post 64 winchester any good

[Remiel]

was offered a possible post 64 Winchester 94 for under 5 bills, are they worth it? all i ever hear about are pre 64's

[starmac]

I don't have a problem with them as far as using them. I just picked up a 68 model today, that seems to be plenty ok. I actually bought it to get the old redfield peep off of it and switch with my 53 model though.

[pietro]

was offered a possible post 64 Winchester 94 for under 5 bills, are they worth it?





IMO that's a high price for one in primo condition - should be more like $350.


.

[starmac]

In this area, you won't see many primo lever actions in the 450 range these days. At the gunshow today the very cheapest one I saw was a 71 vintage for 275, it could have been bought for 250 but appearance wise it was pretty rough.

[phonejack]

I have a "pre" and have had and sold two "posts". Accuracy wise, there wasn't enough difference to matter.

[Lead Fred]

1963 and older: Best in the west
1964-1980: Good working rifles, rattles a bit, I got my last one for $200, Id not pay over $400 for one today,
A (JM) Marlin is a better choice
1981-2006: JUNK

[Remiel]

it is owned by a gunsmith, i haven't seen it but i have met the owner(he is my GS's mentor) think the price was 425.00 and was told it was in very good condition, i dont even remember the caliber, i heard Winchester and lever action then brain quit workin

[texasbilly]

If all you are looking for is a lever action rifle for hunting use, think about a Marlin 336. If you are thinking about the Winchester as a collector, it is not worth $425 regardless of the condition. Understand, there is nothing wrong with the Winchester, it is just that there are better guns on the market.

[bob208]

I collect Winchesters mostly 94's I have 1 post 64. it is a ok carbine shoots good taken a few deer. never had any problems that others talk about. same thing for my wife's post 64, in fact I am looking for a post 64 in .32 w.spl. also would like to find a 64a.

I think at your price that mite be a little strong.

[Char-Gar]

I am old enough to remember well the great cry of anguish that went up in 1964 when Winchester changed some manufacturing techniques to reduce the cost of making their firearms. The only comparable public outcry was when Coca-Cola removed the traditional Coke and replace it with the new Coke.

The truth of the matter is the changes Winchester made never had any effect on the accuracy or utility of their firearms. They continued to do what Winchester firearms always did. It was just a clash of tradition vs. modern manufacturing. There really never way a question of accuracy, reliability or utility.

I still like the old stuff, because I am old, but have enough reality in me to understand that it is just a preference and nothing of substance.

[Remiel]

it is owned by a gunsmith, i haven't seen it but i have met the owner(he is my GS's mentor) think the price was 425.00 and was told it was in very good condition, i dont even remember the caliber, i heard Winchester and lever action then brain quit workin
have one marlin 336 in .30-30 and a 39a in .22lr, i just have a thing for lever guns, i drool on my buddy's savage 99, it was appraised at 1200 bucks, my gs knows this and has tried to dell me Henry's(i was broke) and other in the past

[osteodoc08]

They are serviceable and if you're happy with it, that's all that matters. You should be able to find a decent pre64 for around 500 though. I let mine go to a member here for around that. Wish I still had it. It had a peep sight on it and was superb. I miss it. If I didn't have a decent post 64 and a few marlins, I'd hunt me another one down.

[Remiel]

They are serviceable and if you're happy with it, that's all that matters. You should be able to find a decent pre64 for around 500 though. I let mine go to a member here for around that. Wish I still had it. It had a peep sight on it and was superb. I miss it. If I didn't have a decent post 64 and a few marlins, I'd hunt me another one down.
it will depend on the wife and i will have to see it first

[gwpercle]

I have a 1970 model 94 in 30-30 and have no issues with it. Nice blue, walnut stock. No unsightly safety on the side and groups well. Drilled and tapped for a receiver sight. Shoots cast lead boolits as well as factory ammo. But I don't think I would pay $500.00 for one .
Gary

[TXGunNut]

I have mostly post-64's but they're all good guns. 450 would be a decent price around here for an 80% or better gun. Pre-64 is nice if a bit overrated IMHO but there's something about the pre-war guns that just feels different to me.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

For a 94, the post-63's are not as bad a drop in quality as the M70's. They are not bench rest rifles, or known for accuracy.

Winchester made an attempt to out-cheap Remington. They succeeded to a certain extent, but one will note that the current line of M70's are basically a return to the Pre-64 design.

I have been able to find early 94's at sub-$400 prices from individuals here in SW Idaho. Found a 25-35 rifle made in the early teens for $700 recently. It is the nicest one I have seen in about thirty years. And, NO!, it is not for sale.

Rich

[fouronesix]

$500 or about that is too much for a post 64. Agree though they shoot well enough and are probably strong enough but if you've owned, handled, shot and worked on a bunch of the older 94s, 92s, 95s, 86s, 71s, 73s, 76s then compare to the post-64 94s…. no comparison. Some years of the post-64 94s have had chronic parts breakitis. So disinterested in them I haven't even paid attention to exactly which years. The better, more recent lever guns, in certain models, made under the Winchester or Browning name are those made in Miroku Japan…. IMO

[Little Boats]

Not trying to come off like a jerk but when did "Pre 64" relate to anything other than the changes to the M70's trigger group? If I ordered a part for my M70 back in 1970 the nice person on the other end of the phone would ask if the gun was Pre 1964. Mine was not but the entire trigger group could be swapped for the old style if you called and ordered the parts so I said yes.

I understand there was a race to the bottom in quality to be cheap but that was well after 1964.

[labradigger1]

Not trying to come off like a jerk but when did "Pre 64" relate to anything other than the changes to the M70's trigger group? If I ordered a part for my M70 back in 1970 the nice person on the other end of the phone would ask if the gun was Pre 1964. Mine was not but the entire trigger group could be swapped for the old style if you called and ordered the parts so I said yes.

I understand there was a race to the bottom in quality to be cheap but that was well after 1964.



Post 64 94's had rattles, non forged carrier and the receivers would not blue worth a hoot.
Pre 64's just the opposite. I have a 94 made in 43' and one made in 73'.
Not a nickles difference in the way they group but the pre 64 feeds much better and does not rattle, blueing is awesome.
Around these parts post 64's in vgc go for about $275-$300.
Lab

[Little Boats]

Post 64 94's had rattles, non forged carrier and the receivers would not blue worth a hoot.
Pre 64's just the opposite. I have a 94 made in 43' and one made in 73'.
Not a nickles difference in the way they group but the pre 64 feeds much better and does not rattle, blueing is awesome.
Around these parts post 64's in vgc go for about $275-$300.
Lab

Interesting. The 94 was never my favorite of the lever guns but history shows me to be in the minority on that one. I have owned a few and always counted myself lucky they were all quite nice.

Every maker had their ups and downs. Anything one might find around here for $300.00 is going to be a total rat bag. All of the nice ones have been snapped up and what is left is not pretty. I had a Buffalo Bill commemorative that had been worked over and it was quite nice. I was dumb for ever selling.

Sorry for the derail.

[MBTcustom]

I've had my grubby hands all over the innards of these rifles. You want the truth? Here it is:

I have seen loose and tight pre 64s
I have seen loose and tight post 64s
They all were better average quality than Marlin, except for those few shining points in history where Marlin got it right (the early ones look like they were made in a back room with a bench grinder.)
If you're talking about quality, Winchester stands out in my mind as being far more consistent over the last 100 years than any of the other American makers (till they folded that is).
The changes made in the 60's were not bad, except for the fact that they had to learn to make firearms in a new way (which they pulled off with superb grace, if you compare to Remington's recent purchase of Marlin firearms and the subsequent learning curve we all paid for).
The upshot of it is, that I would sooner own a Winchester than any other American firearm, no matter when it was made. I base this on a knowledge of their quality internally, and not where they cut cost on things like stocks and finish, and non essential flu flu BS that makes everybody week in the knees or sick to the stomach. I judge firearm quality by what's on the inside, and Winchester has impressed me so many times, I just know what to expect.

The problem is, they were too practical with some of the changes that were made (the M70 extractor for instance was an absolute stroke of genius, but was so far away from what they had originally, no one appreciated it).
The sintered metal recievers on the post64 94 levers was that way as well. I mean, from a practical/functional point of view, if you're going to cut cost on something, the place to do it is in the big part that just holds all the parts doing the work in alignment! They were years ahead of their time on that.
Unfortunately, these changes did not sit well with the american people, and Winchester pretty much got dealt all the dirt that should have been passed to the new manufacturers, who offered cheap junk to the public at a reduced pricepoint, to the detriment of real quality. The American public wanted cheap guns and high quality, but proved that they were only willing to look at the surface appearance and function, giving no thought to the longevity of the firearms, nor the true craftsmanship that went into them. (I know this, because now I'm being asked to fix all these low quality firearms because "grandpa gave it to me and it's special!". Well, grandpa shouldn't have been taken in by the cheap junk sellers.)
This spelled the doom for a company that only knew how to produce fine firearms the old way.
Fortunately, many many people bought the new Winchesters, but soon found that even though they shot really really well, and functioned perfectly, Winchester did not put the emphasis on surface quality that the others did.
The post 94 is a classic example. That sintered steel receiver, while very strong and perfectly reliable, would not keep the finish more than a few years before it started getting all spotty and rubbed off. So even though it works perfectly, in a short period of time, it looks like complete junk. This left a sour taste in the mouth of the American public, and they complained so much about the looks of the guns, that it soon became common knowledge that the post 64 94s were junky rifles which hurt their pricepoint dramatically (Americans are a very vein people, and appearances are everything, right after cost).

Therefore, the post 64 Winchester 94s are not worth half what they should be. If you find one in absolutely immaculate condition, $350 is all you should pay for it, regardless of its history.
Regardless of the quality of the guns or how they shoot, that's all they are worth for the reasons listed above. We can argue till the cows come home about right or wrong, but the reality is it's just not worth what a Marlin of the same vintage and condition is.
The good news is it's a great way to get into an awesome shooter for low money, but if somebody's trying to sell you one for $500 "because I worked on it" or because "I know somebody who worked it over real good" it's time to walk away shaking your head.

Just my opinion.

[bob208]

I agree with just about everything you said. except Winchester had problems with the finish on their early gun too. the blue was flacking off the early 94's also. but back then people were just glad to get them and use them. now the market is flooded with guns and people are like ferrets. attracted to the shine.

[Scharfschuetze]

I think that the low point for Winchester was the 1964 through 1967 period. I was just starting my shooting career at the time and several friends bought what they thought were top of the line rifles, but in a few short years I saw three broken firing pins in Model 94s and a broken extractor on a Model 70. I did not notice the aforementioned finish problems until a few years into the 70s, but it was most striking with many such rifles on the used gun racks. Those broken parts were probably not design failures, but probably stemmed from abysmally poor or unskilled labor and equally bad quality control.

In 1968, as memory serves, Winchester saw the light and upped the quality level and it was reflected with a "G" prefix on the Model 70s and the return to a forged steel follower in the Model 94. In the 70s at some point, I think that machine cut checkering on the Model 70 replaced the God awful ugly stamped checkering that made its appearance in 1964.

I recall gun writer Jack O'Connor's statements (Probably in either Outdoor Life or Field & Stream) where he lambasted the management at Winchester for the mess. No truer words were ever spoken.

Like others in the thread, I think that the price for that Model 94 you are considering is a bit dear. Do make sure that it was made after 1967 if you decided to purchase it.

[Little Boats]

Nice write up goodsteel. In 50 years of this debate that is one of the best explanations I have read. I heard a Winchester factory rep say something quite similar back in the 80's.

Marlin had their turn with Sinterned <sp> metal. I remember some that had what looked like a parkerized finish that would wipe off if not treated well.

[MBTcustom]

I suppose another way to put it is: accross the board, over any firearm and any caliber/gauge, if I had my choice of best that any American gunmaker has produced, I would choose Winchester every time, and not think twice.
But
if I had my choice of the worst that any American gunmaker has produced........I would still choose Winchester.

That at pretty much sums it up for me succinctly.

That said, I have a few Marlins made at those shining moments in history that I mentioned, and I love them dearly. I take care to pick wisely, and all of them are superb quality.

You know what the real kick is? Some of those janky rifles are the very best shooters that can be had, even though they look like a bunch of rabid beavers slapped them together to plug a rifle shaped hole in a dam.
Ya just never know.

[Bill*B]

I've been privileged to play with a variety of Winchesters, and to my mind, Char-Gar hit the nail on it's head in post #10.

[williamwaco]

I am old enough to remember well the great cry of anguish that went up in 1964 when Winchester changed some manufacturing techniques to reduce the cost of making their firearms. The only comparable public outcry was when Coca-Cola removed the traditional Coke and replace it with the new Coke.

The truth of the matter is the changes Winchester made never had any effect on the accuracy or utility of their firearms. They continued to do what Winchester firearms always did. It was just a clash of tradition vs. modern manufacturing. There really never way a question of accuracy, reliability or utility.

I still like the old stuff, because I am old, but have enough reality in me to understand that it is just a preference and nothing of substance.


Ditto.

I was there.

[BeemerMark]

I have a 1967 '94 and a marlin 336 both in 30-30. The '94 has had a rough life between me and my brother. The '94 is very accurate with cast bullets, the Marlin after a ton of experimentation, is so-so. To me the only difference in pre and post '94s is the finish. Usually the finish on post models are not that good (it's more of a paint I think) and they are impossible to refinish. I have quite a few Marlins in different calibers and they are all very solid rifles. The Winchester is also a lot lighter than the 336.

For hunting I'd take the Winchester any day. I agree that a nice W94 or Marlin 30-30 shouldn't set you back more than $350. However any other caliber can drive the prices up quite a bit.

[Remiel]

All good info, thanks. it is something i will keep in mind if i get to look at it.(wife has final say)

[starmac]

(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

[Doc.Holliday]

+ 1 goodsteel; I have Winchester 73's ; 86's, 92's and 94's . The 94's are pre and post 64 in several calibers, and I have had excellent service from them.
I'd rather a post 64 Winchester 94 than a Braztech Rossi 92 anyday but that's another story and lesson learned.

[MBTcustom]

+ 1 goodsteel; I have Winchester 73's ; 86's, 92's and 94's . The 94's are pre and post 64 in several calibers, and I have had excellent service from them.
I'd rather a post 64 Winchester 94 than a Braztech Rossi 92 anyday but that's another story and lesson learned.
Now now, don't go knockin the Rossi's. I've been in and out of those too, and I own one. Love them 92's. Like the Marlins, everything that makes them rough and unweildy is due to an excess of material that can easily be stoned down. Many have said that the twist rate is all wrong for them, (including Felix) but I find my 44 to deliver very acceptable accuracy at 50 yards so far. I will shoot it further one of these days, but dang it! You start ringing steel with that puppy at 50 yards, and very shortly, you find yourself all eat up with empty brass!
On the "make me grin-ometer" I give the Rossi a 7. The Marlin 45-70's are my real heartthrobs though. The one and only issue I have with the 45-70 is that it drinks lead like a wino on a binge. But its sooooooo worth it!

[Doc.Holliday]

Yes knockin Rossi's on any forum can get downright ugly; Ha ha . All I know is I've never stoned polished sanded ground on any actions; or changed magazine springs followers spring kits sights or redone any unsatisfactory wood finish's on any of my post 64 Winchesters. Guess I get more pleasure out of shooting than fixing.
The other thing that up here in the GREAT WHITE NORTH we got retailers and distributors of Rossi ; we got one repair depot in Quebec which has no parts and apparently can't get parts and never could get parts. So if you work on it you better be real careful cause if you break it you are S.O.L.. Part of my experience for what its worth.
Kind Regards
Doc

[Bill*B]

If you want to refinish a post '64 Winchester (and pay more than the gun cost you) - go to Robar in AZ and order out their NP3+ finish - it's wonderful - but you DO pay for your pleasure.

[MBTcustom]

Just had a client come in tonight with a couple guns he wanted me to cut the barrels down on to 17"
One was a beat up Remington 760. No problem. Then he pulled out this immaculate Winchester model 88....................
The bluing was perfect except for a little wear on the right side of the muzzle. I told him "I don't mean to tell you what to do with your own firearms, but are you absolutely sure you want me to do this?"
He gave me a sheepish sidways glance and asked "bad idea?"
I told him that he could easily sell that rifle for enough money to buy a less expensive one and cover my fees.
He then asked if I thought that would hurt the value some?
I told him it would probably make the rifle worth half what it is now, and that while I will do anything he requires, I would be loath to cut the barrel on this fine piece of American craftsmanship.
He thought better of it, and decided to leave it alone.
Whew!!!
I think I should get a good deed award or something.

This rifle was truly imaculate, and pretty much underscores what I mentioned earlier. The action was butter smooth, and was well finished inside and out. They quite literally "don't make 'em like that anymore"!

[starmac]

Glad to hear you let him know he was making a mistake.

[grrifles]

I seem to talk more people out of me doing work for them then the other way around. I just can't take cutting up some fine piece of history.

Chris

[Mauser48]

I recently picked up a marlin 336 made in 1952. Doesn't even have wear on the loading gate. Got it for 400. I highly recommend them.

[OverMax]

IMO: Anything (original) Winchester will always have a inflated price tag. As will J/M Marlin very soon. Expect to pay their price. Or buy there copy and settle for second shelf. "That's how it is."

[Duckiller]

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

[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.