[old welder]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/SearchResults.aspx
??
I never knew
Oooooopppps
now it should.

 

[eaglesnest]

Say welder, I don't think your link is working..

 

[moss1]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=223271714


http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=222517187

 

[Halwg]

I think those are ridiculous prices. I'll stick with my 57M, which is a great shooter.

 

[lesismore]

If ever I get a 22 WMR I think I will get a Henry frontier model. I have a Henry 22lr.std. 18.5 in. round barrel model and it is a slick, accurate little gun. The frontier model has all metal parts and 20 in. octagon barrel. Both in 22lr. and 22 WMR. for much less than that 1894M. I think you could buy two for the same or less.

I also read a lot of negative posts on the 1894M 22 mag. They were complaints of poor cycling action, heavy weight for a 22 rimfire, and some were finicky about ammo. I decided to go with a 1894CL 218 bee and am happy as can bee ;D ;D.

 

[eaglesnest]

Is sort of interesting though, a 1894 without the loading gate.. Was there a reason for the 1894 action instead of the model 39?

 

[Ballplayer]

Both of those rifles are described as 80's model yet they both have cross-bolt safety's is that correct. I thought those came out in the 90's ?

 

[lesismore]

Is sort of interesting though, a 1894 without the loading gate.. Was there a reason for the 1894 action instead of the model 39?

The 39 action is to short for the 22 mag and it may not have enough strength anyhow, The 1894 action is more than strong enough for 22 mag and the lack of a loading gate on the 1894 is because of the small dia. of the rimfire cartridge hard to work with. The 1894 32 H&R mags are like that as well.

 

[44-40 Willy]

Both of those rifles are described as 80's model yet they both have cross-bolt safety's is that correct. I thought those came out in the 90's ?

Crossbolt Safety came out about 1984.

 

[stans4]

Is sort of interesting though, a 1894 without the loading gate.. Was there a reason for the 1894 action instead of the model 39?

The 39 uses the lever to prop the bolt closed and the takedown feature adds some more weakness for higher-pressure ammo. No wonking big rectangular locking block like on the bigger actions. What ultimately holds the bolt shut are the two receiver bosses on either side of the lever at the pivot point. It's adequate for regular .22 LR and after the bolt design mod, .22 LR high-speeds, but not for .22 Mag.

I've seen only one 1894M in 30 some odd years of gun shows, the one the b-in-l wanted(and bought). My experience with it was that it was balky when feeding and the last 1/2" or so of bolt travel was a lot harder than it should be. The b-in-l claims it's accurate, at least for the first shot. There were a lot of special parts made to adapt the action to .22 Mag, not much except external screws and a few pins are common with any of the other 1894s. I did a short slick-up job on it, but we were too busy hunting deer to really check it out last time I was there. There weren't a lot of sharp edges and burrs on it that I've seen on later guns.

My opinion would be that it's a good stand-in for the .44 1894 for practice, somewhat cheaper ammo, but manufacturing costs probably exceeded the centerfire 1894s'. There's a sheet steel bullet ramp ala 39 screwed to the top of the receiver, next time I'll take a look at that, it's probably the cause of the tightness on that last little bit of bolt travel.

Stan S.

 

[J.Turek]

Old and in the gray says get a win 9422 trapper in 22mag. if you want the best made,lighest,and most accurate lever gun !!!!They are rare as hens teeth now that they were discontinued in 06' I think ,Also pricey but worth every dollar. I ordered mine from COMM disc. in Texas just before in liminted edt. of 500 ,casehardened 16"barrel trapper an have never been sorry!!! A real tack driver with mini 4power scope or open sights. Thanks, hope some of you get lucky too!