Many changes to please Olin W-W accountants. Resulted in less hand checkered stocks-cheaper internals.
Really want a nice 94? Buy a model 55 or 64. Early-half-magazine- and accurate. Forget anything after 1964.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena-not the critic"-T. Roosevelt There are no atheists in fox holes or in the open doors of a para's aircraft.....
I have a 1902 vintage 1894 in .25-35 that is an heirloom, lovely rifle. If I were to add a .30-30 I would definitely go with a Model 64! Been on the lookout for one for a while now!
If you can handle the improved 86 modern action, the best lever action pre-64 is the Model 71. Handles deer, elk, moose-and bears. Stronger and more effective: 348 WCF.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena-not the critic"-T. Roosevelt There are no atheists in fox holes or in the open doors of a para's aircraft.....
They sure did change them. Receivers cast of graphitic steel that wouldn't take traditional bluing so were plated with some sort of black chrome that looked like crap, didn't hold up and looked even worse when it started flaking off. Flimsy stamped sheet metal lifters and loading gates. Stained birch woodwork instead of walnut. Roll pins throughout instead of solid pins. Comparatively they were cheap, ugly junk.
Blackheart + 1! A potpourri of changes, none consumer-positive. from 1964, Winchester from free fall to something of 'learning curve; model improvements, but too little & too late.
Olin Chemical at the helm from early thirties (?) to 1982, whereupon their licensing of Winchester name out to U.S. Repeating Arms". Some further significant step back such as restored forged steel receivers as some components changed as others less obnoxious and internal, from original "post '64" persisting. Overall "improved".
Back to the "1894" and "94" models as name change - as I recall - about 1917??? A early thirties revolution of the Model 94 as the Carbine barrel changed from nickel steel to "Winchester Proof Steel" aka 4100 series Chrome Moly Steel and a svelte ramp style forged-integral front sight base. Winchester Rifles morphing to the Model 64 with pistol grip stock and Model 55 as with straight stock and takedown feature predominant. So in wanting a Model 94, pick your era poison! Sweet spot for me the 94 from '32 to '37 as the above new features as retaining the substantial steel over stock-top "carbine" configuration. Mine, pix below only non-original feature a nice "King brand Full Buckhorn" aft sight = Viagra for aging eyes!
Hope this as some sort of overview help! Good Luck! John
The generalization that nowadays, "product disposability" is the byword of consumer products propagandized under herald of "new & improved". In that context the Post '64 Olin-Winchester a "Black Hole" genre simply ahead of it's time!
They sure did change them. Receivers cast of graphitic steel that wouldn't take traditional bluing so were plated with some sort of black chrome that looked like crap, didn't hold up and looked even worse when it started flaking off. Flimsy stamped sheet metal lifters and loading gates. Stained birch woodwork instead of walnut. Roll pins throughout instead of solid pins. Comparatively they were cheap, ugly junk.
There are more pre-64 Winchester rifles showing up-IF you are at the right place and time. Most due to an aging population of surviving hunters and younger "inherited" rifles that are not appreciated for their quality and workmanship. Most are found at small shops or pawn & gun stores. As an example, I found a 1954 M-70 in .270 Winchester for $400 last month. Missed a pre-war custom on the west coast at a small auction house.
Many of the older Winchesters are NOT found on auctions-at the best prices.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena-not the critic"-T. Roosevelt There are no atheists in fox holes or in the open doors of a para's aircraft.....
Sure did. I owned exactly one post-64 94 and put a lot of labor, time, and money into making it a silk purse out of a sow's ear: New walnut wood, replaced as many internals that was practical, and completely refinished it. The sintered steel receiver was a holy terror - no approach to bluing it worked for crap. I ended up bead blasting the bare receiver and having it electroless nickel plated. It ended up rather pretty- rather like a French Gray finish- and seemingly durable too. The rest of the stuff, all exposed parts, barrel, lever, etc. got blued. The end result was very pleasing, in terms of the contrast between the brightly blued stuff in juxtaposition to the matte gray receiver. Shot very well (put a Lyman tang sight on it), and hunted with it a few times. A guy came along who wanted it enough to pay me handsomely for it so away it went!
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
I'll be the outlier here. I love M70's and don't disagree with what all have said about the post 64's. But I do have an '06 made in '64 and a 225 made in '65. Yes, they are ugly and cheaply made, but they must have put good barrels on them, because they are both tack drivers. And I can't put my finger on why, but I enjoy carrying them in the field.
Yes very much. The Winchester 94 is close to my favorite rifle and I don't even like the post 64's until they get to the angle eject years
This!!!!! They changed quite a bit, to the point that I wouldn't even consider owning a post 64...let alone paying for one. The post 64 had some sort of "alloy" receiver. It was "iron like" and just about impossible to keep any kind of reasonable finish on. Most post 64 guns you find will have "issues" with the receiver's finish that cannot be solved. Stick to the pre 64 guns at all costs, especially if you like the model 94. When they went to the angle eject the gun got "normal"....you are always better off with a pre-64...period, end of story!!!!!!
Edit: in all fairness to the post 64....they shot fine, and you can kill just as many deer/bear as any other rifle ever made. They are not "bad" guns, but that alloy receiver kills it for most shooters.
In this Thread, an important principle. Guns, Saxophones, Microwave Ovens or Nuclear Submarines... All come down to how they work for the "user". Aesthetics are among the most controversial, and that in many ways is happily so. "Functionality" for many of us, making the critical difference.
The post '64 Winchesters reflected manufacturing technical advances. The technology for literally compressed iron receivers was viable and did work. It was used successfully in the Defense Industry, literally in "rocket science". But not where they needed to be "pretty" I suppose. Winchester was 'on the ropes' as the sixties era began to unfold. For the next two decades plus, the firm largely struggled. The Model 70 reflected more obvious progress because as morphing to "Push Feed" it had made the transition that the lever guns hadn't achieved. The Winchester Model 88 was a true "new era" gun... In an American public that valued the "tradition" heritage of the levers. The Film Industry and Western film actors, made that happen and that very tradition becoming the lead anchor. The Model 88 quietly passing. A great rifle with insufficient audience appeal. The Levers tried to chug on Post '64 in the same mechanical era format as reflecting a Century heritage. The Push Feed 70 freed Winchester to necessarily embrace modern design technology. The "classic levers" left a "new & improved" Winchester Firm lifeboat adrift without paddles. Many time & labor intensive 'classic labor tech intensive' skills and operations with one possible bailout. The "what if..." of a cast receiver. The aesthetic "bluing" failure the ticking bomb.
What emerged across the board for Winchester was a persistence for hanging on as long as possible for the benefit of its public and tradition. I DO believe the that the metal finish problem failure was NOT AT ALL anticipated. It was the result of "blindsiding by inadequate investigation, testing and seeking broader alternatives.
During the remainder of the Olin Winchester era watch, the levers were definitely improved for sure. "Refinement!" I was able to satisfy my weakness for the 16" barrel "Trapper" carbine in early eighties era production on the eave of U.S. Repeating arms acquiring the Winchester Brand License from Olin as well as plant facilities. USRA successor ability to return to a forged steel (reputed) lever format was attributable to "CNC" machines taking human skills and labor largely out of the production scheme. One man, one computer! As one Machine gun for a company of "Musketeers!"
Today a different Winchester corresponds closely - as vitally necessary - with a different world. My Miroku of Japan "Winchester" and Browning Models 1886 levers, reflect that world in "offshore production". Both are damned nice rifles!
I'll be the outlier here. I love M70's and don't disagree with what all have said about the post 64's. But I do have an '06 made in '64 and a 225 made in '65. Yes, they are ugly and cheaply made, but they must have put good barrels on them, because they are both tack drivers. And I can't put my finger on why, but I enjoy carrying them in the field.
Maybe I just feel sorry for them! LOL
That could be, but don't think the pre 64 model 70's didn't have damn good barrels. My thought is maybe the huge freefloat on the post 64's may be why yours shoot so well. Not necessarily because the barrel is better. Just slightly better mechanics. Those that don't know, it's the mechanics of the rifle that make it shoot well. Some pre 64's shoot damn well in their natural state, but if you tweak them a bit, they are even better..
I wasn't going to comment on this thread because the OP was about model 94's. My grandpa collected those. I never liked them because they kicked the snot out of me when I was 11 or 12. However, I recently saw a nice 1955 (I believe) model 94 30-30 that sold for $550.00. Had it not already been sold, I would have bought it at that price.
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
There are more pre-64 Winchester rifles showing up-IF you are at the right place and time. Most due to an aging population of surviving hunters and younger "inherited" rifles that are not appreciated for their quality and workmanship. Most are found at small shops or pawn & gun stores. As an example, I found a 1954 M-70 in .270 Winchester for $400 last month. Missed a pre-war custom on the west coast at a small auction house.
Many of the older Winchesters are NOT found on auctions-at the best prices.
I agree about prices. If you want good deals, you got to get out and use your 2 feet.
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
I'll be the outlier here. I love M70's and don't disagree with what all have said about the post 64's. But I do have an '06 made in '64 and a 225 made in '65. Yes, they are ugly and cheaply made, but they must have put good barrels on them, because they are both tack drivers. And I can't put my finger on why, but I enjoy carrying them in the field.
Maybe I just feel sorry for them! LOL
That could be, but don't think the pre 64 model 70's didn't have damn good barrels. My thought is maybe the huge freefloat on the post 64's may be why yours shoot so well. Not necessarily because the barrel is better. Just slightly better mechanics. Those that don't know, it's the mechanics of the rifle that make it shoot well. Some pre 64's shoot damn well in their natural state, but if you tweak them a bit, they are even better..
I wasn't going to comment on this thread because the OP was about model 94's. My grandpa collected those. I never liked them because they kicked the snot out of me when I was 11 or 12. However, I recently saw a nice 1955 (I believe) model 94 30-30 that sold for $550.00. Had it not already been sold, I would have bought it at that price.
BSA: You’re probably right about the freefloat. It’s for sure that the wood will never get close to the barrel!,
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/q7GfcFmM/IMG_6509.jpg)