Winchester 94, good carbine poor rifle?

[Random 8]

At the time it was designed and first sold, it was state of the art. Most people hunted with a single shot or lever firing a modest velocity black powder round such as the .44WCF. The "high velocity" smokeless .30-30 was a real game changer in the deer woods, improved some years later with the .300 Savage cartridge and the M99. If one wanted to push the distance, a tang sight was added. If you still hunt in that envelope, a Win94 in .30WCF is still a viable option. They continue to kill many deer in my part of the country every year, and new and used .30-30 levers are still hot sellers in October. There is also some nostalgia to carrying one in tight cover, although I prefer the M99 Savage when I decide to go old school for a day.

Scopes did not become commonplace for hunting whitetail until much later, and the bolt action really didn't catch on here in the woods until well into the '80s. In my current circumstances, iron sights and the .30-30 wouldn't handicap me much. I'd have to change a couple of stand locations that currently "need" my .280 boltgun, but the deer would be just as dead. I think it still has a place on the hunt, just that it's role as an everyday rifle is over for most.

 

[troy fairweather]

For what its worth I went to the junior olympics for air rifle in my teens. Late 20s now. I don’t intend to come off as combative. I guess i just don’t get it. I dont really get the AR thing either so to each their own.

hey me to what school did u shoot for.

 

[CraigC]

75yds is handgun range. If I couldn't hit a paint can at 200yds with a .30-30 and peep sights, I'd stay home.

I own about a dozen lever rifles, mostly in 30-30, and I like them. But realistically the round, and rifle were obsolete 4 years before being introduced. There are, and were better choices even in the 1890's. But I still hunt with them occasionally when I just want to make the hunt more challenging.

Despite the myth they are the HEAVIEST rifles made when comparing guns with equal barrel length and not especially easy to carry. And they are not any faster to get on target or, for repeat shots. We have seen all the cowboy movies and watched Lucas McCain work a lever action, but off the silver screen it doesn't work that way.

They've wounded more that were not recovered too.

While I like and enjoy shooting and hunting with my lever guns this is a much better carrying, hunting, and brush gun. Even with the scope it is a full pound lighter than my Marlin 30-30's and 3/4 lb lighter than my Winchesters. I can carry it easily with just one hand on the pistol grip though thick stuff much like I'd carry a pistol. The scope on 3X is great for low light situations and the ability to shoot tiny groups through baseball size openings in brush makes shots possible no one would attempt with a 30-30. It hits harder at 600 yards than a 30-30 does at 100 with about the same recoil. I can get off 3 shots in 2 seconds.

This photo was taken earlier this afternoon. I'd hiked about 3 miles into the north GA Mountains in the rain and I appreciated the light weight. You can see how thick the brush is. I had a shot at a small buck that I passed on today because it wasn't worth carrying one that small that far. It would have been possible with this rifle, not with my iron sighted 30-30.

Methinks your scale is broken and for someone who owns several leverguns, you sure have some weird ideas about them. My lightest boltgun is a Ruger American .300BO with a plastic stock AND a 16" barrel. It weighs the same as several of my leverguns that don't have a speck of plastic on them and are ALL longer. Any other bolt I own is at least a pound if not two pounds heavier. Those who espouse the light weight of leverguns are not comparing them to modern mountain rifles.

They are absolutely faster on target and for follow-up shots. If you can't run a levergun faster than a bolt, you're doing it wrong.

The bit about wounding deer is absurd.

At least we avoided the nonsense about the .45-70......so far.

To anyone who says they can shoot "just as good" with open sights as they can a scope, I say prove it. I have 20/10 vision and have been shooting and hunting my whole life. Irons and scopes both. Putting a scope, even a 2x scope, on my Winchester always cut my group size in half. And that's not even the reason I use scopes for hunting. If I had full daylight and no shadows or brush/grass in the way every single time I took a shot at a critter, I'd use my open sighted 30-30 a LOT more. LOL

This is only news to those who haven't done much shooting with irons. There was a very good article done in the last several years that compared accuracy with barrel mounted iron sights, peeps and a scope. The improvement with the scope over peeps was insignificant for a big game rifle. What you're gaining is range and shooting light. Not 100yd accuracy. If you're cutting your iron sight groups in half with a 2x scope, there's something wrong with your iron sight shooting.

 

[HB]

I know their limitations and I can hit a baseball at 150 yards with either of them, standing, prone or sitting.

Please post these results in the “coke can challenge thread”

hey me to what school did u shoot for.

St. Louis University High School

75yds is handgun range. If I couldn't hit a paint can at 200yds with a .30-30 and peep sights, I'd stay home.



Methinks your scale is broken and for someone who owns several leverguns, you sure have some weird ideas about them. My lightest boltgun is a Ruger American .300BO with a plastic stock AND a 16" barrel. It weighs the same as several of my leverguns that don't have a speck of plastic on them and are ALL longer. Any other bolt I own is at least a pound if not two pounds heavier. Those who espouse the light weight of leverguns are not comparing them to modern mountain rifles.

They are absolutely faster on target and for follow-up shots. If you can't run a levergun faster than a bolt, you're doing it wrong.

The bit about wounding deer is absurd.

At least we avoided the nonsense about the .45-70......so far.



This is only news to those who haven't done much shooting with irons. There was a very good article done in the last several years that compared accuracy with barrel mounted iron sights, peeps and a scope. The improvement with the scope over peeps was insignificant for a big game rifle. What you're gaining is range and shooting light. Not 100yd accuracy. If you're cutting your iron sight groups in half with a 2x scope, there's something wrong with your iron sight shooting.

Do you really believe that lining up 2 peices of metal on different planes is just as precise as using a scope with a cross hair? Or are you just saying that?

 

[troy fairweather]

Please post these results in the “coke can challenge thread”



St. Louis University High School



Do you really believe that lining up 2 peices of metal on different planes is just as precise as using a scope with a cross hair? Or are you just saying that?[/

huffman high school in birmingham alabama. i was there for 2 years after my parents got divorced

 

[CraigC]

Do you really believe that lining up 2 peices of metal on different planes is just as precise as using a scope with a cross hair? Or are you just saying that?

I believe the difference is not as profound as you seem to think it is. Been there, done that.

I do believe scopes are easier to shoot accurately and suggest you need more iron sight practice.

 

[cdb1]

75yds is handgun range. If I couldn't hit a paint can at 200yds with a .30-30 and peep sights, I'd stay home.

Please post a video.

What you're gaining is range and shooting light.

I’ll settle for that but I do believe you gain considerable accuracy with a scope unless you are an internet warrior.

I can hit a baseball at 150 yards with either of them, standing, prone or sitting.

Puleaze.

I can fart the Star Spangled Banner.

 

[Art Eatman]

Too. Much. Personal.

Yuck.