Why So Much Hate For The Safety On The Win '94

B

BigMikey76

New member
OK, I was reading another thread about Win '94s both pre and post 64. I know all about the stamped parts and all that, but some have commented about how the addition of a safety played a part in "ruining" the rifle. I have seen these comments in many other threads, as well. Other than slightly changing the looks of the rifle and adding a layer of safety to it (and I just can't see extra safety as a bad thing, no matter how hard I try) why do so many people complain about the this?
 
Let me give you an example of how this cost me a nice pig. The safety on the Win '94 is NOT a trigger lock like most safeties are - it is a hammer block. I normally walked around through the woods with the hammer down and the safety off (i.e. old-style). A nice sow popped out not 20 yds in front of me and stopped. I shouldered the rifle thumbing the safety back as it came up, sighted on her ear, and squeezed the trigger. The hammer swung down but stopped because I had inadvertantly hit the safety ON sometime during the hunt. The result was a loud "click" as the hammer fell on the hammer block. The pig took off before I could release the safety and re-cock.

Now, if the idiots that designed that safety had made it a normal trigger locking safety, I would have been able to detect the lock and thumbed it off without spooking the pig. However, the way they chose to implement it means that the hammer still falls - just doesn't get to do any good.
 
Because a safety on a levergun is just wrong. Plain old wrong. The Winchester 94 is plenty safe without it. There's no reason to have it. It's simply wrong.

That said, we were complaining about the difference between pre-64 and post-64 many years before they put a safety on it. I have two post-64's without the safety button. They both have safeties, but it's not that horrible button.
 
^^That^^
Half-cock is more than enough.

The hammer-block safety just gets in the way, adds more parts to fail, and looks ugly. It's a lawyer feature, not a safety feature. There are several quick ways to render a cocked Win 94 safe without the hammer-block safety.

I don't like it to begin with, but an accidentally bumped, half-on hammer-block safety cost me dinner on last year's Elk hunt - albeit with a Marlin 336W, not a Win 94.
 
Other than slightly changing the looks of the rifle and adding a layer of safety to it (and I just can't see extra safety as a bad thing, no matter how hard I try) why do so many people complain about the this?
Click to expand...

Because perfection does not need a safety

1948 model 94 in 30 wcf "long wood" variation

Win9419487.jpg
 
I used to think it was poachers shooting an hour before daylight on the first day of deer when I was a kid. Always one or two shots every year. I now know it is someone on their stand in the dark trying to load an old 94 and trying to put the half cock on under a scope. Just an observation.
 
I used to think it was poachers shooting an hour before daylight on the first day of deer when I was a kid. Always one or two shots every year. I now know it is someone on their stand in the dark trying to load an old 94 and trying to put the half cock on under a scope. Just an observation.
Click to expand...

Two words: Hammer Spur.
 
I sort of look at it like the lawyer hole on smiths. Just a useless gadget that adds nothing to the gun and is ugly. They also seem to always be "ON" at the worst possible moment.
 
Some folks don't like to be treated like idiots... ;)

It's the same reason that many will not buy anything with a stamping "read instruction manual before shooting" on the side. Cound me in that camp.



Willie

.
 
FWIW I own three model 94's. It is my favorite rifle, yet I wouldn't even consider owning one with the safety. To me it ruins the look of the rifle.
 
First, it's unnecessary. It's a lawyer designed feature. A half cock is entirely adequate and the rifle had been produced that way for decades.

Second, it's lazy. It's about the cheapest, laziest, and even the ugliest way to do it. A well implemented crossbolt safety wouldn't be as objectionable, and the current version has a tang safety that isn't as obtrusive.
 
never

I've owned several 94's and none had a safety. Currently my only traditional lever is a Marlin, no safey on it either.

Its a tradition thing. A design existant for 100 yrs, NOW we get a safety.

I have seen folks who did not understand the halfcock. Many who should have known better. Take your finget OFF the trigger, then release the tension on the hammer.

And I have seen folks who did not use the half cock, but carried the rifle hammer down on a loaded chamber.

I do not recommend the 94 or the Marlin as a newbie rifle for those reasons.
 
I was with you BigMikey at first, I thought it looked bad and was completely unnecessary, but I could live with it. I have two marlins with the crossbolt safeties and figured I'd keep them on fire and just ignore them. Until one day calling coyotes I had a coyote roll up on me at like 40 yards, leveled on him for the easy shot and...CLICK! Confused, I worked the action and tried again... CLICK! I tried a third time as he trotted away just as confused as I was. I finally figured out what happened, somehow the safety had been knocked on.

A coyotes is one thing but the first time it happens on an elk I'm gonna be livid. The worst part is that it's totally worthless. The half cock is a perfectly adequate safety and perfectly safe for any non-moron. I've safely let down lever hammers since I was maybe 6-8 years old and I've never had an issue. Not once. And if I did, the rifle would be pointed in a safe direction to begin with. As far as the issue with a scoped levergun goes, the hammer spur is the appropriate solution.

So to recap:
1. Worthless
2. Ugly
3. Hindering

The crossbolt safety is as useful and tits on a bull/boar/nun etc.
 
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one here who has pulled the trigger for a CLANK instead of a BOOM. My youngest son had a crossbolt Marlin for awhile and I finally just let him shoot it whenever we were doing pre-season zero checks, or just out burning powder. Never owned a Winchester with one; simply won't buy one.

I got along without the apparatus for many decades before it was introduced. I've got my pre-64 and if I need more, there are enough of the old guns around to finish me out.
 
The safety on the '94 begs the question: How many people were killed by accident due to the original '94 not having a safety? It is very likely that few if any people's deaths can be attributed to the lack of a safety. The safety then, is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. That is why I do not like it.
 
The safety don't bother me but all my hunting is done sitting down so there isn't much of a chance for the safety to get accidently switched. If I were to make a change to the rifle for uglyness, it would be the loading gate on the side and just make it load right from the front of the tube. An argument based off probabilities isn't really an argument at all. Maybe people becoming more familier with the weapon would reduce the risk of having the safety on when it needs to be off. Maybe do a check with a finger or somthing before pulling the triger would also help. Once practiced enough it would just become a habbit that wouldn't even be thought about and would take a mear second longer. I can only assume that there is some sort of way to help limit the amount of accidential safety activation be it my suggestions or other ways.
 
I can only assume that there is some sort of way to help limit the amount of accidential safety activation be it my suggestions or other ways.
Click to expand...


Yep, take the dang thing off and throw it away.;)
 
The safety then, is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. That is why I do not like it.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. The cross bolt safety is ugly. I wouldn't mind the tang safety though. Use the safety between your ear's, don't rely on any mechanism.

Back in the day there wasn't so many rules and regulations like there are now.
Those new Japanese Winchester's are good quality but over priced. A smart fellow can buy a old 94 in nice shape for over half as much that a new Miroku 94 costs.
 
why do so many people complain about the this?
Click to expand...

You will find the same hate for many other guns out there that have had safety devices added later in their production runs. For example, look up firing pin safeties in 1911's, or key locks on S&W revolvers.

Some folks just don't like change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top