I hope FN makes them better then Winchester did. Two out of the three model 94's I had were junk.

Keith L · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2008, 08:42:05 PM »

The safety on my Marlin isn't a problem for me either. I think it is less a matter of "political correctness" than of common sense. Any jury could be swayed in a liability claim by even a poor lawyer to assume one that defeated a safety device to be at fault in an accident. Sadly anywhere in America today we need to be aware of our potential liability. We could be the test case that makes the above mentioned case law.

The replacement kit information is posted on the Marlin forum in the stickies section. it replaces the pin and makes it look like a screw head.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2008, 04:25:41 AM »

got a ? why are they bringing back a gun that didn't sell well ? mostly due to Q.C. !
I had a 44mag. mod 94 that was fitted so poor you could fire it with the grip safety not depressed .
the simple fact is if they build the junk that was being built the last 10 or more years they won't sell anyway no matter the safety !

NYH1 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2008, 06:44:33 AM »

SHOOTALL, I think if FN manufactures them, they'll probably be pretty good rifles. I hope so. I also hope there is a large selections of cartridges and models available once they're in full production mode. I'm sure at first they're only going to be chambered in the traditional Winchester lever gun cartridges 30-30, 357 mag. and 44 mag. I hope they add to that. I'd also like to see a few pistol grip stock models available. A model 94 with a pistol grip stock, 20 inch barrel, full length magazine tube, hooded front site in 356 Win. would be really nice.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #25 on:** January 23, 2008, 06:51:56 AM »

i have one of those !
wish i had not let the 307 go !
and hope you are right about Q.C. control !

NYH1 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 24, 2008, 07:28:55 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on January 23, 2008, 06:51:56 AM

i have one of those !
wish i had not let the 307 go !
and hope you are right about Q.C. control !

I had a 94 Big Bore 356 Win. It was the only model 94 I owned that didn't give me any trouble. I prefer the pistol grip over the straight grip so I sold the 356 and keep my 336CS 35 Rem.

cybin · « **Reply #27 on:** February 09, 2008, 05:51:28 PM »

I wonder how a 94 in .32 H&R magnum would be? I have never heard of a .32 mag being put into a rifle, but it might be interesting.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2008, 06:10:37 AM »

bet a 92 would work better !

Dee · « **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2008, 06:29:36 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on February 10, 2008, 06:10:37 AM

bet a 92 would work better !

I'll bet it would too.