Originally Posted by
BB57
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.
Posting Permissions
.HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds)