Home Forums Lever Action Central Lever Actions - General Ditto, on Win '94 experts

I've got a Win 94 30-30 that I'm wondering if anyone knows something about.

It was made in New Haven, CT
It's got a SN 326xxxx that I got used around '74-ish so I don't think it's pre '64.
It's got a blued round barrel and an antiqued receiver w/ a brass saddle ring.
The lever has the 'squeeze to fire' safety thing.

I'm thinking this is one of the stamped metal units that Winchester started making after '64. But I've never seen the antiqing on other guns. Any Winchester experts out there??

I believe that sometimes all post-64 M94s get lumped into the cheap stamped junk category. That is far from the truth. I don't think anyone handling one of those ��?��?? would confuse it for anything else. I own several M94s, all post-64 versions and all are of decent quality and very functional. I have handled the stamped junk too. There are very few guns that really deserve to be turned in for $$$$ in the "crime reducing" gun buybacks. Those stamped M94s are good candidates for that however.

The antiquing, is it color case gardening? That was used on some M94s that weren't the junkers. Another thing, is yours "angle eject"?

According to this site: http://www.oldguns.net/ The year of manufacture for serial number 3260000 is 1968.

I have one manufactured in '64, and wouldn't give it up. I'm no expert by any stretch of anyone's imagination, but if it's beat up, and you want to use it, then refinish it and go, it's not like the value is going to take a plunge, and you do, after all, want to protect it from the elements.

The "squeeze to fire", I believe, is on all levers? It's a "can't fire with the bolt not fully seated" safety feature. I am guessing that there is no crossbolt (button) safety? That would be a plus for me, I think a hammer is enough safety.

Thanks for the responses guys. I appreciate it.

'68 huh? Good to know. And great site, I didn't know about it.
The gun was in GREAT condition when I got it and I've kept it that way. I've fired it over the years, but not alot.
Yeah, I think it's some sort of case hardening. Has a multi colored hue to it. Kinda like it'd been heated and let cool instead of oil or water cooling.

Again, thanks guys.

Glad to give what little I can! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Check this out for a great read on the rifle and cartridge - http://sixgunner.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=67&z=68

That should get you a great technical article. It's in the rifles section of sixgunner dot com.

I agree on the "no mistaking" the junker post 64, 94's. I'm in the process of replacing a stamped sheet metal carrier on one right now. It malfunctioned so often that it was a single shot lever action! My friend didn't trust it any farther than he could toss it!AW

Just an FYI for anyone contemplating a re-blue of a post 64, 94; Some of the receivers were actually plated with black chrome plating and not bluing. It will not take a blue job. Sometimes it'll start flaking off on edges and corners revealing it's true identity.AW

rnr,
I think you asked about this on the MarlinTalk site. See my full reply there. At any rate, it looks like your rifle was made in 1972.

Nope. Wasn't me. Got a link? I'll try to find it too.
'72 -- '68 either way, I'm happy w/ it.

The post 64 Winchester's are not all junk. The first few runs of Winchester's after 1964 were quite a bit less than perfect. I have the "Antique" model and I replaced all the stamped parts. That was the only problem. They decided to cast their receivers instead of forging them. Casting will not accept conventional bluing. They can be blued but take extra steps in the process. It all depends if you or a gunsmith is willing to make the effort. Most do not want to take the extra effort. So they whine about it instead. The cast receivers were flashed with a metal that would accept the conventional bluing process. There a couple of Gunsmiths that refinish the cast post 64 receivers. Later a black chrome finish was used on the receiver. Winchester went back to forging their receivers with the introduction of the angle-eject and many receivers were chromed black. What I do not understand is that Ruger casts their receivers and no one whines about that. Black chrome is a special finish that many custom firearms receive but Winchester is criticized for it. Marlin installed a crossbolt safety but Winchester is criticized for doing the same. What gives? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

rnr,

Here's the Marlin Talk site that gives some sources for dating Mdl. 94's.

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005625

Even if you don't have a Marlin, the MarlinTalk site is lots of fun and often very informative. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Thanks, I found the basic web site, but couldn't find the individual thread. You're right, it is a great site.
And I've got 2 39A's.

It isn't the fact that metal is cast that makes it difficult to blue, it's the alloy itself that causes this. Ruger did make some products including an unbreakable bladed knife, I think, that were an alloy that blued a bit off color. It's the metal alloy itself more than how it was formed that affects its chemical properties. Lots of guns and other things have castings in them of very fine properties. That most manufacturers don't advertise that probably has more to do with public perception than with factual, functional, quality.