Home
Posted By: KingCobb Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
It will be a bit, but I want to eventually add a 64 and 65 to my 71s. I have a 92 in 32-20(along with a 1903 SAA) and a 94 in 38-55. I know nothing of the 218 bee(except it costs a fortune to get) or a zipper or a 25-20 or 25-35. For some very odd reason a 30-30 has never appealed to me at all.

Any suggestions or preferences on these calibers?
Posted By: moosemike Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
I'm a 30-30 guy at heart. With that said I used to have a Marlin 25-20 that I bitterly miss and I've always wanted a 25-35. I do intend to get a 25 caliber lever action again.
Posted By: fishdog52 Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
I have admired 64's for a long time. They are an example of just how good a factory could build something. Most were built during the Depression, and I suspect only Winchester's best craftsmen remained on the payroll. For many, 64's seem to point themselves, they're just easy to shoot.
For those that haven't used a 30-30, it is way to easy to underestimate its capabilities. Out of a good rifle, like a 64, it will surprise you how effective it can be, on big game, out to 200 yards, maybe a little further. A century ago, it was considered a long range wonder. Unlike a 65, ammo cost is minimal.
Posted By: 260Remguy Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
Originally Posted by KingCobb
It will be a bit, but I want to eventually add a 64 and 65 to my 71s. I have a 92 in 32-20(along with a 1903 SAA) and a 94 in 38-55. I know nothing of the 218 bee(except it costs a fortune to get) or a zipper or a 25-20 or 25-35. For some very odd reason a 30-30 has never appealed to me at all.

Any suggestions or preferences on these calibers?


The 65 is the same style of action as the 71, so I'd go that way.

If you're not a traditionalist, IIRC there was a really nice Browning 65 in the Gun Library at the LaVista, NE, Cabela's within the last 2 weeks. I wasn't interested, so I only saw it in passing.
Posted By: ingwe Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
64...for sure.
Posted By: PJGunner Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
Originally Posted by fishdog52
I have admired 64's for a long time. They are an example of just how good a factory could build something. Most were built during the Depression, and I suspect only Winchester's best craftsmen remained on the payroll. For many, 64's seem to point themselves, they're just easy to shoot.
For those that haven't used a 30-30, it is way to easy to underestimate its capabilities. Out of a good rifle, like a 64, it will surprise you how effective it can be, on big game, out to 200 yards, maybe a little further. A century ago, it was considered a long range wonder. Unlike a 65, ammo cost is minimal.



Me too. Back a very long time ago (late 1961) I was stationed in Las Vegas and would cruise the local gun and pawn shops looking for something I could afford on my air force pay. One pawn shop had two rifles I would have bought in a flash if I'd had the cash. One was a Winchester M73 in .22 either short or long, I forget which. The other was a Winchester M64 and that one I wanted so bad I could taste it. I've had M94s well before I went into service and while they always felt good, there was no comparison the the way that M64 felt in my hands.
Fast forward to a few years ago, I found an M64 made in 1938, the year I was born. It looked a bit rough with wood very dark and lots of signs of having been used hard. It was the Deluxe model in 30-30. I bought it. The bore was still nice and shiny and when I took it out and shot it it proved to be as accurate as my old eye can do these days. About a years after that I found another one, this a standard model also in 30-30 but looking much better than the 1938 rifle. I'd have to double check but IIRC the serial number places t in 1957 which again IIRC was the last year Winchester made that rifle.

Winchester did more or less bring it back as a post 64 gun but it just did not have the charisma for the the originals have. One, they didn't even get the stock right. FWIW, the stocks for the M64 and M71 were designed by Col. T. Whelen, or so I've heard. I do think about kicking myself every once in a while. I was offered a chance to pick up an M64 in .219 Zipper for $200 and didn't do it. I didn't realize how collectible that one was. frown
Paul B.
Posted By: mart Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
I have a well used 71 and a nice 64 as well as a Browning 65. All nice guns. I have always preferred the 64 to the 94. Every rifleman ought to have at least one 30-30.

It would be nice to find an original 65, but one in as nice a shape as my Browning would cost 4 times as much. I'm not that strong a traditionalist. In fact I have thought often of trading my well used 71 for a newer Browning 71 because I think they are generally a more accurate gun than the originals. My Browning 65 is a tack driver.
Posted By: RGK Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/17/19
I like the 64. This one is a .32 Special.
Bob

[Linked Image]
Posted By: navlav8r Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/18/19
I have a 64-A (30-30) made in the second run and really like the way it handles. The pistol grip stock and rounded fore-end feel good in the hands. The trigger is probably the best I’ve used in a Winchester lever action.
Posted By: meddybemps Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/18/19
Handsome.
Posted By: Vic_in_Va Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/18/19
The M64 and M71 are just plain pleasing to the eye.

My preference would be the 64 (vs 65) simply because I'd deer hunt with it. One in .25-35 would be the ultimate for me.
Posted By: RGK Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/18/19
I think the ultimate would be the 64 Deluxe...a minty one from the 1940's would work. I'd need a Lyman or Redfield receiver sight on it. A .30-30 would do; lots of cheap factory ammo around to shoot.
Bob
Posted By: Mule Deer Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/18/19
Another vote for the 64. Got this one from that famous store in Kentucky, Whittaker Guns....

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Pharmseller Re: Winchester 64 or 65? - 08/18/19
64 Deluxe
© 24hourcampfire