pre-64 win 94 strength

[bluejeans]

i have a mid 1930's vintage 30 wcf that i acquired in trade years ago.. ruined for collector's value since the receiver side was drilled and tapped for an optic and a sling stud was brazed to the mag tube and then broke off. still, i kept it as an extra because i really liked the winchester nickel steel for bad weather hunting.

lately i have been practicing my lathe work and was thinking about converting this rifle to a takedown and possibly changing calibers. i know i could easily change or add aditional barrels in 35-30, 32 spl, 25-35, or 219 zipper with nothing more than a barrel swap... but i am currently looking for a 44 mag and thinking about making this into one.

i know what i'm up against... barrel, lifter, guides, bolt face, timing etc... and am comfortable doing it. my question is if the pre64 reciever is up to the 44mag. i see the 30-30 is 42,000 psi to the 44's 36,000 and there's enough thickness in the barrel shank. so why not? winchester did make a 94 in 44 mag in the late 60's which was before the thicker AE recievers. yet i have read many cautions that the 94 is weak and can't handle the beating of a 44mag. why? am i missing something?

thanks.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One of your problems will be bolt thrust. Bolt thrust is measured in pounds, while chamber pressure is measured in pounds per square inch.

The head of the .30-30 is 0.422. Multiply that by 42,000 psi and you get 17,724 pounds of bolt thrust

The head of the .44 Mag is 0.466. Multiply that by 36,000 and you get 16,776.

So you should be safe in shooting .44 Mag in your Model 94.

Edited:

DANG! Am I stupid or what?

The head AREA of the .30-30 is 0.044521 square inches. Multiply that by 42,000 psi and you get 1,869.882 pounds.

The head area of the .44 Mag is 0.54289. Multiply that by 36,000 psi and you get 1954.404 pounds.

So you're going a bit over the .30-30 bolt thrust with the conversion to .44 Mag, but it should still be safe.

 

[WardenWolf]

Given that modern Winchester 92's are often chambered in .44 Magnum, and the 92 is a much weaker action to begin with, it should be a safe conversion. Metallurgy back then was almost as good as it is now. It's not like the pre-1918 Springfields where the heat treating was done haphazardly; by the 1930's they knew what they were doing.

 

[bluejeans]

thanks guys... and vern especially for the math on bolt thrust.
glad for the confirmation but still open to practical words of caution before i break ground on this if anyone else has input.

 

[CraigC]

Given that modern Winchester 92's are often chambered in .44 Magnum, and the 92 is a much weaker action to begin with...

Where did you come up with that theory? Because the reverse is actually true. The modern 92 is measurably stronger, pressure-wise than the 94.

 

[bluejeans]

yes, the 92 with its pair locking breach blocks is a much stronger design.. the 94 compromised strength in trade for long cartridge capability when it switched to a single block at the rear with less shoulder surface and a wider span...
...but that was not relevant to the question so why argue with someone who's trying to be helpful?

rabbit trails

 

[Art Eatman]

Thrust to the rear is a function of the ID of the cartridge case just in front of any internal curvature inside the back end of the case.

I've always read that the design of the 94 limits the chamber pressure to 40,000 psi.

 

[PapaG]

I have a 94 in 44 mag made after 64 that dad bought a neck inherited. Only problem is I have to seat my favored 429421 deep to be able to feed. Does not like cast much over 1300. Jacketed, the book loads are fine. Go for it. Fun gun.

 

[CraigC]

...so why argue with someone who's trying to be helpful?

Because the information (or in this case, misinformation) presented in this thread will be here and searchable for an unforeseeable amount of time. Countless people will find and read this thread long after we've all forgotten it. Misinformation should always be countered with truth.

 

[Malamute]

^^ Agree with Craig.

i know what i'm up against... barrel, lifter, guides, bolt face, timing etc... and am comfortable doing it. my question is if the pre64 reciever is up to the 44mag. i see the 30-30 is 42,000 psi to the 44's 36,000 and there's enough thickness in the barrel shank. so why not? winchester did make a 94 in 44 mag in the late 60's which was before the thicker AE recievers. yet i have read many cautions that the 94 is weak and can't handle the beating of a 44mag. why? am i missing something?

Your gun isn't hopeless. Id just consider it a project. The holes can eb welded shut by a good welder that understands what hes doing, and the receiver or entire gun refinished. The mag tube is simply a replacement part away. Myself, Id prefer a 38-55 in an older 94. Similar performance to the 44 mag with high velocity loads, and pretty simple conversion, basically a barrel, or rebore on your barrel. Theres plenty of newer 44 mags around.

Your action should be fine with 44 mag if you chose to convert it. A guy rebarreled several different actions to 454 Casull to see what would hold up. Several guns were offered as donors, generally with their owners believing them quite up to the job. The first to fail was a 336 Marlin action. I believe 20 rds or less and the sides of the action swelled where the locking bolt forced them apart, and basically became unfireable. The next to fail was an angle eject 94. The right side was stretched noticeably, as were the rear scope mount holes egg shaped. It didn't last much longer than the 336. A 1920s 94 lasted longer than either, but also was stretched into uselessness in less than 50 rds of factory level 454. He eventually made a new action from scratch, based on a hybrid of the 1886 and 92 action, which successfully lasted through several thousand rounds and last was known of it, its still alive and functioning.

The Rossi 92 action so far is all that's been commercially made in 454. Reports are that they tend to stretch and loosen up in prolonged use, but certainly many more rounds than the other actions tested lasted.

 

[Tirod]

Bolt thrust calculations are interesting as they take the assumption that all the pressure will be exerted on the bolt face - and therefore the lugs have to take it all. Nothing is ever discussed about the brass case expanding and causing so much friction it cannot move until the pressure is released.

A graph of bolt thrust during the firing of a cartridge may show there's a different thing going on than a strictly mathematical assumption. As the pressure curve increases so does case diameter and that mitigates bolt thrust to some degree. In self loading actions the case friction can remain high enough the moving bolt head literally rips the extractor thru the rim. In that case the bolt thrust wasn't being exerted on the face, it was exerted by the gas action acting on the bolt carrier thru a different mechanism.

I'm from Missouri, unless there are actual measurements of thrust to discuss with documentation, I'm not taking the math at face value. It's a dynamic relationship and there are other things going on that influence it.

 

[CraigC]

A 94 from that vintage is fine as a .44Mag. I just wouldn't go to that much trouble for something that can be easily bought. If I was going to use it as a project gun, I'd stick to the more interesting rifle cartridges like .38-55.

 

[Malamute]

A 94 from that vintage is fine as a .44Mag. I just wouldn't go to that much trouble for something that can be easily bought. If I was going to use it as a project gun, I'd stick to the more interesting rifle cartridges like .38-55.

Ive become pretty intrigued by the 38-55 with modernized loadings. I have a couple prospective projects in that chambering. 255 gr bullets @ 1800-ish fps, on down to round balls for yard practice or grouse loads, and I have a mold for a 150 gr bullet for light loads.

Upon further thinking on the holes for the scope mount, just using plug screws in the holes for now may be adequate. There may come a day you want to use a scope. Its happened to me.

 

[Gordon]

good choice on the 38-55 as it will feed well with little or no modifacation. Yes you can approach 375 Winchester loads in it safely. The .44 mag is iffy for feeding in a model 94 IMHO, not impressed.

 

[Coyote3855]

Gordon has a good point. When I was active in Cowboy Action Shooting, I knew people who had feeding problems with the 94 factory chambered in pistol cartridges. The 94 was designed for rifle length ammo. On the other hand, I have a Marlin 93 in .38-55. With heavy lead bullets and moderate loads, it's my most accurate lever gun.

 

[Victor N TN]

i have a mid 1930's vintage 30 wcf that i acquired in trade years ago.. ruined for collector's value since the receiver side was drilled and tapped for an optic and a sling stud was brazed to the mag tube and then broke off. still, i kept it as an extra because i really liked the winchester nickel steel for bad weather hunting.

lately i have been practicing my lathe work and was thinking about converting this rifle to a takedown and possibly changing calibers. i know i could easily change or add aditional barrels in 35-30, 32 spl, 25-35, or 219 zipper with nothing more than a barrel swap... but i am currently looking for a 44 mag and thinking about making this into one.

i know what i'm up against... barrel, lifter, guides, bolt face, timing etc... and am comfortable doing it. my question is if the pre64 reciever is up to the 44mag. i see the 30-30 is 42,000 psi to the 44's 36,000 and there's enough thickness in the barrel shank. so why not? winchester did make a 94 in 44 mag in the late 60's which was before the thicker AE recievers. yet i have read many cautions that the 94 is weak and can't handle the beating of a 44mag. why? am i missing something?

thanks.

I have a 1969, Winchester '94 in 44 mag. I really like to shoot it. It's a really fun rifle to shoot.

Good luck in your quest.
Victor