I have a question to you win-94 guys.
My 1975 win is a 30-30 and shoots/handles really well, and the bluing still looks perfect.
Another forum I was on had multiple people writing in saying “ALL post-63 win 94’s have terrible bluing problems”.
Well, I take mine hunting in western and eastern washington and have NO Issues!
I do take just normal care with it if it got wet during the day’s hunt and wipe the bluing with a dry cloth, then a light rub with a lightly oiled cloth… 5-minute-job.
What are the issues they are talking about?
Thanks in advance for your input!
Crab
Model70man,
Thanks for sending the link to du-lite.
Looks like my 1975 was du-lite’s last process of iron-plating and then the win blue/oxiblak process.
They did a good job because it’s lasted 47 years and counting!
😎
I have a 1974 model that the receiver is still black on. The mid to late 60s were the worst
You will meet Winchester snobs who state that only the pre-1964 models are worthwhile. This is untrue. My high school buddy bought a new model 94 in 1972 and he continues to hunt with it after all these years. Nothing wrong with it's function or reliability. US Repeating Arms started building the angle-eject models during the early 1980's and these carbines are easily scoped for those of us with diminishing vision. In summary, Winchester 94's are keepers!
Sherwood
My 1975 continues to shoot very well, and I’m going to keep it for good.
Just took it to the range today to sight it in on some FTX’s, and now have it drilled right in at 100 yds.
Was smiling as I was driving home, as those 94’s are a real joy to shoot.
Light, handy, and easy to hold-steady with… Doesn’t get any better than that!
I’m a happy camper.
😎👍
Crab
I’m a happy camper.
😎👍
Crab
But not the one that we all knew and loved.
Winchester has always had bluing issues with Winchester 94’s.
The earliest 94’s had really no problems, normal steel, normal fume bluing process gave excellent results. But that was only the first 18 months of production.
When Winchester switched to their famous “Nickel Steel” to accommodate smokeless powder, that’s where the problems started. When nickel steel was introduced the bluing process stayed the same, and the look was absolutely fantastic. Problem is, it didn’t last. That’s why you find so many ‘92’s and ‘94’s with little to no finish left on the receivers, yet the rest of the rifle looks great. It wasn’t until they went to the original (1.0??) Du-Lite process (Post WW2 IIRC) that they started wearing better. Most ‘94’s from 1946-1964 look and wear very well.
Then in ’64 they changed the metallurgy again and there were no existing chemical blackening processes that would take to the new steel, so they went to black chrome until they figured out a better process (that’s where the DuLite website comes into play).
The changes anger traditionalists, but the new metallurgy of the ‘94’s works very well. It machines exceptionally well, which means the internal machining of the post-64’s tends to be very nice and pretty smooth. The new steel is similar to stainless steel in its resistance to corrosion. Post-64 ‘94’s shoot every bit as well as pre-64’s, so they’re straight up good rifles.
Winchester has always had bluing issues with Winchester 94’s.
The earliest 94’s had really no problems, normal steel, normal fume bluing process gave excellent results. But that was only the first 18 months of production.
When Winchester switched to their famous “Nickel Steel” to accommodate smokeless powder, that’s where the problems started. When nickel steel was introduced the bluing process stayed the same, and the look was absolutely fantastic. Problem is, it didn’t last. That’s why you find so many ‘92’s and ‘94’s with little to no finish left on the receivers, yet the rest of the rifle looks great. It wasn’t until they went to the original (1.0??) Du-Lite process (Post WW2 IIRC) that they started wearing better. Most ‘94’s from 1946-1964 look and wear very well.
Then in ’64 they changed the metallurgy again and there were no existing chemical blackening processes that would take to the new steel, so they went to black chrome until they figured out a better process (that’s where the DuLite website comes into play).
The changes anger traditionalists, but the new metallurgy of the ‘94’s works very well. It machines exceptionally well, which means the internal machining of the post-64’s tends to be very nice and pretty smooth. The new steel is similar to stainless steel in its resistance to corrosion. Post-64 ‘94’s shoot every bit as well as pre-64’s, so they’re straight up good rifles.
Excellent post. Very informative
Agree, great post.
Thanks GunGeek!
By the way, on blackening the post 64 receiver, for anyone who needs/plans to do that....
The Du-Lite group are posting that they HAVE a successful recipe of their products to do that now.
Here is what they are posting:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Du-Lite’s Process for Blackening Post ’64 Receivers
Du-Lite has developed a process that will blacken these receivers. Once blackened, these receivers will not turn red or discolor.
The Black Oxide Process for Winchester Post ’64 Receiver
Du-Lite #45 Cleaner, (12 oz/gal.) 150°-160° temp. for 10 min.
Warm water rinse – 150° temp.
50/50 HCL acid (muriatic acid) w/water, room temp. for 2-3 min.
Cold water rinse.
Aldak #30, (3-4 lbs/gal.), 220°-230° temp. for 20 min.
Cold water rinse.
Du-Lite 3-0 Bath (4½-5 lbs/gal), 240°-250° temp. for 20-30 min.
Cold water rinse.
Du-Lite Kwikseal or Kwikseal A, straight, room temp., 1 min.
Cheers,
Crab
I have a model 94 Winchester that was made in 1975. The finish on the receiver still looks just fine. Just a few tiny rust spots that were there when I acquired this rifle. It was a used gun.
It shoots great. Most of the ammo that I've shot in it have been my cast bullet loads. I have a Williams receiver sight on it.
I have a model 94 Winchester that was made in 1975. The finish on the receiver still looks just fine. Just a few tiny rust spots that were there when I acquired this rifle. It was a used gun.
It shoots great. Most of the ammo that I've shot in it have been my cast bullet loads. I have a Williams receiver sight on it.
Sounds like we have twins.
I also have a Williams peep sight.
No not exact twins. I put a large loop lever on mine but still very close. They are still very practical rifles even after all these years.
The problem is that its' not a "Pre 64". That's the same with all "W" guns. The pre 64 model 1894 is not without its' faults.....I have had to tighten a few action springs to alleviate feeding issues.....actually made a special driver to do it with. They are great guns though.