Winchester???

[tcrocker]

I'm looking at 1964 Winchester 94 it's in good shape but I'm not sure what a fair offer would be on this gun any one know what would be fair?

[Scharfschuetze]

Tcrocker,

The first Post-63 Winchesters (both Model 70s and Model 94s) were pretty prone to breakage. Winchester really upgraded the quality in 1968 and the Model 70s reflect that with a "G" prefix to the serial number. As many of my friends in high school ended up with Winchesters made in 1964 through 1968 I witnessed several broken firing pins and ejectors as well as chipped finish around the ejection port on Model 94s.

If that Model 94 was made between 1964 to 1967, I would take a long hard look at it.

[ultramag]

I'm looking at 1964 Winchester 94 it's in good shape but I'm not sure what a fair offer would be on this gun any one know what would be fair?

No where near enough information to answer this question. They still seem to vary price wise depending on location somewhat even with online sales etc. and you don't mention it's condition at all.

[tcrocker]

Thanks for the info I think I'm going to pass.

[uscra112]

Buy a Marlin and live happily ever after. [smilie=l:

[starmac]

Thanks for the info I think I'm going to pass.

I would never pass on one just because it was made between 64 and 67 or so. There were some differences, but they can (may have already been) be worked out.
Around here they will bring 350 or more depending on condition.

[Larry Gibson]

A "fair" offer depends on the condition of the M94 and whether or not it was made in the '64 - '67 years. Easiest way to tell on that one is look at the shell carrier. If it was milled then it is a pre '64 (even though made in '64 it could still have been with the remaining pre change parts). If the carrier is stamped it is less valuable and I would drop the price accordingly.

Only way I would buy a M94 made in the post '64 - '67 years was if the price was "fair" to me and I mean really "fair" to me. Don't get me wrong, many of those M94s function and shoot just fine and they make good "truck guns" but they are prone to problems. I've had a couple over the years and worked on several others (replacing the carriers) that I'll pay the extra for a M94 not made in those years.

Larry Gibson

[jh45gun]

I have a 64 and I have had no issues with it at all. It shoots great and the action is not bad at all.

[double8]

Buy a Marlin and live happily ever after. [smilie=l:
Buy an "old" Marlin.....new Remlins are junk.
I bought a 795.....unfortunately. What a piece of ****. Needed two horsepower to pull the trigger, the front sight was off the top of the barrel by about 15-20 degrees. Much interference between barrel and stock. A real clunker.
It's gone now.......to my $$$ loss.

[bob208]

I have a post 64 it has the milled shell carrier. I don't know if it was changed or not . it is a good relievable rifle. I use it the most even though I have more then 20 pre 64 94s

[jlchucker]

I have a post 64 it has the milled shell carrier. I don't know if it was changed or not . it is a good relievable rifle. I use it the most even though I have more then 20 pre 64 94s

Depending on the year, it probably was changed out. I've run across lots of 94's of that vintage that have the newer, investment cast carriers where the stamped ones must have been originally. Like someone said earlier, those make pretty good truck guns. They did have good barrels, but most all of them had a lever that rattled every time you shook the gun. Solution to that is, don't shake the gun. Those IMO make a pretty good truck gun, dedicated to cast-boolit use.