Yesterday on my day off, I traded for a like-new Winchester 94 Trapper in .30-30. It is in excellent shape, considering that it is in the pre-safety configuration. It is actually of American manufacture and, as a bonus, it has a beautiful stock.
What have I got myself into?
Does the shorter barrel significantly increase muzzle blast? I realize that is a question of relativity. So far, no rifle I have fired has had a significant muzzle blast, as opposed to kick, in the same way that some .357 and .44 magnum revolvers have what I think if as muzzle blast. I used to have a trapdoor Springfield that had some significant kick but I don't remember noticing any mizzle blast. Same thing with a No. 5 Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine. That was so long ago, though, that it was one that I had bought through the mail.
I doubt anyone could really comment on how it affects the performance of the bullet, except for accuracy. But then, given the present condition of the eyes I use to shoot with, plus the fact that they will not be improving, I am not worried that much about the accuracy when I use it. I am luck to keep shots on the paper at 100 yards. However, I actually like the sights on this particular rifle, given what they are. A couple of my rifles have such thin front sights that they become a little difficult to see at times and these are new, sporting rifles, not one hundred year old military rifles. Maybe all those peep sights have spoiled me. I almost hate to admit that I like the sights on my 1938 Mosin-Nagant carbine, which give almost the same sight picture as on the Trapper. In any case, has the practice of adding after-market receiver sights to your lever action gone out of style?
Along the same lines, does anyone have one of the Legacy model Winchester 94's? I realize that many of you prefer Marlins over Winchesters and I can understand why but in this thread I am not asking for comparisons between Marlin and Winchester but between Winchester and Winchester. Anyhow, the one (Legacy model) I saw and examined, briefly, certain did not have the fit and finish of the Trapper model I just traded for. I mean it was OK but not great. But a two piece stock naturally has more places where the lack of fitting can be noticed. On the other hand, I really don't have that much basis for comparison, not having examined dozens and dozens of examples.
As a side note, I was surprised to learn that Winchester produced a Trapper version of the Model 1973, I believe, way back when. I saw one hanging on the wall at Clark Brother's near Warrenton, Virginia, which has a large collection of Winchesters spread around the store, all up out of reach. All these trapper models look so neat and handy, yet are probably the last choice of anyone who was planning to hunt anything. Maybe that is why they are called Trappers and not Deer Hunters.
I mainly traded for it because it was one of those things I've wanted for a long time, along with a half-magazine, pistol grip stock Model 94's. I'll get one of those sooner or later.
So what do I have and what is it good for?
What have I got myself into?
Does the shorter barrel significantly increase muzzle blast? I realize that is a question of relativity. So far, no rifle I have fired has had a significant muzzle blast, as opposed to kick, in the same way that some .357 and .44 magnum revolvers have what I think if as muzzle blast. I used to have a trapdoor Springfield that had some significant kick but I don't remember noticing any mizzle blast. Same thing with a No. 5 Lee-Enfield Jungle Carbine. That was so long ago, though, that it was one that I had bought through the mail.
I doubt anyone could really comment on how it affects the performance of the bullet, except for accuracy. But then, given the present condition of the eyes I use to shoot with, plus the fact that they will not be improving, I am not worried that much about the accuracy when I use it. I am luck to keep shots on the paper at 100 yards. However, I actually like the sights on this particular rifle, given what they are. A couple of my rifles have such thin front sights that they become a little difficult to see at times and these are new, sporting rifles, not one hundred year old military rifles. Maybe all those peep sights have spoiled me. I almost hate to admit that I like the sights on my 1938 Mosin-Nagant carbine, which give almost the same sight picture as on the Trapper. In any case, has the practice of adding after-market receiver sights to your lever action gone out of style?
Along the same lines, does anyone have one of the Legacy model Winchester 94's? I realize that many of you prefer Marlins over Winchesters and I can understand why but in this thread I am not asking for comparisons between Marlin and Winchester but between Winchester and Winchester. Anyhow, the one (Legacy model) I saw and examined, briefly, certain did not have the fit and finish of the Trapper model I just traded for. I mean it was OK but not great. But a two piece stock naturally has more places where the lack of fitting can be noticed. On the other hand, I really don't have that much basis for comparison, not having examined dozens and dozens of examples.
As a side note, I was surprised to learn that Winchester produced a Trapper version of the Model 1973, I believe, way back when. I saw one hanging on the wall at Clark Brother's near Warrenton, Virginia, which has a large collection of Winchesters spread around the store, all up out of reach. All these trapper models look so neat and handy, yet are probably the last choice of anyone who was planning to hunt anything. Maybe that is why they are called Trappers and not Deer Hunters.
I mainly traded for it because it was one of those things I've wanted for a long time, along with a half-magazine, pistol grip stock Model 94's. I'll get one of those sooner or later.
So what do I have and what is it good for?