Griff
12-11-2012, 04:26 PM
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:
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: