Win 30-30

[beemer]

I officially semi retried this week so for my first goof off day I went to the local flea market. While looking over a rack of rifles I noticed a Win 30-30 that looked odd. The receiver looked like it had been sanded with 80 grit paper and color striped with a propane torch. The guy went on a rant about how rare and nice it was. I can't say I know much about Winchesters but I've never seen that before so I guess it was rare but it sure looked very wrong.

Dave

[Half Dog]

Now my interest is peaked. I can't help with information but I'm glad you asked. I get smarter every day...some might disagree though.

[Tenbender]

Post 64 mystery metal Winchester 94. They don't actually rust but pock like a sore on your skin. Only way to remove it is sand it off. Not with 80 grit though. Almost impossible to re-blue. Takes a expert.

[P Flados]

Could it have been one of the sintered metal versions?

From wikipedia:

1964[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winchester_Model_1894&action=edit&section=3)]Upon Olin's retirement, Olin Corporation's new chief executives sought to maximize company profitability, giving corporate preference to its flourishing chemical business over gun production, which was unprofitable and labor-intensive. As a result, Winchester ceased machining both the receiver and many small parts of the Model 94 out of solid steel billet as of 1964. Sintered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintering) steel was used on the receiver, stamped sheet metal for the cartridge lifter, and hollow rather than solid steel roll pins used in the action. While the rifle's function, safety, and accuracy were not adversely affected,[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] the changes—in particular the sintered receiver, which was as strong as its solid-steel predecessor but which did not respond well to a traditional blued (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_(steel)) finish

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Two semi-educated guesses: (1) They made the "antique" model for years. It had a color case receiver and some scroll engraving. If the engraving was missing I doubt if that's what it was. (2) It might have been heat colored with a torch. Easily done to most ferrous metals, and it doesn't last long.

Any way you look at it, there's about a 99% chance that the finish is bogus. I got a real education in the '80s and '90s attempting to reblue receivers in the middle 3 million to low 5 million range. It was just about impossible to get a nice, even blue, but plum and gold splotches were the norm. Winchester never turned them out with an 80 grit finish. Something unpleasant has happened to the rifle you observed.

[TXGunNut]

The best way to get an expensive education on old Winchesters is to buy every "rare" and "nice" Winchester you encounter. You did well listening to that little voice that told you to walk on. Invest in books by Madis, Renneberg and Williamson. A recent Blue Book is a good idea as well. Don't complain about the price of the out-of-print books, my Madis book helped me spot a very rare (and very underpriced!) 1873 before I even finished it.
Enjoy your retirement!

[Hick]

Post 64 "Mystery Metal" really isn't a mystery at all. It is a graphitic steel investment casting. Actually really good metal for a receiver because it has very fine carbon structures that give it very good wear resistance. I know many are put off by the idea of a casting, but it is the same very high quality casting steel we used in building critical service valves in things like submarines and nuclear power plants where you need the quality of a forging but the shape is too complex to build easily from a forging. The downside is the visual one-- graphitic cast steel does not blue well. I love both my pre-64 and post-64, and they do look different because of the blue being different, but neither one of them has any trouble with the finish or rust.

[quilbilly]

Post 64 "Mystery Metal" really isn't a mystery at all. It is a graphitic steel investment casting. Actually really good metal for a receiver because it has very fine carbon structures that give it very good wear resistance. I know many are put off by the idea of a casting, but it is the same very high quality casting steel we used in building critical service valves in things like submarines and nuclear power plants where you need the quality of a forging but the shape is too complex to build easily from a forging. The downside is the visual one-- graphitic cast steel does not blue well. I love both my pre-64 and post-64, and they do look different because of the blue being different, but neither one of them has any trouble with the finish or rust.
Hope you bring one to NCBS. I am curious.

[Battis]

I have a Winchester 30-30 made in 1976 that has an odd, rough look to it - not quite rusty, or pitted, or pockmarked, but it looks like it's all three. It's marked "Winchester Proof Steel." The not-so-great finish was reflected in the price - I got it for about $230. I shot it yesterday and it works as it should. Solid, accurate, smooth action and I don't worry about scratching it. It doesn't look like it could be reblued.

[beemer]

I knew about the problem with bluing the 70's steel and the guy said it was made in that era. The color stripes were in a top to bottom pattern , wide and even, blue , purple and straw . It was not like any Winchester I have ever seen. I would have worried about the heat treating, didn't even ask the price.

Dave

[Hick]

Quilbilly-- I'll bring both to NCBS-- since I'm in Winnemucca anyway-- the post 64 is good looking but very definitely a different shade of bluing