Pre 64 Winchesters

[jimlj]

I have heard for as long as I can remember that "pre 64 Winchesters" are better than those made later. Another thread discussing 30 WCF and 30-30 Winchesters prompted me to look at the two model '94's I am the current custodian of. One was built in 1898, the other in 1967. Comparing the two, other than the wood stock I see nothing that would make me say the older is better. The wood is different, as well as the butt plates, but other than that the visual differences are minor. Some things you can see the quality difference, but my untrained eyes can't pick out anything other than a couple dollars difference in the stock that would make me say one is better than the other. I know the old 94 has a higher dollar value than the "new" rifle, but the new rifle has a higher sentimental value to me since I was standing by dads side when he bought it new at the local Ranch and Home store.

From what I've heard the model 70 suffered in quality and workmanship in those years, but I'm not seeing it in the model 94.

[bob208]

I have about 30 pre 64 model 94 Winchesters. I hunt with one made in 1972. in 64 they made some manufacturing changes to make them cheaper stamped parts then they up graded to a different process it did make them better. some will say the finish was not as good. but then the finish was coming off receivers in the 20's and 30's.

the biggest mistake was they did not make rifles after 64 only carbines. I would like to find a post 64 carbine in .32 win. spl. also a model 64a.

for a using gun the post 64 will do just fine. for a collector the pre 64 will always win out.

[GhostHawk]

I have one of each, both look good, the pre-64 looks older, well used but near perfect condition.
But the bore is a sewer pipe with a tight spot at the rear sight. First 9 shots at 25 yards 8 missed paper totally, 1 hit.

The post 64 is newer looking, angle eject, has a safety which bothers me not at all.

And it will put 5 shots at 50 yards all touching.

I think eventually I will send the pre-64 to JES to rebore into a .35-30-30.

The post 64 is in a case, with over 50 rounds of ammo stored in the case, has a good sling on it, neopreme, that has pockets for 6 more rounds. This is the one I would trust. I know what it will do.

I did research taking the safety out, figured it out, tried it both ways, and put it back on. Just don't push the dang button.

I am considering taking it to a gunsmith to be fitted with a short piece of rail for a Red Dot type sights.
My old eyes just don't like the iron sights anymore. It hangs in its case, in a hidden location, loaded but chamber empty.
Very quickly available at need. I paid half as much for the post 64 and got twice as much rifle. Just my opinion. YMMV

[Texas by God]

The stamped parts and cast steel receiver of the post 64 are the major differences. I agree the post 64s shoot as well as the pre 64s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Hick]

I have a pre-64 (1949) in 32 WS and a post 64 (1968 30-30) and cannot tell the difference from an accuracy standpoint. Both are more accurate than my eyes can see. One historical complaint was from people who naturally assumed that the post 64 cast steel receiver would be weaker than the forged pre-64 (cast must be weaker than forged right??). The post-64 receivers are made from a cast ferritic steel that happens to be the same cast steel that those of us in the power industry use for special high pressure valves when we need the highest strength and best wear resistance. Its great steel-- as strong or stronger than that in the pre-64's-- but it does take bluing differently (leading to some complaints). One other complaint about post 64's was the stamped steel cartridge lifter-- which looks cheap but is plenty strong. About 1970 Winchester went back to a machined lifter just to stop the complaints. I swapped out the stamped lifter in my post 64 for the machined lifter just because I liked to look of it, but the stamped one worked fine. The only real difference between post- and pre- is whether you want a shooter or a collector. If you want a collector, pre-64 is probably better because its older. If you want a shooter they are both great.

[Leslie Sapp]

I have a 1992 30-06 m-70 featherweight that I wouldn't trade for any of the pre-64's. It has a very slick controlled round feed action and shoots 150 gr pro hunters under an inch. I don't doubt the older guns were well made and arguably finished better, but modern metallurgy and precision machining is hard to beat.

My wife shoots a Winchester Model 12 made in 1920 that she absolutely will not replace. It's a finely made firearm in a classic design, but I still prefer my 1982 era 870 Remington for speed and reliability.

[gbrown]

I have 2 Winchesters in 30/06. One that was made in 1954 and my Dad bought it a year later in Colorado to hunt elk. Then a Post 64 I bought a couple of years back. I think the serial # shows it to be early, like during '64. Can't remember for sure. As other posts have said, I can't see any difference in accuracy between the 2. My hunting load is 46.5 grains of 4895 under a Nosler Ballistic Tip. Chronographs at 2400 FPS, and shoots consistent 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards. Some have been even smaller. Both rifles do this. I got the 2nd, as my oldest grandson claimed his great grandfather's, and I wanted one for 200-300 yard shots on a pipeline. Hit one of our SETX whitetails in the lungs with the Nosler, they don't go far. 30 yards at the most.

[country gent]

The first version of the post 64 did away with the anti bind bolt hump, controlled round feeding was replaced with a plunger ejector and small extractor in the bolt rim. Some parts were stamping instead of forgings machining's. This was the model 70s. The post 64 post 67 brought back the anti bind hump and 3 position safety along with better wood and fit. Then in the late 80s they brought out the super grade with the big extractor and controlled round feeding back the anti bind hump on the bolt 3 position safety on the bolt shroud.

[Alan in Vermont]

I am considering taking it to a gunsmith to be fitted with a short piece of rail for a Red Dot type sights.
My old eyes just don't like the iron sights anymore.

Before you do that look hard at the Pearson No-Drill Scope Mount, https://www.mod94scoperail.com/

I did exactly what you want, using the Pearson mount. It replaces the screw that holds the link pin in place at the rear and ties into a filler plug in the rear sight dovetail. The rail is quite long but that portion ahead of the front attachment can be whacked off if you want. Only complaint I have is that the edges of the mount are very square and quickly became uncomfortable when carrying one-handed. I radiused them with file and sandpaper and re-blacked with a magic marker. You can still carry the gun balanced in your hand around the receiver.

I tried three different red dot sights and settled on a Leopold-Gilmore(sp) which is a short, low tube resembling a low power scope. Pointing quality went up with this setup and my body characteristics. Look at an object, shoulder the gun and the red dot is ON when you cheek the stock. I'm 5' 7" with a fairly round face and a short neck and everyone else who is in that sort of dimension gets the same, instant sight picture.

[KCSO]

The biggest complaint of the post 64's was the stamped lifter... they would bend easy and then you had feeding problems. THe current rebounding hammer system is not the best and the push button safety is unnecessary and a problem in the field.

[quilbilly]

Since this discussion is of Win. Mod. 70's and other pre-64's, I will soon be gifted a post 64 Mod 70 made for Sears under their Model 53 label. It is basically never fired and in almost new condition after sitting in a safe in the desert for at least 30 years. It is in the 270 caliber. It will be at least couple months before I can pick it up. Any thoughts on what to expect??? I already have the Loverin style 122 gr mold to make the CB's. I am excited as you might expect.