Pre and Post 64 Model 94's

[inthebeech]

So what is the difference? I am wondering why the hype. It is not as if we're talking about the Model 70 where there are genuine and significant design differences, so other than the interminable decrease in overall fit and finish and care and precision of parts, which exists in many firearm models of many manufacturers, is ther more to it? You can talk technical if that's where the answer lies, I am an engineer and shouldn't get lost.
I'd like some data so that I can decide for myself if I think a 1963 gun is worth twice the price as a 1964 gun. It is my decision. I just want to make it intelligently and I know the folks here will give me ther real skinny.
Thanks,
Ed

[stubshaft]

I never realized that pre or post '64 pertained to any other Winchester than the Mdl. '70.

[peerlesscowboy]

If you have the opportunity to make a side by side comparison you'll easily tell the difference.

[405]

Yes, the side by side inspection is the way to do it. Yes, most all Wins changed in 64. Some also swear that post-war (WW2), not 1964, was the first major decline in quality. At a distance they're all a little hard to tell apart. But close inspection with tell. Also, I think some of the major parts were beginning to be investment cast during that 64 change. Now it's a very common if not the standard practice of cast then mill for many if not most manufacturers. Prior to about that time major parts of many guns were cut from forged or billet steel then milled. Stamped vs milled vs cast small parts is a different story.

[blaser.306]

Post 64's have a receiver that would not take blueing properly and cannot be re-blued ! They take on a "mottled apperance ! I just bought one that had 10 rounds thru it for $300.00 delivered in Nov . The rest of the gun looks like new but the receiver has a "distinct look to it !

[Jon K]

For a quick "at a glance"..... look for 2 screw lifter(pre64)....1 screw(post 64) that would be a dead give away.
Then there are transition guns, which some use early internal parts, my guess is to use up old inventory.

Jon

[bob208]

you know what makes the post 64's look good? the angle eject first models. know what makes the angle eject first models look good the second model with that stupid cross bolt safety.

i have many post and pre. 64 and pre war model 94's they all shoot good. they all work fine.

i collect pre 64 but hunt with a post 64.

[NickSS]

There were several changes to the 94 Winchester over the years but the biggest single change took place in 1864. Up to then the 94s all had milled steel recievers and milled and machiened internal parts. In 1964 Winchester changed the design to use a cast metal reciever that would not take a blued finish and had mostly stamped metal internal parts. These first post 64 guns had hard black chrome plated recievers and had really rough feeling actions (I know because I bought a new one in 1965). A couple of years later Winchester changed the design again to use investment cast internal parts and they started plating the recievers with a material that would take a blue finish. This finish is not too durable and is next to imposible to reblue to any good degree. The 94s made from the late 60s up to the advent of angle eject are decent rifles but not as good as the ones made before 64. The AE 94s are also good rifles but fit and finish went down hill and more of them had to go back for rework when new. The only AE I had reall problems with is one in 357 mag. I busted the cartridge lifter twice in this rifle due to a design flaw. When they narrowed the reed rails to take the 357 mag they also did away with the left cartridge lifter strut on the cartridge lifter. This weakens the piece. The rifle was only a week old when I broke the first one. It was casues by a second round feeding and ending up under the lifter when I closed the lever the lifter broke. QWinchester changed the lifter out and also installed a new cartridge catch. This worked well for a number of years then it happened again and I busted another lifter. The new lifter cost three times as much as the first one and I sold the rifle shortly arter that.

[Char-Gar]

I remember the 1964 Winchester massacre very well. In one fell swoop Winchester went to cheaper methods of making their firearms, and stamped parts and exploded pins replaced milled steel. A few years later, they went to cast receivers on the 94. Over the years Winchester has slowly and by increments improved the quality of their products and you have to be a real expert to know the various stages and changes.

So you really have to talk about which post-64.

[jh45gun]

I have a 1964 Model 94 and I like it. It shoots well and yea the receivers get that funky look but I prefer it to the angle eject and safety models as this would have been the gun I would have gotten as my first deer rifle if my dad would have bought me a new gun instead he bought me a used Glenfield 30/30. Back then I never warmed up to it because I wanted a Winchester just like Dad and my brother had. Now I wish I still had it. But back to the Winchester mine still has the stamped lifter and it never gives me any problems. This gun is not going to shoot very few jacketed bullets I shoot cast in it when I do shoot it.

[John Taylor]

Actually the 94 was change in 1963 and the model 70 in 64. I had one that was made in 63 and it had the stamped carrier and everything about it seemed to have that "tinny" feel. First thing I noticed was the floor plate pivot pin did not have the retainer screw. It went by by when someone made me an offer on it. Probably one of those mid year changes.

[smkummer]

One change for the better was the post 64 model 94 held its headspace much longer than the pre 64 guns. But if you ever operate the lever on a pre-64 and then try a post 64, you will tell right away which one feels nicer. After that you tell which is which with a blindfold on.

[adrians]

mine was made in 1954 and you can see the differences mine, cast ,solid steel, machined receiver . newer post 64 versions stamped "plate" (cheap) another example of cutting corners and "sub-contracting" out to other countries(japan i think but not for sure!).
have a great day ,,,adrians :twisted:[smilie=1::evil:

[NHlever]

I've owned a few of both the pre 64, and post 64 Model 94 Winchesters. The pre 64's were well made without manufacturing shortcuts, and are always a joy to handle. For a while Winchester used cast receivers, and stamped parts on the inside that sometimes caused functioning problems. Gradually some of those things (cast receivers, etc.) went away but the inside workings of the gun were completely redesigned by the time the angle eject guns showed up. I'm not sure when each change took place, but the entire trigger / hammer / lower tang assemblies are completely different in the latest guns Winchester made. Most of the newer angle eject models function pretty well. You need at least medium Weaver rings for the ejected cases to clear the scope all the time, and the hammer extension provided by Winchester will often hit the receiver, limiting hammer travel, and resulting in light hammer strikes or failure to fire situations. Those are the two biggest problems that I've encountered. I have had the sear notch fail on a powdered metal hammer from another manufacturer so I don't have a lot of confidence in those, but I have never had an issue with one from Winchester. I like them both, but for some reason just haven't been able to form a real bond with any of the newer ones I've had, and I own both a .44 mag, and a .357 mag right now. Both are more accurate than many other guns I've had in those calibers, but I still find myself reaching for my Marlins in those calibers when I want to take a rifle for a walk.

[wiljen]

1964 also marked the year they razed the original Winchester factory that most of the pre-64 models were produced in and heralded the occasion as "Progress in their modernization program". We all know that those modernization programs resulted in a lot of shortcuts, **** parts, and plastics taking over where craftsmanship used to dwell. It was that "Modernization" that changed the 94.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xkBIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CwENAAAAIBAJ&pg=641,1220403&dq=winchester+94+history&hl=en

[jlchucker]

1964 also marked the year they razed the original Winchester factory that most of the pre-64 models were produced in and heralded the occasion as "Progress in their modernization program". We all know that those modernization programs resulted in a lot of shortcuts, **** parts, and plastics taking over where craftsmanship used to dwell. It was that "Modernization" that changed the 94.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xkBIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CwENAAAAIBAJ&pg=641,1220403&dq=winchester+94+history&hl=en

They didn't raze them all. I went to work there in 1969 right after getting out of the Army, and they still had three whole streetfuls of buildings, interconnected by tunnels that went over New Haven streets, and a separate building that was a shot tower that was built in 1956 before they moved the commercial ammo manufacture to Alton, IL. A separate building altogether was a company hospital. There were still lots of empty old buildings, all interconnected. Inside, there were still lots of upgraded machines, but belt driven from ceiling shafts instead of with individual motors. What mostly changed their product lines was stupid engineering and a lack of taste when it came to making 94's that commemorated everything under the sun. I think that the biggest modernization really came when US Repeating Arms took over, but by then it may have been too late. For a while, during the latter part of the Olin era, 22 bolt action rifles were being manufactured in Canada, and over-under shotguns (model 101) were manufactured in Japan. Parts for New Haven made guns were made at Winchester, but also were subcontracted to various jobshops in Connecticut.

[robertbank]

Win bought the Cooey Arms out of Cobourg Ontario. Cooey .22LR along with Lakefield .22LR were virtually in every home in Canada. I just gave my Cooey produced Shur Shot, sold by Simpson Sears, to my oldest son. With a scope it still shoots cloverleafs at 25 yards and has taken a ton of gophers over the years. It will be shooting them long after I am gone.

If Winchester made all their guns as solid as the Cooey they would still be in business.

Take Care

Bob

[wiljen]

Win bought the Cooey Arms out of Cobourg Ontario. Cooey .22LR along with Lakefield .22LR were virtually in every home in Canada. I just gave my Cooey produced Shur Shot, sold by Simpson Sears, to my oldest son. With a scope it still shoots cloverleafs at 25 yards and has taken a ton of gophers over the years. It will be shooting them long after I am gone.

If Winchester made all their guns as solid as the Cooey they would still be in business.

Take Care

Bob

Lakefield either was bought by Savage or partners with them now as most of the Savage semi-auto 22s are Lakefield models with a savage stamp on them.

[oldhickory]

To put a real smile on your face, try a pre-WWI 1894 Winchester. I have 2, a saddle carbine and a special order sporting rifle, both made in 1898. They're both a whole bunch smoother and tighter than any of the intrim war 94's I've ever owned. The 1960's-1970's versions I've handled felt like someone sprinkled sand in them.

[robertbank]

Lakefield either was bought by Savage or partners with them now as most of the Savage semi-auto 22s are Lakefield models with a savage stamp on them.

Yes I forgot about the transition of Lakefield. I have been through their facility. Their .22 repeating bolt gun was nearly identical to the Cooey. I think we have eight of them at the club for the kids to use. You buy one of their .22 bolt guns with the tubular magazine and you have a gun that will outlast you and your grandchildren.

Take Care

Bob