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

I don't mind good change, but putting a button on the receiver of a nice lever gun is not only fugly...it is completely uncalled for. Does absolutely nothing, except make me buy the older models.
 
MY opinion

I like the cross bolt safety. Its positive. I hate to admit it, but I once had an accidental discharge with a Model 94 Winchester. Luckily no one was harmed. I did have the barrel pointed in a safe direction.
 
OK, I'll give you the Gunsmith's Prospective

The original M-94 was a design of John M. Browning and it was a very good one. The lower tang was actually made as the trigger housing and it slips into a set of cuts in the back of the receiver as it mates up with corresponding rails. The trigger housing is then secured in the receiver and the stock with metal screws and tang bolt.
The new cross bolt style has done away with the male/female fit of the lower tang. It will pivot on the hammer screw and the only thing that keeps it from movement is the wood of the stock. This makes getting a perfect non-moving fit much more difficult to do and if the wood compresses, it’s impossible.

Now if we look at the rebounding hammer system made on the new Browning M-95 rifle you will see a system that is clean, extremely safe and doesn’t interfere at all with the look of the old lines of the classic gun. I think Winchester/Browning should do away with the cross bolt and go to the rebounding hammer if they are so afraid of lawyers. These hammers go to half-cock all by themselves and lock as soon as the shot is fired. They work wonderfully when the springs are of proper strength. I’d bet J.M.Browning would have used that system himself if he’s seen one.

The cross bolt does work. So what? So does unloading the gun. But both are missing the point. We want rifles that are fast and easy to use and still safe to use. The M-94 safety notch was and is a system that cannot make up for poor gun handling. Neither can any other system. The SAFETY is BETWEEN YOUR EARS!

If I had the ability to organize on a nation wide level, I would ask my fellow shooters and hunters to boycott these abortions 100%, and I can guarantee you, that would cause the companies to change it. As long as we buy them with lawyer approved safeties the factories will cater to the lawyers far more then they ever will to us.
 
I don't mind good change, but putting a button on the receiver of a nice lever gun is not only fugly...it is completely uncalled for
Click to expand...

Bingo!!

Its an added feature looking for a legitimate purpose.
 
BigMikey76 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well...............I've long had issues with authority; IOW, I don't like being TOLD (or forced) what to do - especially by somebody that doesn't know their tukus from their elbow, and is only playing CYA.

AND, BTW - If anyone "can't see extra safety as a bad thing", just ponder how "safe" everybody would be if your guns were taken away, for your own safety (of course ;) ) .

.
 
AND, BTW - If anyone "can't see extra safety as a bad thing", just ponder how "safe" everybody would be if your guns were taken away, for your own safety (of course ) .
Click to expand...

I see where you are going, but I have a little trouble making the leap from a manufacturer adding questionable safety features to the government saying I can't have firearms... it's a bit of a stretch. :rolleyes:

When I said I can't see extra safety as a bad thing, I was referring to the physical safety that comes from proper handling of a firearm. I don't think anyone would argue with me when I say that safety is paramount when it comes to the use of guns, whether target shooting, hunting or any other gun related activity. Proper handling and common sense are the most important safety measures, but mechanical safety is a fair back up, since not a single one of us is perfect.

I understand, now, why the crossbolt safety is so disliked. I personally don't care much about the small change in looks, and I don't see it as an assault on my rights as a gun owner, but accidentally activating the safety and not getting the shot because of it would suck. I had never considered that possibility, and I think it will make me think very hard before buying a rifle equipped with a crossbolt safety.

Thanks to all of you for your insights and experiences.
 
Had a Marlin .22 lever gun. Never had it fail to go bang when cranking the leaver and pulling the trigger. Have a Browning .22 lever gun. Have never had it fail to go bang when cranking the leaver and pulling the trigger. I bought a Marlin 1895 Guide gun. Love it! However several times I've had it go click rather than bang when cranking the leaver and pulling the trigger because I keep forgetting that "THIS" leaver gun has a damn unnecessary safety that I always seem to remember to engage but then forget about because a leaver gun isn't suppose to have a button one needs to push to make it go bang. I HATE THE DARN "SAFETY(?)". Lever guns aren't supposed to have safety "buttons". :mad:
 
Contentious this issue is...

As I see it, if the gun has a hammer with a half cock then it does NOT need another physical safety. My M99 Savages have safeties - either on the trigger guard & lever or on the tang. Well done and ergonomic. BUT they do not have hammers and the safeties make sense. The 1897 Winchester (yeah, I know, it is a pump) does not have a safety - it has a hammer with a half cock (and other tasty innards that keep it from firing until the carrier locks the bolt).

So why do the new 1894 & Marlins have the safety? Because the fear that the real safety has been disabled - and it has been said before in the thread - the safety between the ears of the operator. And the fallback safety - the opportunistic tort system - has been enabled. And that is just dumb. Issues of fuglyness not withstanding. Just really dumb...
 
Nice gun..Win 73....

I wanna say...After reading the previous posts...I don't like a crossbolt safety on a Win 94..I don't like a scope on one either....

If I want a scope on a lever action..it will be a Marlin..with a hammer spur....I have two Marlin 45-70's....They both have crossbolt safeties....I don't mind them....One is a truck gun..that stays loaded all the time..in the back seat of my truck....(I never leave a round in the chamber)

I once knew of a man who kept a loaded 30-30 behind his truck seat...He reached and pulled it out barrel first...The hammer hung and the gun fired shooting him in the upper part of his leg....It hit a major artery and he bled to death in minutes....(Yes..very foolish and unsafe act)
 
That's real sad, Keg. I've carried old school 94's loaded in vehicles for literally decades, but never with a round in the pipe.
 
No... the safety is put there so the manufacture can use it against bad litigation. Stupid people will not use additional mechanical safeties no matter how many are put on. Stupid people like me put it on when the rifle is not in use then load it, point it down range, crank the leaver, pull the trigger and CLICK because leaver guns are NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A BUTTON ON THE RECEIVER TO STOP IT FROM GOING BANG. Really stupid people will never put it on in the first place. Or perhaps they are the SMART ONES. :D
 
Last edited:
When I said I can't see extra safety as a bad thing, I was referring to the physical safety that comes from proper handling of a firearm. I don't think anyone would argue with me when I say that safety is paramount when it comes to the use of guns, whether target shooting, hunting or any other gun related activity. Proper handling and common sense are the most important safety measures, but mechanical safety is a fair back up, since not a single one of us is perfect.
Click to expand...

I agree. Plus, the half cock safety is still no guarantee. guns discharge all the time for whatever reason, whether it was because Billy Bob was being stupid or because the gun fell to the ground and accidentally went off. plus, don't Winchester 94's have hair triggers? I do think the crossbolt safety is an ugly addition aesthetically speaking, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker for me either.
 
Winchesters were made without em for years with no problems. Then someone invented lawyers. Much nicer gun without them. (safety and lot of the lawyers)
 
Lawyers are not a recent invention. What is new is ordinary people suing somebody else. Of course no one here would sue anyone for any reason because no one here is ordinary.

However, isn't it funny how much a rifle jerks around when you press the trigger, the hammer falls and the gun doesn't go off?

Who said a lever action should have a safety? I've heard there are more accidents with long guns than with handguns. Do you suppose there's any truth to that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top