post 64 winchester any good

[starmac]

If I understand some posts, Winchester has made a good 94 in 50 years. New ones cost $1500+ aren't worth that much?

That would depend on a guys intended use. For my use no, if it is deemed too pretty to throw in the truck,canoe, risk getting wet or a little scratched up, it is just not something I need. Unless we are talking a rare cal there are plenty of pre or post 94's around to suit my purposes, in the 3 to 5 hundred dollar range, Except I have not run across the big bore 356 or 375 for those prices. Must be why I don't have one. lol

[olafhardt]

I have done a little research on the post 64 receivers and have come to the conclusion that they are at least simi stainless which is why they won't blue. If you just give them a good sanding you wind up with a satin finished receiver that hardly ever rusts. Indeed the original iron plating does rust but this issue goes away when you sand the iron off. My favorite thing to do is to engine turn the receiver and tang. I just bought one to do this to for $249. If you do this you might want to strip the receiver. The regular blued screw heads show up great against the silvery background. I think the coil main spring on the post is preferable to the flat spring on the pre. My first lever was a Marlin 39 D, a carbine model of the 39 which proved to me that Marlin could.make a slick gun. They only made the D for a few years. I later bought a 336 and did not like it because it was not slick. I then bought my first Winchester 94, a 70's model and was soon of the opinion it was among the slickest centerfires I have ever handled. I can't say a 336 is a bad rifle nor is a pre 64 win 94 but they aren't "better" than the post 64 Winchester 94.

[pls1911]

Nothing wrong with 'em if that's what you want.
I own a few and they're functionally fine and accuracy is good.
But they just ain't a Marlin.
Marlin designs are to lever guns what the 1911 was to auto pistols.
Simple, few parts, very rugged, and just plain works.
For your money, go find a JM Marlin.

[Remiel]

(wife has final say) I LOVE IT, you better get to sweet talking her. lol

Remember this, it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. lol

not sweet talk, usually when I get a rifle or shot gun i have to get her one too, when I got 2 mosin-nagants , she in turn tasked to build her an AR-15

[starmac]

Well then that is easy decision, as lever actions of any make multiply.

Every now and then if my wife catches me bringing a new one in, I have to tell her I picked it up for her. I'm glad she doesn't catch me that often, as she gets plumb ornery when I take one of hers out to play with. lol

[evan price]

The Pre-64 is a classic gun in terms of style and construction. Kind of like a pre-Bangor/Punta Smith & Wesson. The post 64s are still a good workhorse but not as much eye candy.
As long as it's still a top eject and doesn't have the added on safety it's still a good solid gun. The purists won't like it but so what.

[FergusonTO35]

I bought a 94 brand new in 2002. Functionally it was as good as any of my Marlins. Never jammed, always went bang, made respectable groups, actually had the best trigger pull I've ever encountered on a lever action. Equipped with a Williams 5D sight it had that wonderful point and shoot feel of a good shotgun.

Unfortunately it had lots of nagging quality control problems, most of the same ones that are attributed to Remlins. Wood to metal fit was terrible with yawning gaps. The forend never would stay snug. The barrel was canted to the left just enough to spoil your sight picture, I had Williams Gunsight fix that. The action was so loose that the bolt would open just by gravity pulling down the lever. The amount of money it would cost to correct those problems would easily buy a nice Marlin and then some so down the road it went.

[jh45gun]

I have a 64 vintage 94 that does not rattle and never had an issue with the stamped cartridge lifter and it loves cast bullets. My Taurus 92 Ranchhand is smoother than any 94 I have used pre or post. I like both of them and take the criticisms with a grain of salt.

[charlie b]

I just got a late 60's vintage 94 for $350. It looks like someone put a box of ammo through it and put it away for 40 years. Rifling is very crisp. Finish on receiver is not quite perfect, but is all there. Good trigger and functions smoothly (not as smooth as FIL's early 1900's Mod 94). Shoots really well.

Yes, it does look like it was built to low standards. Fit of wood is not great and quality of wood is low end. For a hunter/shooter it is perfect. If I wanted a gun that was nice to look at I'd go after something else. FWIW, it is finished just as well as the two Marlin (later production) .45-70's that were next to it in the rack.

[crowbarforge]

I have a post '64 .32 Win (early '70s?) and another in .30-30 that is late '70s. Both well worn but are fine shooting "utility" rifles, made to shoot. I like the CB loads they handle well. Nothing special, but got them both cheap in middle Georgia.