New in box Winchester 94 shoot or not?

J

Jeff2222

New member
I picked up a new in box Winchester 94 in 30-30 made between 2003-2006 based on that it has the tang safety and rebounding hammer.

I was planning on not shooting this and keeping it nib but based on what I've been reading on the web not many people want a 94 with a safety.

I have another 30-30 94 from the 70s for shooting.

If you had the nib 94 would you shoot it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This might be bad advice but if I had a new in box anything I would shoot it.

I'm not sure that 10 year old gun holds any value being new in box. Now a Pre 64 new in box probably would.
 
I would shoot it...probably.

I really don't understand this idiocy about the cross bolt safety. I have both,, would not turn around for the difference in them. What is really going on with it, is just web commando's regurgitating what they have read...with no idea of what they are talking about. Typical of folks that have little experience.

Loons have guns, too...no doubt about it.
 
Doesn't have any collector value. Shoot it.
"...10 year old gun holds any value being new in box..." Depends on what it is. Not many, if any, collector grade firearms that are only 10 though. A 2003-2006 Win 94 BNIB might have some collector interest in 50 to 100 years.
 
I would shoot it as well. Same with tobacco pipes, straight razors, and just about anything I collect more than one of. I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to be the curator of a private museum that I was the only one who was going to see it.

OTOH, I do have some vintage Case XX, and other pocket knives, that I've kept unsharpened, uncarried and pristine. Those lose a lot of value if you use them, and they are so pretty when they are 'new'. :)
 
If I did take it out to shoot it I think it would feel strange considering the guy before me was holding onto for so long.
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand this idiocy about the cross bolt safety. I have both,, would not turn around for the difference in them. What is really going on with it, is just web commando's regurgitating what they have read...with no idea of what they are talking about. Typical of folks that have little experience.

Loons have guns, too...no doubt about it.
Click to expand...

Because it's a change in a classic firearm and one that's not needed. A lot of us old timers don't like change. Its not a matter of being a web commando or a loon.
 
I would definitely be in the camp of NOT shooting it, but my angle is a far different view than yours. I'm not big in to lever guns AND you have an older lever gun already. Bottom line for me is that if this one doesn't specifically bring something to the table that is an improvement (or specific enjoyment) over the older one... then you may eventually sell it.

If you honestly see yourself selling this rifle in even the next 3-5 years AND it brings no radical improvement or joy over your older one, all you will accomplish is to whack a little selling value off of it and seemingly for the absolute dumbest of reasons: because forum posters believe it's some crime against humanity to specifically NOT shoot firearms, as if somehow the firearm has a soul and you torture it when you don't let it fulfill it's "dream" of being shot.

Ludicrous.

I have a few unfired handguns and some older fully functional and completely retired from shooting firearms and if someone believes this is a bad thing, they can dig out their wallet and buy them from me and "set them free."

I think you should not fire that rifle and eventually parlay it in to something that you would truly enjoy. And if doing that annoys someone, hahaha... that's a bonus.

To be crystal clear--
I back folks 100% in their ideas, plans and feelings towards their stuff. The folks who clean clean clean, even when it doesn't need it. The folks who cringe when someone "alters" a gun. The guys who would NEVER own a safe queen. The guys who think every handgun they have should make an appearance in their "carry rotation." At the end of the day, these are gun people so they are "MY KINDA PEOPLE" but when their own personal and ideas and values get shared in a way that seems like it oughta apply outside their sphere of influence... they annoy me.

"Guns were meant to be shot!" ?!
Baloney. Guns were meant to be SOLD.
 
Because it's a change in a classic firearm and one that's not needed. A lot of us old timers don't like change. Its not a matter of being a web commando or a loon.
Click to expand...

I imagine I am as much old timer as you...and the safety does not impact performance of the gun at all. But, you guys have succeeded in disparaging a fine firearm with that idiocy...just because it changed the looks.
 
[QUOTEI imagine I am as much old timer as you...and the safety does not impact performance of the gun at all. But, you guys have succeeded in disparaging a fine firearm with that idiocy...just because it changed the looks.] [/QUOTE]

I don't see it as idiocy. The manufacturers likely wouldn't have done it except for lawyers. The half cock was fine. However you have your opinion just as I have mine. I don't like angle eject either so I guess to you I'm above and beyond being an idiot.:rolleyes: My opinion on the rifle in question is if you like it, shoot it. If you don't like it sell it.
 
It has never occurred to me that guns are bought to be sold. There are many things that are bought and sold with the objective of making a profit. Stock and bonds, real estate, precious metals all come to mind. I buy guns for many purposes, all of which include shooting. If the OP wants to keep his lever gun unfired it is OK with me. If he asks me if he should shoot it the answer is absolutely yes.

I do know there are collectable firearms out there that maybe will/should remain unfired. I have no interest in them.
 
In about a month I am buying a NIB 94 Trapper from my aunt. Like yours it is a late New Haven rifle with the tang safety. I fully intend to shoot it, hunt with it, and hopefully put meat in the freezer with it.

But at the end of the day, to each his own. It's your rifle and your call :)
 
in disparaging a fine firearm with that idiocy...just because it changed the looks.
Click to expand...

Some of us are of the opinion that the maker "disparaged a fine firearm" with the idiocy of putting that safety on it, when for over 100 years not only did it not have that, but there was no public demand or outcry that it should have one.

Its not a subtle "product improvement" like angle eject, its in "in your face" change that was neither wanted nor asked for by the buying public.

To me, its like the lock in S&W and Ruger revolvers. #1, its a feature I don't want, don't need. and will never use. But I'm ok with them putting it on the gun the way Ruger does, unseen unless YOU choose otherwise.

I detest the way S&W did it, and not because the hole is where I can see it, but because they changed the LOOK of the cylinder latch. And while it might not matter to you, some of us ARE concerned that our guns look the way we expect them to. For some of us, its part of what we pay for.

Also, a word of caution, about slinging the term idiot around. Personal attack are against forum rules. You can consider an opinion idiotic, but not the person who voices it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top