Win 94 question

[PBSmith]

From the question below, it's obvious I'm new to this lever gun.

Been looking at a couple of early 1940 carbines and notice that the lever on some will remain tight against the lower tang when closed. On others it wants to flop down. What's the problem, and how difficult is it to fix so the lever stays snug against the tang? If new parts are required, are they expensive?

Look forward to your replies.

PBSmith

[Der Gebirgsjager]

It's the strength of an internal flat spring. Not hard to fix, depending on your level of gunsmithing experience and ability, and should not be an expensive part to purchase. Not enough of a problem to not buy the gun if the price is right. However, I wonder why you are looking rifles that are probably older than you are? The only ones to avoid were the '94s made in the 1964-1974 time period. Rifles made thereafter are good rifles and unless there's a historical attachment to the older guns I wouldn't discount the newer specimens at probably better prices.

DG

[Gray Fox]

Don't mean to butt into this line of thought, but what is the deal with the 1964-1974 rifles? I just got a '67 94 Classic and would like to know what I might be facing. GF

[Fitz]

Don't mean to butt into this line of thought, but what is the deal with the 1964-1974 rifles? I just got a '67 94 Classic and would like to know what I might be facing. GF

I was wondering the same thing I have a older 94 30-30 that might be in that same time frame.

[Bazoo]

The 1894 has a safety in the form of a little button that protrudes from the lower tang, which prevents the trigger being pulled unless the lever is held snug tight against the lower tang. All of them have this, but an older rifle may have so much wear that the lever doesn't stick down as far because the spring that pushes the button down may be worn.

I have a winchester 94 made in 1970, it has the typical receiver wear of a 94 from that period, but other than that, it is a serviceable and usable,and fairly accurate carbine. I'd rather have a finely machined pre 64, but I'll still take my old post 64 over a new henry any day.

[freakonaleash]

Pre 64 guns have better fit and finish.

[stubshaft]

Post '64 model 94's had sintered steel receivers and they do NOT blue well. I have one that has severe flaking of the "bluing" on it. When I had my gunsmithing business and re-blued these rifles the receivers would have a reddish cast to them.

Pre 64's had machined parts and post 64's tried to use metal stampings. Easiest way to tell them apart is to look at the shell carrier and/or loading gate. If it it machined it is a pre 64, if it is a stamping it is a post 64.

[Bazoo]

I thought post 64 receivers are investment cast, just like Ruger Blackhawk frames and Weatherby Rifle receivers. They did have issues with bluing. I've always thought of having mine hard chromed.

[BB57]

Don't mean to butt into this line of thought, but what is the deal with the 1964-1974 rifles? I just got a '67 94 Classic and would like to know what I might be facing. GF

There is a lot of misinformation out there about the 1964-1981 era Model 94s.

Let’s start with the Sinter forged receivers. Winchester switched to a powdered metal sinter forged process where the steel alloy is placed in a mold under extreme heat and pressure. The pay off is a forged part that required very little machining to complete the finished receiver. The density of the metal is about 96-98% of that of traditional forged metal so Winchester used a steel alloy with a higher chromium content to ensure it had as much strength as older receivers.

The “problem” is that the higher chromium content didn’t allow it to be blued via the traditional Win Blue / Oxyblack bluing process.

There are three different processes that were used on these rifles and carbines:

- From 1964-1968 and serial numbers 2,700,000 - 3,185,691, Winchester used the Du-Lite 3-0 Process on these receivers. Refinishing one of these doesn’t involve anything too difficult, just prepping it like you would any other receiver, but then re-bluing it with the same Du-Lite 3-0 process.

The only reason this is even an issue with gunsmiths is that they don’t want to set up a separate bluing tank. If you try to use a traditional bluing process, you get a uniform purple color, just like you often see on some high chromium content barrels after they age a few decades.

- From 1968-1972 and serial number 3,185,692 - 3,806,499, Winchester used a Black Chrome Plate finish. These are the receivers where you hear complaints of the “bluing” flaking off the receiver. Refinishing them again is a little more work, but isn’t a huge issue. All of the black chrome plate must be removed before you can reblue, but again you can use the Du-lite 3-0 process on the underlying steel.

- From 1972-1981, and serial number 3,806,500 - 5,024,957, Winchester used the Win Blue/Oxiblak process. Rebluing these is where it gets interesting. To use the traditional process they first plated the receiver with iron, and then use the Win Blue process on the iron plating. The problem when these are reblued with a Win Blue or OxyBlack process is that if you polish down through the plating in spots, those spots will come out purple. These are thus the receivers where you see a mottled purple and blued finish. Again the solution here is to just use the Du-Lite 3-0 process as it works on both the steel alloy and the iron plating.

In 1982, Winchester went back to a conventional forging process and an alloy with less chromium.

——

Quality wise, the Winchesters made prior to WWII had a lot more hand fitting. During WWII Winchester was heavily involved in M1 Garand production and got lots of nifty new production machinery and really learned how to produce modern weapons using modern (for the time) manufacturing processes. For that reason the hard core collectors place more value in the pre-war products. Given the wider range of custom and special order options prior to 1932 when Olin acquired Winchester (although the struggling company pared back on the options and cataloged fewer options beginning in 1926), those earlier rifles are generally more attractive to collectors due to the greater frequency of non standard special order features.

After WWII Winchester took advantage of the new production equipment and the rifles and carbines produced from 1946 onward needed a lot less hand fitting. Given the reduced hand fitting, many hard core collectors regard the real “quality change” as being pre war versus post war.

However, the 1964 changes were egregious with not just the sinter forged receiver but also a stamped lifter and some roll pins in place of solid steel pins. Those were changes everyone could hate and it over shadowed the earlier post war changes.

Winchester went back to a solid lifter and solid steel pins by 1967 or so, which made those changes pretty short lived. And to be fair to Winchester those stamped lifter guns work just as well as the forged steel lifter guns.

In late 1981 and early 1982 Winchester put a rebounding hammer on the Model 94 and that change persists to this day. That occurred just before the switch to the angle eject model during 1982, which is a far more noticeable change.

1990 saw the addition of a cross bolt safety and that eventually gave way to the Miroku made Winchesters with a tang safety.

The thing that people fail to fully appreciate is those 1964-1981 Model 94s have become much more popular as they are actual American made Winchesters that have the traditional quarter cock hammer operating system. They have gained a great deal of value as shooters. In this case, the fact that they don’t have any significant collector value is a plus. Plus, despite their flaws compared to pre 64 Model 94s, I’ll argue the quality was better than the 1990s era Winchesters where quality sunk to all time lows as the company struggled to stay afloat.

——

I own a very nice example of a pre war Model 94 rifle (1926) as well as three pre-64 (early 1950s) Model 94 20” carbines.

I own a few post 63, pre 1982 Model 94s. These include a 1967 Model 94 Classic 26” rifle, a 1978 Big Bore 94 20” carbine in .375 Win, and a pair of Legendary Frontiersman 24” rifles in .38-55. All of these either are or are ase tially equivalent to the XTR grade Winchester marketed for several years, and are step above their standard grade guns in fit and finish.

I also own a 2022 produced Model 94 Trails End take down rifle in .38-55 and it is a standard rather than deluxe grade gun.

In the past I owned a couple standard grade Model 94 20” carbines from the 1973-74 era as well as a post 1982 but pre cross bolt safety Model 94AE Trapper.

My 1926 26” rifle is a .30-30 and despite a frosty looking bore showing the effects of pre war corrosive primed ammo and inadequate cleaning it’s still a solid 2 MOA five shot group rifle. I suspect back in its day with a shiny bore it was a 1 MOA rifle. That’s impressive for a lever action.

My three early 50s Model 94 carbines are also all in .30-30 and are all 1.5 MOA five shot group rifles with both Winchester factory 150 gr RN and Hornady 150 gr RN hand loads. Cast bullet accuracy is in the 2 MOA range, but it requires you to do your part regarding alloy, lube and load.

My Model 94 Classic rifle is a solid 2 MOA rifle as well. My LFs are 1.5 MOA capable rifles with jacketed bullets and 2 MOA rifles with well made cast bullets. The BB94 is a 2 MOA rifle with jacketed bullets and struggles with cast bullets.

The BB94 isn’t a great cast bullet rifle given the generous throat dimensions designed to swallow a .380” old school .38-55 bullet fired in it by mistake, and the long tapered leade designed to size that bullet down to the .375” bore. Any accuracy you have with that now significantly resized cast lead bullet is then further challenged by the 1-12” rifling twist. In short, a hard alloy that won’t strip in the rifling is too hard to size down at safe pressures so it needs to be in the .375-376” range, where it will suffer gas cutting as it won’t obturate in the large throat and leade. On the other hand a bullet large enough and soft enough to fit the throat and leade and obturate efficiently will strip in the fast rifling twist if you push it very hard. So it works ok at black powder pressure .38-55 velocities, but that’s about it.

My standard grade Model 94 carbines in .30-30 from the mid 1970s were both 3-4 MOA carbines and were not all that impressive in comparison to the others. The Model 94AE Trapper was a 4-5 MOA carbine and had by far the worst fit of the bunch. I sold all three of them and have never regretted it.

[00buck]

Man this should be a sticky.
You answered all my questions
Thank you very much! :)

[Hick]

Post '64 model 94's had sintered steel receivers and they do NOT blue well. I have one that has severe flaking of the "bluing" on it. When I had my gunsmithing business and re-blued these rifles the receivers would have a reddish cast to them.

Pre 64's had machined parts and post 64's tried to use metal stampings. Easiest way to tell them apart is to look at the shell carrier and/or loading gate. If it it machined it is a pre 64, if it is a stamping it is a post 64.

Just being a little picky, but it was not sintered steel. It is "Graphitic Cast Steel" which is a very strong steel used in special situations (such as large high strength valves) where it is not practical to use forgings. It has tiny nodlues of graphite embedded in the grain matrix that gives it very good wear resistance-- but it doesn't blue well at all. However, it is the same strength as the pre-64 forged receivers. They are very good rifles but the bluing is not as pretty. There were other complaints about the 65-74 vintage at the time such as a stamped steel cartridge lifter that is not as nice as the machined lifters-- but you can backfit the machined lifter if you wish, and threaded pins instead of captured pins in places. They all contributed to a feeling that Winchester had degraded the quality, but in fact the rifles hold up really well and shoot fine (at least mine do). The issues are cosmetic, not structural.

[indian joe]

Don't mean to butt into this line of thought, but what is the deal with the 1964-1974 rifles? I just got a '67 94 Classic and would like to know what I might be facing. GF

The bean counters took over and pushed Winchester into their "Diecast and Plastic phase" they cheapened the 94 and roughened up the action trying to cut cost - I had a model 150 .22 carbine from that era, cheap cast aluminium action and pressed action bits - I used mine to the point it became unfunctional and un fixable - still looked like a nice gun - others had better luck - one thing they did to the 94 was removed the stirrup from the end of the mainspring and built it so the mainspring rubbed directly on the underside of the hammer = stiffened the action up considerably - later again came a coil mainspring that took care of the problem --the model 70 copped a lot of criticism compared to the pre 64 version - I have one of the later ones (22/250) - it is a quality gun, has not missed a beat in almost 5000 rounds - (yep due for a new barrel) - I would not trade it for a pre 64 - just dont like the older mauser action at all. While all this was going on they never forgot how to make accurate barrels and they put the effort they saved skimping on base models into SOME of their newer product - your "classic" being one I think. Remember too that the 94 is an inherently well designed piece they didnt kill it just took some of the edge off it.

[farmbif]

ill post this again, information about the blue/blackening processes used on winchester 94's built after 1964 and also reblueing information. direct from the source that created the processes used, the du-lite corporation.

https://du-lite.com/blackening-post-64-winchester-receivers/

[BB57]

Post '64 model 94's had sintered steel receivers and they do NOT blue well. I have one that has severe flaking of the "bluing" on it. When I had my gunsmithing business and re-blued these rifles the receivers would have a reddish cast to them.

Pre 64's had machined parts and post 64's tried to use metal stampings. Easiest way to tell them apart is to look at the shell carrier and/or loading gate. If it it machined it is a pre 64, if it is a stamping it is a post 64.

The stamped lifters were not around for more than a couple years, and many of the, were retrofitted later but their owners with a forged steel lifter.

However the pre 64 Model 94s all have a screw in the center of the front of the lever link to hold the pin on place. The post 1963 Model 94s do not have this screw.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/IMG_3403.JPG?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

My Model 94 Classic still has its stamped lifter, and it does annoy me a bit when ai look at it as the rest of the rifle is otherwise quite well made. But it works just as well as the forged lifters in my pre 64 rifle and carbines.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(104).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

[PBSmith]

It's the strength of an internal flat spring. Not hard to fix, depending on your level of gunsmithing experience and ability, and should not be an expensive part to purchase. Not enough of a problem to not buy the gun if the price is right. However, I wonder why you are looking rifles that are probably older than you are? The only ones to avoid were the '94s made in the 1964-1974 time period. Rifles made thereafter are good rifles and unless there's a historical attachment to the older guns I wouldn't discount the newer specimens at probably better prices.

DG


Thanks Gebirg and Bazoo for answering my questions. Looking at an old Stoeger catalog, I believe I see the spring you're talking about in the parts illustration. The part is called, "Sear and Safety Catch Spring"

If either of you have replaced this item, does doing so invlove complete disassembly of the receiver?

Gebirg, the carbines I'm looking are in fact my age, and, yes, part of my interest in the older models is historical/sentimental. Quality is also a factor. For all of these reaons, I expect to pay more than what I would for a newer model year.

[pietro]

Pre 64's had machined parts and post 64's tried to use metal stampings.

Easiest way to tell them apart is to look at the shell carrier and/or loading gate.

If it's machined it is a pre 64, if it is a stamping it is a post 64.


FYI, after many post-64 Model 94 complaints, in 1970 Winchester went to a cast lifters (look for a mold line, running lengthwise down the center of the lifter), ditched the roll pins inside the receiver, and a better/longer-lasting receiver finish.

I did, however, somehow bend a solid pin in my 1978 .375 BB94's lever linkage while fast cycling the lever during a dance with a deer.

I made a replacement pin via grinding the (hardened) shank of an appropriately-sized hi-speed drill bit to the required length.

.

[ulav8r]

I replaced the stamped lever for a customer with one of the cast ones. The stamped lifter had bent downward and would no longer feed.

I have one 94, I think from the early '70's, have not fired it yet and have not looked at it in the last 15 years but do remember that it did not have the stamped lever.

[BB57]

Don't mean to butt into this line of thought, but what is the deal with the 1964-1974 rifles? I just got a '67 94 Classic and would like to know what I might be facing. GF

More specifically to your Model 94 Classic:

The Model 94 Classic is sometimes referred to as a commemorative but it wasn’t.

Winchester had discontinued the Model 64 rifle in 1957 with just short of 67,000 produced in a 25 year production run since the Model 64 had replaced the Model 55 in 1932.

The Model 55 was introduced in 1924 at a time when Winchester was reducing its custom and special order options and centering on a few standard models. The traditional 26” full magazine sporting rifle continued to be available as the Model 94 rifle with either 26” round or 26” octagon barrel, but with a lot fewer options. The Model 55 was initially the take down Model with a 24” rapid taper barrel and half magazine, but became a solid frame rifle in 1931. They made about 20,000 of them in that 8 year period. That sounds like fairly low sales numbers, but from 1924-1931 it was just the take down rifle pattern market as the solid frame rifle pattern was still being sold in the Model 94

But…with just 67,000 Model 64s sold in just 20 years (not counting the 5 years of non production during WWII) the Model 64 hadn’t been a big seller with an average of just 3340 per year.

So when Winchester sold 102,000 Centennial 66 26” rifles and 20” short rifles in 1966, and then sold another 90,000 Canadian Centennial 26” rifles and 20” short rifles, they figured there might be a market for a higher end 26” rifle pattern Model 94.

The end result was the Model 94 Classic. It featured a 26” octagon barrel, a full magazine, very nice wood, and machine scrolling on the receiver much like the Canadian Centennial rifles. It also had “Model 94 Winchester Classic” in scrolled letters on one of the barrel flats and a gold plated loading gate. Those last two features and its low production numbers compared to an half dozen or so other commemorative models with much higher production numbers are what get it mistaken for a commemorative. Like the Model 55 and Model 64 it also had a shotgun style buttplate, consistent with the norm for the post war Model 94 20” carbine.

Winchester marketed it as a high grade Model 94 rifle, but the market wasn’t actually there. They made 40,000 of them and they didn’t jump off the shelves like the Centennial 66 and Candadian Centennial rifles. They dropped the Model 94 Classic from the catalog a few years later and then still took another year or so to finally sell them all.

I think part of the problem was the 192,000 rifle and short rifle pattern Model 94s they’d sold as commemoratives. I suspect they filled a lot of the market that did exist for a rifle pattern Model 94. A lot of those rifles, particularly the not too flashy Canadian Centennials were bought as shooters and are still used as shooters. Much of the rest of it was that the fact that Model 94 Classic cost a lot more than the standard Model 94 carbine. Like the Model 55 and Model 64 before it, it was probably more than the average deer hunter wanted to spend on a deer rifle. And then there was probably also the stigma of being a post 1963 Winchester. Remember, this was at a time when you could still find pre war Model 94 octagon barrel rifles, rifles that were not discontinued until 1938, just 29 years prior, and not yet “rare” or outrageously collectible even in very good to excellent condition.

—-

I bought my 1926 Model 94 rifle for $1000 during a slump in prices for pre 64 Model 94s due to collectors dying off in droves. However, it started going back up in price and I started having second thoughts about using it in hunting conditions.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(12).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(13).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

Consequently I bought my Model 94 Classic about 4 years ago to give me something to hunt with besides my 1926 Model 94 rifle. The timing was right buying my Model 94 Classic as I paid $600 for it before Remington discontinued the 336. At that point with high priced Miroku Winchesters being pretty much the only game in town, Classics and not too gaudy commemoratives flew off the shelves, purchased by people who wanted them as shooters.

I took it out and shot it to confirm it would be accurate enough. With 2 MOA five shot groups, I decided it would work and put a better set of sights on it. Normally, I’m a tang sight fan, but the tang wasn’t drilled on this one and while it’s not hard to D&T one I could not find an available tang sight anyway, so it ended up with a Williams receiver sight.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(106).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(107).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/FullSizeRender(2).jpg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

It shoots as well as my 1926 Model 94, and shares the same excellent balance and handling.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Grey Fox, et. al--I guess the difference in '94 vintages got pretty well hashed over, so I'll just add that 10 years after the cheapening of the design (1964) and loss of some market share, Winchester reversed several of the design changes, hence '64-'74. I was active in the gunsmithing business from '82-2010' doing much re-bluing work and encountered many of the difficult/impossible receivers to reblue. There were alternatives such as black hard chrome, etc., but I do not consider the composition of the receiver to really be a flaw such as the cheapened lifter was. I think the later rifles in the 5 million range on up are very good rifles and I sure wouldn't turn one down. In fact, I own a couple. The ones made in Japan are good, but many despise the rebounding hammer.

DG

[racepres]

While I am decidedly Not an aficionado, I own a semi-poor condition 1951 (gun show "gun in a box"), Looks Ok from the Road, but the headspace is near Max.. segregated Brass, and Lighter Loads!!
and my fathers 1982..sn 51193XX
The '82 seems a worthwhile piece.. it had a bad home, so the receiver is Mottled now... (was some Rust, but no pits)
It is still just previous to Angle Eject I guess...and No Rebounding Hammer... If the receiver was "nice" I would call it 90 - 95 %
and it works a well as I would ask for!!!
I truly cannot tell any difference in Function between them... Maybe I aint Fussy enough?

[indian joe]

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on them removing the strirrup from the mainspring - it was a dog of an idea - maybe they didnt do it for long or to many guns? the stamped lifter never bothered me while I had that carbine - just a knockabout gun and served its purpose. I aquired a BB375 later - a stark difference in quality and later still a OFW commemorative - another quality piece (if ya can see past the gold plating)

[GhostHawk]

I have a post 64 Win 94 in Dirty Thirty. I did remove the crossbolt safety. Took all of 5 minutes. I did wrap the bottom of the lever with paracord. Softens the imipact on my knuckles. Other than that it looks good, shoots good, is well worth what I paid for it.

[MFGordon]

Some years ago I was given an unfinished post 64 Winchester 94 receiver that had walked out of the factory. I was told that it was a ductile iron casting. Here are some photos:313268313269313270

[redhawk0]

I have a 1973 and the bluing was severely worn on it when I obtained it. After some work, grit, determination, and drive....I got it all cleaned up and its now a beautiful rifle. Yes...I got rid of the red-dot site. It just didn't fit....so no comments please :bigsmyl2:

redhawk

313271313272313273313274

[Kai]

Lots of comments on here about the Winchester 1894 but I have not seen any that address the OPs original question. Someone mentioned some kind of a flat spring that keeps the lever against the receiver. This is not the case. There is a spring loaded detent (friction stud) in the rear of the link that catches on the front of the lower tang. If the stud wears it will not hold the lever to the lower tang.

313329

[Petander]

Year 1902 version here. Still staying closed.

https://i.postimg.cc/8crnjhPM/IMG-20230504-161129-699-3.jpg

[TD1886]

Lots of comments on here about the Winchester 1894 but I have not seen any that address the OPs original question. Someone mentioned some kind of a flat spring that keeps the lever against the receiver. This is not the case. There is a spring loaded detent (friction stud) in the rear of the link that catches on the front of the lower tang. If the stud wears it will not hold the lever to the lower tang.

313329

You are correct and that's called a "friction stud" and the spring for it is called, you guessed it "friction stud spring".

[Texas by God]

Kai nailed it.
The problem is that the recess in the lower tang (that mates with the plunger on the lever) gets wallowed out. My 1954 model 94 needed a bit of peening on the recess to correct the situation. Really worn ones could be replaced or welded and recut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[racepres]

Note;
Care should be exercised as concerns Serial Number generalizations...
My M94 serial 5,119,XXX is still a Winchester model 94, made in New Haven CT... Non Angle eject, and no rebounding Hammer!!
Shouldn't be...But... There it is!!!
Of course...there will Always be oddities..Check Thompson Contenders Pre-Easy Open.. Yes...Variations abound!

[Kai]

It's the strength of an internal flat spring. Not hard to fix, depending on your level of gunsmithing experience and ability, and should not be an expensive part to purchase. Not enough of a problem to not buy the gun if the price is right. However, I wonder why you are looking rifles that are probably older than you are? The only ones to avoid were the '94s made in the 1964-1974 time period. Rifles made thereafter are good rifles and unless there's a historical attachment to the older guns I wouldn't discount the newer specimens at probably better prices.

DG

I mean no disrespect but why would you give information about something you clearly know nothing about. You would have the poster completely disassemble his gun and replace a spring that has nothing to do with the problem when the actual problem can be fixed without disassembly. As for an interest in old winchesters it's probably because the older guns are superior to the newer guns including the Japanese produced guns.

[Texas by God]

Kai, in DG’s and others defense here, the thread started drifting about the lever actuated trigger safety’s tab- which did/does operate from a flat spring in the lower tang.
Getting sidetracked is not the same as “something you know nothing about”.
Anyway, have a good day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Electrod47]

This is one heck of a thread......

[Texas by God]

I’ve had two post 64 model 94 30-30 rifles.
One was called the 94 Antique. In the 1970s, it could be won by selling magazine subscriptions (VoAg class), among other guns.
I bought mine in the late eighties. It featured a case color finish reciever with a brass plated loading gate.
The other was an early eighties Trapper 16-1/2” barrel and I miss that little dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ulav8r]

Stopped at a small pawn shop several years ago. Looked at a '94 Antique that the owner claimed to be an old gun and had priced accordingly. I opened the action and pointed out the stamped lifter and told him that it was made after 1964 and that the "Antique" was just a model version.

[racepres]

Stopped at a small pawn shop several years ago. Looked at a '94 Antique that the owner claimed to be an old gun and had priced accordingly. I opened the action and pointed out the stamped lifter and told him that it was made after 1964 and that the "Antique" was just a model version.
That is as Funny as pre model 10 S&W!!!
or G-1 Contender
Did he think that it was produced over 30 years ago, and Called an Antique at that time????
Sheeesh

[Kai]

The stamped lifters were not around for more than a couple years, and many of the, were retrofitted later but their owners with a forged steel lifter.

However the pre 64 Model 94s all have a screw in the center of the front of the lever link to hold the pin on place. The post 1963 Model 94s do not have this screw.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/IMG_3403.JPG?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

My Model 94 Classic still has its stamped lifter, and it does annoy me a bit when ai look at it as the rest of the rifle is otherwise quite well made. But it works just as well as the forged lifters in my pre 64 rifle and carbines.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(104).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds

Again more misinformation. I have a 1994 carbine that has the screw In the center of the lever link.

[TD1886]

There is a lot of misinformation out there about the 1964-1981 era Model 94s.

Let’s start with the Sinter forged receivers. Winchester switched to a powdered metal sinter forged process where the steel alloy is placed in a mold under extreme heat and pressure. The pay off is a forged part that required very little machining to complete the finished receiver. The density of the metal is about 96-98% of that of traditional forged metal so Winchester used a steel alloy with a higher chromium content to ensure it had as much strength as older receivers.

The “problem” is that the higher chromium content didn’t allow it to be blued via the traditional Win Blue / Oxyblack bluing process.

There are three different processes that were used on these rifles and carbines:

- From 1964-1968 and serial numbers 2,700,000 - 3,185,691, Winchester used the Du-Lite 3-0 Process on these receivers. Refinishing one of these doesn’t involve anything too difficult, just prepping it like you would any other receiver, but then re-bluing it with the same Du-Lite 3-0 process.

The only reason this is even an issue with gunsmiths is that they don’t want to set up a separate bluing tank. If you try to use a traditional bluing process, you get a uniform purple color, just like you often see on some high chromium content barrels after they age a few decades.

- From 1968-1972 and serial number 3,185,692 - 3,806,499, Winchester used a Black Chrome Plate finish. These are the receivers where you hear complaints of the “bluing” flaking off the receiver. Refinishing them again is a little more work, but isn’t a huge issue. All of the black chrome plate must be removed before you can reblue, but again you can use the Du-lite 3-0 process on the underlying steel.

- From 1972-1981, and serial number 3,806,500 - 5,024,957, Winchester used the Win Blue/Oxiblak process. Rebluing these is where it gets interesting. To use the traditional process they first plated the receiver with iron, and then use the Win Blue process on the iron plating. The problem when these are reblued with a Win Blue or OxyBlack process is that if you polish down through the plating in spots, those spots will come out purple. These are thus the receivers where you see a mottled purple and blued finish. Again the solution here is to just use the Du-Lite 3-0 process as it works on both the steel alloy and the iron plating.

In 1982, Winchester went back to a conventional forging process and an alloy with less chromium.

——

Quality wise, the Winchesters made prior to WWII had a lot more hand fitting. During WWII Winchester was heavily involved in M1 Garand production and got lots of nifty new production machinery and really learned how to produce modern weapons using modern (for the time) manufacturing processes. For that reason the hard core collectors place more value in the pre-war products. Given the wider range of custom and special order options prior to 1932 when Olin acquired Winchester (although the struggling company pared back on the options and cataloged fewer options beginning in 1926), those earlier rifles are generally more attractive to collectors due to the greater frequency of non standard special order features.

After WWII Winchester took advantage of the new production equipment and the rifles and carbines produced from 1946 onward needed a lot less hand fitting. Given the reduced hand fitting, many hard core collectors regard the real “quality change” as being pre war versus post war.

However, the 1964 changes were egregious with not just the sinter forged receiver but also a stamped lifter and some roll pins in place of solid steel pins. Those were changes everyone could hate and it over shadowed the earlier post war changes.

Winchester went back to a solid lifter and solid steel pins by 1967 or so, which made those changes pretty short lived. And to be fair to Winchester those stamped lifter guns work just as well as the forged steel lifter guns.

In late 1981 and early 1982 Winchester put a rebounding hammer on the Model 94 and that change persists to this day. That occurred just before the switch to the angle eject model during 1982, which is a far more noticeable change.

1990 saw the addition of a cross bolt safety and that eventually gave way to the Miroku made Winchesters with a tang safety.

The thing that people fail to fully appreciate is those 1964-1981 Model 94s have become much more popular as they are actual American made Winchesters that have the traditional quarter cock hammer operating system. They have gained a great deal of value as shooters. In this case, the fact that they don’t have any significant collector value is a plus. Plus, despite their flaws compared to pre 64 Model 94s, I’ll argue the quality was better than the 1990s era Winchesters where quality sunk to all time lows as the company struggled to stay afloat.

——

I own a very nice example of a pre war Model 94 rifle (1926) as well as three pre-64 (early 1950s) Model 94 20” carbines.

I own a few post 63, pre 1982 Model 94s. These include a 1967 Model 94 Classic 26” rifle, a 1978 Big Bore 94 20” carbine in .375 Win, and a pair of Legendary Frontiersman 24” rifles in .38-55. All of these either are or are ase tially equivalent to the XTR grade Winchester marketed for several years, and are step above their standard grade guns in fit and finish.

I also own a 2022 produced Model 94 Trails End take down rifle in .38-55 and it is a standard rather than deluxe grade gun.

In the past I owned a couple standard grade Model 94 20” carbines from the 1973-74 era as well as a post 1982 but pre cross bolt safety Model 94AE Trapper.

My 1926 26” rifle is a .30-30 and despite a frosty looking bore showing the effects of pre war corrosive primed ammo and inadequate cleaning it’s still a solid 2 MOA five shot group rifle. I suspect back in its day with a shiny bore it was a 1 MOA rifle. That’s impressive for a lever action.

My three early 50s Model 94 carbines are also all in .30-30 and are all 1.5 MOA five shot group rifles with both Winchester factory 150 gr RN and Hornady 150 gr RN hand loads. Cast bullet accuracy is in the 2 MOA range, but it requires you to do your part regarding alloy, lube and load.

My Model 94 Classic rifle is a solid 2 MOA rifle as well. My LFs are 1.5 MOA capable rifles with jacketed bullets and 2 MOA rifles with well made cast bullets. The BB94 is a 2 MOA rifle with jacketed bullets and struggles with cast bullets.

The BB94 isn’t a great cast bullet rifle given the generous throat dimensions designed to swallow a .380” old school .38-55 bullet fired in it by mistake, and the long tapered leade designed to size that bullet down to the .375” bore. Any accuracy you have with that now significantly resized cast lead bullet is then further challenged by the 1-12” rifling twist. In short, a hard alloy that won’t strip in the rifling is too hard to size down at safe pressures so it needs to be in the .375-376” range, where it will suffer gas cutting as it won’t obturate in the large throat and leade. On the other hand a bullet large enough and soft enough to fit the throat and leade and obturate efficiently will strip in the fast rifling twist if you push it very hard. So it works ok at black powder pressure .38-55 velocities, but that’s about it.

My standard grade Model 94 carbines in .30-30 from the mid 1970s were both 3-4 MOA carbines and were not all that impressive in comparison to the others. The Model 94AE Trapper was a 4-5 MOA carbine and had by far the worst fit of the bunch. I sold all three of them and have never regretted it.

Am I right when a sintered part is heated to high temperature and under pressure not being called "forged". The way you described that sinter method it sounds very close to a part made by MIM.

[TD1886]

Kai, in DG’s and others defense here, the thread started drifting about the lever actuated trigger safety’s tab- which did/does operate from a flat spring in the lower tang.
Getting sidetracked is not the same as “something you know nothing about”.
Anyway, have a good day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't misinterpret what the OP asked. He was wanting the floorplate to stay closed when you lever it shut. As stated by others that has nothing to do with the "safety button" feature. I'd say the drift started on the very first post after the OP's post.

[indian joe]

I didn't misinterpret what the OP asked. He was wanting the floorplate to stay closed when you lever it shut. As stated by others that has nothing to do with the "safety button" feature. I'd say the drift started on the very first post after the OP's post.

question was about the lever NOT the floorplate (in defense of all of us "drifters") here it is again

Been looking at a couple of early 1940 carbines and notice that the lever on some will remain tight against the lower tang when closed. On others it wants to flop down. What's the problem, and how difficult is it to fix so the lever stays snug against the tang? If new parts are required, are they expensive?

[TD1886]

question was about the lever NOT the floorplate (in defense of all of us "drifters") here it is again

Been looking at a couple of early 1940 carbines and notice that the lever on some will remain tight against the lower tang when closed. On others it wants to flop down. What's the problem, and how difficult is it to fix so the lever stays snug against the tang? If new parts are required, are they expensive?


Well duh, if that floor does lock in the lever isn't ever going to be up against the tang!

[Kai]

With all that said, for those of you talking about a "floor plate", please explain what a "floor plate" is on a 94 winchester? I wonder what you would receive in the mail if you were to order a replacement "floor plate"? Not being a sa but there is no such part on a 94 winchester. And, the op never mentioned anything about a "floor plate".

[Kai]

There is a lot of misinformation out there about the 1964-1981 era Model 94s.

Let’s start with the Sinter forged receivers. Winchester switched to a powdered metal sinter forged process where the steel alloy is placed in a mold under extreme heat and pressure. The pay off is a forged part that required very little machining to complete the finished receiver. The density of the metal is about 96-98% of that of traditional forged metal so Winchester used a steel alloy with a higher chromium content to ensure it had as much strength as older receivers.

The “problem” is that the higher chromium content didn’t allow it to be blued via the traditional Win Blue / Oxyblack bluing process.

There are three different processes that were used on these rifles and carbines:

- From 1964-1968 and serial numbers 2,700,000 - 3,185,691, Winchester used the Du-Lite 3-0 Process on these receivers. Refinishing one of these doesn’t involve anything too difficult, just prepping it like you would any other receiver, but then re-bluing it with the same Du-Lite 3-0 process.

The only reason this is even an issue with gunsmiths is that they don’t want to set up a separate bluing tank. If you try to use a traditional bluing process, you get a uniform purple color, just like you often see on some high chromium content barrels after they age a few decades.

- From 1968-1972 and serial number 3,185,692 - 3,806,499, Winchester used a Black Chrome Plate finish. These are the receivers where you hear complaints of the “bluing” flaking off the receiver. Refinishing them again is a little more work, but isn’t a huge issue. All of the black chrome plate must be removed before you can reblue, but again you can use the Du-lite 3-0 process on the underlying steel.

- From 1972-1981, and serial number 3,806,500 - 5,024,957, Winchester used the Win Blue/Oxiblak process. Rebluing these is where it gets interesting. To use the traditional process they first plated the receiver with iron, and then use the Win Blue process on the iron plating. The problem when these are reblued with a Win Blue or OxyBlack process is that if you polish down through the plating in spots, those spots will come out purple. These are thus the receivers where you see a mottled purple and blued finish. Again the solution here is to just use the Du-Lite 3-0 process as it works on both the steel alloy and the iron plating.

In 1982, Winchester went back to a conventional forging process and an alloy with less chromium.

——

Quality wise, the Winchesters made prior to WWII had a lot more hand fitting. During WWII Winchester was heavily involved in M1 Garand production and got lots of nifty new production machinery and really learned how to produce modern weapons using modern (for the time) manufacturing processes. For that reason the hard core collectors place more value in the pre-war products. Given the wider range of custom and special order options prior to 1932 when Olin acquired Winchester (although the struggling company pared back on the options and cataloged fewer options beginning in 1926), those earlier rifles are generally more attractive to collectors due to the greater frequency of non standard special order features.

After WWII Winchester took advantage of the new production equipment and the rifles and carbines produced from 1946 onward needed a lot less hand fitting. Given the reduced hand fitting, many hard core collectors regard the real “quality change” as being pre war versus post war.

However, the 1964 changes were egregious with not just the sinter forged receiver but also a stamped lifter and some roll pins in place of solid steel pins. Those were changes everyone could hate and it over shadowed the earlier post war changes.

Winchester went back to a solid lifter and solid steel pins by 1967 or so, which made those changes pretty short lived. And to be fair to Winchester those stamped lifter guns work just as well as the forged steel lifter guns.

In late 1981 and early 1982 Winchester put a rebounding hammer on the Model 94 and that change persists to this day. That occurred just before the switch to the angle eject model during 1982, which is a far more noticeable change.

1990 saw the addition of a cross bolt safety and that eventually gave way to the Miroku made Winchesters with a tang safety.

The thing that people fail to fully appreciate is those 1964-1981 Model 94s have become much more popular as they are actual American made Winchesters that have the traditional quarter cock hammer operating system. They have gained a great deal of value as shooters. In this case, the fact that they don’t have any significant collector value is a plus. Plus, despite their flaws compared to pre 64 Model 94s, I’ll argue the quality was better than the 1990s era Winchesters where quality sunk to all time lows as the company struggled to stay afloat.

——

I own a very nice example of a pre war Model 94 rifle (1926) as well as three pre-64 (early 1950s) Model 94 20” carbines.

I own a few post 63, pre 1982 Model 94s. These include a 1967 Model 94 Classic 26” rifle, a 1978 Big Bore 94 20” carbine in .375 Win, and a pair of Legendary Frontiersman 24” rifles in .38-55. All of these either are or are ase tially equivalent to the XTR grade Winchester marketed for several years, and are step above their standard grade guns in fit and finish.

I also own a 2022 produced Model 94 Trails End take down rifle in .38-55 and it is a standard rather than deluxe grade gun.

In the past I owned a couple standard grade Model 94 20” carbines from the 1973-74 era as well as a post 1982 but pre cross bolt safety Model 94AE Trapper.

My 1926 26” rifle is a .30-30 and despite a frosty looking bore showing the effects of pre war corrosive primed ammo and inadequate cleaning it’s still a solid 2 MOA five shot group rifle. I suspect back in its day with a shiny bore it was a 1 MOA rifle. That’s impressive for a lever action.

My three early 50s Model 94 carbines are also all in .30-30 and are all 1.5 MOA five shot group rifles with both Winchester factory 150 gr RN and Hornady 150 gr RN hand loads. Cast bullet accuracy is in the 2 MOA range, but it requires you to do your part regarding alloy, lube and load.

My Model 94 Classic rifle is a solid 2 MOA rifle as well. My LFs are 1.5 MOA capable rifles with jacketed bullets and 2 MOA rifles with well made cast bullets. The BB94 is a 2 MOA rifle with jacketed bullets and struggles with cast bullets.

The BB94 isn’t a great cast bullet rifle given the generous throat dimensions designed to swallow a .380” old school .38-55 bullet fired in it by mistake, and the long tapered leade designed to size that bullet down to the .375” bore. Any accuracy you have with that now significantly resized cast lead bullet is then further challenged by the 1-12” rifling twist. In short, a hard alloy that won’t strip in the rifling is too hard to size down at safe pressures so it needs to be in the .375-376” range, where it will suffer gas cutting as it won’t obturate in the large throat and leade. On the other hand a bullet large enough and soft enough to fit the throat and leade and obturate efficiently will strip in the fast rifling twist if you push it very hard. So it works ok at black powder pressure .38-55 velocities, but that’s about it.

My standard grade Model 94 carbines in .30-30 from the mid 1970s were both 3-4 MOA carbines and were not all that impressive in comparison to the others. The Model 94AE Trapper was a 4-5 MOA carbine and had by far the worst fit of the bunch. I sold all three of them and have never regretted it.

BB57,

You seem quite knowledgeable on the win 94. Do you know when the screw in the link, that retains the link pin, was reinstated? It was deleted somewhere around 1963 but reappears many years later. Thanks.

[Kai]

Kai, in DG’s and others defense here, the thread started drifting about the lever actuated trigger safety’s tab- which did/does operate from a flat spring in the lower tang.
Getting sidetracked is not the same as “something you know nothing about”.
Anyway, have a good day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texas by God,
DG's comment was the very first comment. There was nothing to drift from. His comment was completely incorrect.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I guess it is time to address your concerns, Mr. Kai. The Win. 1894 has undergone many minor design modifications, including the springs. Having gunsmithed for pay for over 30 years (now Ret.) and now being age 80 perhaps one might concede that I've encountered problems and learned techniques that you have not as yet experienced. I'm thinking that your less than pleasant attitude with a low post count might stem from the fact that I have, as a moderator, already had occasion to interact with you. Nevertheless, to give you every opportunity to pull in your horns I will make the following statement:

I am sorry. I truly apologize. I did not intend to give false information. I have no idea at all what I am talking about. You win, I lose.

I hope that this will satisfy your issues and that you will continue to be a valued and productive member of the Forum, albeit less confrontational.

DG

[HATCH]

And with that post this thread is done.