Winchester 94s - Pre- vs. Post '64

[Griff]

I'm strictly talking top eject models here, I don't own, have never owned, and will likely not ever own an Angle Eject, so I can't comment. I used to, from a purely aesthetic point of view... but, now, not so much. I also used to write USRA regularly about their abandonment of lovers of the traditional top eject Winchester. But enough, on with the diatribe.

I don't come around here very much; but, I've read in 2 threads today how folks were advised to stay away from the post '64 Winchester mdl 94s. Frankly, that's rather elitist, don't you think? For those that offer that advice, do you actually own a post '64 from which to develop such an opinion, or are you just repeating what you've read others say, or worse yet, what some gunwriter has written?

And for all the guys that run out and buy an antique Winchester 94 because of advise on a gun forum to stay away from the post '64 Winchesters... so be it, you ain't exactly getting burned, but... from my personal perspective as a lover of the Winchester mdl 94, with about equal numbers of post and pre 64 mdl 94s in my safe (24 total, plus 6 in project form), you might just be passin' up the best bargain around. There ARE differences. For both the better and worse. But, they're actually quite minute in scope.

Yes, the receiver of the '64-'82 top eject Winchesters was made with scintered steel. Tho', I've heard that a few of the '80-'82 guns were actually back to the forged receiver. I've looked at a couple, but haven't been able/allowed to see if the interior of the receiver has that purplish color. Funky process to make them blue. Few folks around that can really refinish them properly. As for questions about strength; after uncounted thousands of rounds thru my 1979 custom rifle in various competitions with both factory loads and handloads that duplicate factory loads, there are NO problems with the receiver. And this rifle has had the receiver bone & charcoal CCH'd (case color hardened). In fact, since re-assembling this rifle after rebarreling and re-stocking, it has yet to have a malfunction of any sort. And, as has been witnessed by several competitors and fellow shooters, continues to please me and astound folks with it's accuracy and ease of shooting. All parts except that barrel, mag, mag spring and wood are the same that came from the factory in it, at least AFAIK) As I bought it in 1980, used... the original buyer said it wouldn't shoot worth a damn and returned it to the store he bought it from. Whereupon I bought it and asked if they had a new front sight, as the bead on the original sight had been broken off. Personally, my opinion is that the original buyer didn't know his front sight adjustment from his rear... and since it was shooting high, he broke off the bead when the rear sight wouldn't go any lower... then when he found out it shot even higher, he played stupid and claimed the gun was defective. Luckily, for him and me, the gunshop didn't notice the broken front sight and marked it for $150... I didn't pay that much, and have a fine shooter). BTW, that barrel is now on another Post '64 mdl 94 that shoots as well as any other mdl 94 in my safe.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d197/sass93/tangsight.jpg

Ok, the '64s-'72 had that silly stamped carrier. I've owned 3 of them, 2 still reside in the safe, and none of the carriers in them have broken. But, wait... I don't try to force overlength cartridges thru the action. The most common cause of a broken/bent stamped carrier.

The '76-'82s have the coil mainspring. Some has pooh-poohed this as unnecessary, but, my feeling is that it provides a smoother action, and arguably, a fractionally faster lock time.

But, "...they're rattly and noisy." Welcome to the world of the mdl 94 Winchester. One the loosest 94s I have is an unmolested '27 carbine. It had to have been built on a Friday, after the 1927 equivalent of the 3-martini lunch! But, hey... ammo cycles right thru it, and has accounted for more coy-dogs than most of us have ever seen. Mostly by the two previous owners. Both of whom were cowboy/ranchers, and carried it in a saddle scabbard and nothing chambered. Still regularly dispatched coyotes, even cycling the thing after spottin' a 'yote. And the absolute tightest one I own is a 1979 just like the one I customized, that I bought new in '79. It's the one that sits in the front of the safe now, with a full mag, ready for that errant 'yoke or feral dog that's in my pasture!

There's a reason they vary greatly in the tightness and smoothness of their action. Winchester assembled its rifles from bins of parts... with only enough hand fitting to make sure they worked. Mostly, if a part didn't fit, it was replaced with another from that bin until one that fit was found. Ergo, the sloppiness attributed to the 94 action. In all reality, it doesn't NEED to be tight, except when the locking lug comes up and pushes the bolt forward. Once the lever is latched, almost all moving parts are locked in place. And if you're holding it right (again, IMO), your little finger can hold that lever from rattling all around. :D

In most cases, saddle rings make more noise than levers. Anyway... what ARE you doing, that you're shakin' the derned thing? :-? It ain't like ya gotta "shake the dew off" after :takinWiz:

Frankly, quit scaring folks off from the post '64 Winchester 94. I admit, I'm buying them up as fast as I can, but... I run short o' cash from time to time...

The post '64 Winchester 94 can be one of the best bargains out there for a truly iconic "western" lever gun. I have a couple that are fitted up so that most folks can't tell they're a post '64 until they get a look at the serial number. Even then, I've had them count the digits in the number to make sure they're lookin' at a 7 digit number, not a 6.

Can you tell which is the pre- or the post '64 in this pic?
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d197/sass93/prepost64.jpg

The foregoing is simply my opinion, feel free to disagree. I'll continue to buy up the bargains, the shooters, while others chase after the supposedly collectible![smilie=s:

[pietro]

Can you tell which is the pre- or the post '64 in this pic?
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d197/sass93/prepost64.jpg





The pre-64 is the lower rifle.

I pretty much agree, but also like the pre-safety Model 94AE's, AND the BB94's in .444 (all AE's).

I also switch out the stamped sheet metal (steel) 64-70 lifters with cast 71-81 lifters, tuit'-suite - as a matter of principle.



.

[FergusonTO35]

I don't have anything against the post-64, other than that too many of them left the factory with glaring defects. Huge gaps between wood and metal, receiver floorplates that unlatch by themselves, barrel canted to the left or right. In 2003 I bought one brand new that exhibited all these defects, wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't gotten such a good deal on it. The 94 design requires too much careful parts fitment to produce at a low price with quality.

[bob208]

i have collected winchester leaver guns for the past 30 plus years. mostly 94s i have all kinds of speciel order rifles and carbines. i have one post 94 carbine. you know it shoots just as good as the old ones. it has the machined lifter. the wood to metal fit is very good as good as the pre 64. when i go hunting i take the post 64. that is if i don't take something odd. like my 66 in .44-40 or my sharps carbine in .50-70.
so i say if you find a good post 64 at a good price buy it. you will not get hurt.

[smkummer]

Winchester was always supposed to be a working man's rifle. While I cherish my 1963 94 Winchester and would not trade it for 2 post 64 model 94 carbines, its also been my experience that the post rifles shoot just as well. It is still common to find a post 64 94 rifle all day long for $300 or less and it will most likely shoot just fine. Its been 30 years sinced I owned my model 94-44 magnum, but I sold it when I doubled my money on it and kept the Marlin 94-44. That rifle sure didnt feel as smooth as either the Marlin or the pre-64 94 that I know have. But I kind of wish I had it back.

[rintinglen]

I totally agree with the OP's point.
Back when I was pup, I got a new 1970 or 71 M-94 from K-mart. The gun-snobs at my father's deer camp sneered, "Should've got a pre-war gun." Well, I was young, inexperienced and not a good shot yet, but a funny thing happened. We put up some paper plates and took turns each sighting in our rifles. Low and behold, my "junk" gun put 5 shots in 3 inches, the 2nd best group fired, and the guy who beat me was a police officer who had been on the Department Shooting team. Nostalgia is a funny thing: "the older I get, the better I was."

Nowadays, it's the pre-64 versus post 64 thing, but nostalgia aside, my Daughter's 1979 pawn shop special shoots every bit as well as well as the 1953 model I scoured the country for and cost her 200 dollars less. (I'm a 53 model also--us middle earlies got to stick together.) My most accurate 94 is a parts gun with a 26 inch half round, half octagon, barrel on a Canadian Centennial frame. Thats a 94 barrel on a 66 frame, with part's from the gun smith's bin. Point being, for a good, compact, reasonably accurate deer rifle, ANY M-94 is likely to be a good choice. Unless your a collector, there's no practical difference.

[OverMax]

I actually own a (pre-64) model 64 in 32 special. I wouldn't trade it for (2) of anything made these days. Those who own a (pre 1964) one cherish them. Those who don't. Well whatever!!

[felix]

I like the side-eject and cross-over-safety 94 models. If a gun shoots straight, well, I want it to hold up to that level for a few thousand rounds. ... felix

[1Shirt]

Kinda agree with Felix. Have a 94 Win in 357, and love the side eject for scope. Could live with or without the cross over safety, but it is handy.
1Shirt!

[Jack Stanley]

I'm no real snob when it comes to the ninety-four , I just don't care for 'em ! But if we go to a show and ya tell me what is a deal , I'll spot for ya ! I did have one that I bought from a friend when he needed money and think it was a early or mid seventies model . It did not fit my frame real well and booted me like it was an elephant rifle . It did function just fine and had no more rattle than any other hunting carbine .

Come to think of it I bought a trapper chambered in forty-five Colt around the late eighties . It was much easier for me to shoot though I'm sure all the stock measurements were the same as the other I didn't like . The trapper I did like and couldn't find a single fault that I can remember , the trapper got sold to someone who wanted it way more than I .

What I can appreciate about the ninety-four ( and any decent quality firearm ) are the type of person who takes the time to learn them inside and out and make them into a work of art the factory couldn't afford to . That kind of rifle I like lookin' at . Just for what it's worth , I have a Browning model fifty-three and though it ain't a real "Winchester" I'm busy enjoyin' the dickens out of it .

Jack

[John Taylor]

I would like to set things strait here, the 94 was changed in 63 and the model 70 was changed in 64. I had a 94 that was sold in 63 and the S/N showed it to be made in 63. When I bought the rifle the owner was trying to tell me it was a pre 64 and I was saying nooooo. But his father had bought it new and it was handed down to him so I ran a check on the S/N and he was right. I have a 94 in the parts bin that was made in 1896, sold in 1900 and went back to the factory for a rear sight in 1901. Someday I will get around to putting it all together.
Most of the 94s that come through the shop have about .006-.008" headspace. I tried setting one up with zero headspace and it locked up every shot. Same thing with an 1886. For some reason they got to run a little sloppy.

[TXGunNut]

I'd like a pre-64 someday but I have several few post-64's and they're all good, solid rifles. Any pre-64 I run across w/ tang or receiver sights gets a good going-over but I'm still looking.