Gun Test review March 2013
Winchester Model 94 Short Rifle No. 534174114 30-30 Win., $1230
~
In 2010 Winchester re-introduced the Model 94 in a Short Rifle version, a plain model that is reminiscent of the millions of Model 94 carbines the company produced a quarter century ago. Of course, the Short Rifle rollmark indicates manufacture in Japan rather than New Haven, CT. We thought it would be interesting to test this new Model 94 against a gently used Ted Williams Model 100. Both rifles were manufactured by Winchester and have similar features. We soon discovered the big differences between these two rifles were cost and safety features.
~
The safety enhancements to the new Model 94 were obvious. A thumb safety was nicely placed in the tang of the receiver so the traditional lines of the rifle were not sullied. The hammer was a rebounding type, so there was no half cock. It also used a trigger stop where only a fully closed lever allows the rifle to be fired. The Sears had this feature, too, as do many models of Winchester lever actions. Old-timers who tested the Short Rifle snorted with distaste at a Model 94 having a safety and rebounding hammer. It was blatantly not traditional, but the feature did make the rifle safer to use. The action was smooth, and like all Model 94s, would get slicker with use.
~
The bluing on the new 94 was superb. The wood seemed adequate. The owner of the rifle had hunted with it in the rain, and the stain on the buttstock looked like it was washing off, but we didn’t ding it for that. The Winchester and Sears both sported flat polymer buttplates that were quick to shoulder and did nothing to absorb recoil, but the 30-30 round is not punishing, and a heavy hunting coat does a lot to absorb recoil. The Short Rifle’s receiver was tapped for scope mounts, and empties were ejected to the right and not up and over like traditional Model 94s. Back in 1980s, Winchester called this “angle eject.”
~
At the range there was not a single failure. Cartridges were easy to feed into the magazine tube, and the bullet noses were not chewed up when we cycled them through the action. Old Model 94s at times could mangle the bullet nose, and this new Model 94 fixed that issue.
~
At 50 yards using a rest, we were able to achieve very tight three-shot groups using a scope. The hammer was tapped for a hammer extension. The scope was removed so only open sights were used in the test data. A Marbles front sight with a brass bead and buckhorn style rear sight offered a traditional sight picture.
~
We expected MOD (minute of deer) accuracy and were pleased at how a range of old-school soft points and newer all-copper Barnes and LEVERevolution Hornady bullets performed. For example, with the Hornady rounds, we were able to get a 0.5-inch group using open sights at 50 yards. We also noted the new Winchester achieved higher velocities than the older Model 100.
~
Off the bench, we fired some field simulations. As expected, the Short Rifle was fast to shoulder and acquire a target. Follow-up shots were likewise fast, and it was easy to cycle the rifle on the shoulder.
~
Our Team Said: The Short Rifle was nicely built. The safety features were smart additions, even though purists were not happy. They did concede safety was important. Big knock: Most testers thought the price was far too much and knocked it down for that. If you want a new Model 94 that’s similar to your granddaddy’s rifle, this is the one to buy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I owned a pre-64 years ago and kick myself every once in a while about ever letting it go. :nono: I have seen some post-64 produced when they were first reintroduced that were lacking but that has since improved. Hope this helps.
