Pre 1964 Winchester 94 versus later years?
- Thread starter rcupka
- Start date
Never heard anything about the alloy of the recievers. But what was commonly known was that unlike the changes made to the model 70 rifle, there were no mechanical changes to the model 94. The changes were in the metal forming process used for certain parts.
Specifically, the lifter/carrier was changed to a stamped, rather than a forged part, and there were a few other changes to cut production costs.
According to urban legends, the stamped parts "weren't as good", and Winchester did have some QC problems with the guns made in the first couple years after the change.
I can't speak to this directly, but it was what "everybody" was saying in those days.
Now, while the Model 70 was actually a different rifle after 1964, the model 94 was not. However, the idea that pre-64s should command premium prices bled over (in a lot of minds) from the model 70 to the 94. I never felt that way, about the 94. A 1951 model 94 in good shape is an honest gun, as good as they ever were. Now what you have to pay for one in todays market? That may not be what I consider an "honest" price.
Specifically, the lifter/carrier was changed to a stamped, rather than a forged part, and there were a few other changes to cut production costs.
According to urban legends, the stamped parts "weren't as good", and Winchester did have some QC problems with the guns made in the first couple years after the change.
I can't speak to this directly, but it was what "everybody" was saying in those days.
Now, while the Model 70 was actually a different rifle after 1964, the model 94 was not. However, the idea that pre-64s should command premium prices bled over (in a lot of minds) from the model 70 to the 94. I never felt that way, about the 94. A 1951 model 94 in good shape is an honest gun, as good as they ever were. Now what you have to pay for one in todays market? That may not be what I consider an "honest" price.
L_Killkenny
New member
The receivers on the late 60's/early 70's were crap. Also in the late 70's they introduced the rebounding hammer and got rid of the half cock hammer. Trigger pull suffers greatly. But they had fixed the receivers by then. At some point they added the tang mounted safety and then later switched to the cross bolt safety. Both suck. I'm not sure of exact years of changes.
Peter M. Eick
New member
All of my 94's are pre-64 but I have handled post-64 versions. Side by side I think the bluing looks better on the older guns then the newer. The newer ones are more black and less polished then the older ones.
I have a 1950 version that has never been fired and is nearly ANIB. It is exceptionally nice. If I had the need and a 1951 popped up I would buy it, but right now I am sort of full up of shooter 30/30's.
Look at it pragmatically, why NOT get the pre-64 if the opportunity presents itself?
I have a 1950 version that has never been fired and is nearly ANIB. It is exceptionally nice. If I had the need and a 1951 popped up I would buy it, but right now I am sort of full up of shooter 30/30's.
Look at it pragmatically, why NOT get the pre-64 if the opportunity presents itself?
Pre 64's are better guns than post 64 plain and simple. Better fit and finish. All the parts were machined from bar stock on pre 64's. Steel receiver that held bluing better. The differences are there you just have to know what to look for. Pre 64's have more screws on the receiver and in different locations.
I have a post-64 Winchester 94 30-30 made in the late 60's or right around 1970. I have the typical spots/pitting that occurs on most of these post-64 receivers. Let me put it this way - the gun shoots fine, but it's the gun I choose to keep on top of some cabinets in a cabin in the N. Georgia mountains. I don't care if the finish gets more crapped up than it alread is, if or even if it gets stolen for that matter. It's a beater and will always be a beater because there isn't anything you can do that's worth doing to make it look pretty.
I would never treat a pre-64 (if I had one) the way I treat my post-64. Sometimes, I think "boy I sure would like to have a pre-64 Winchester...", but then I remember how nice it is to have at least one rifle that you can bang around with where more pitting and dings on the stock just add charicter to it.
I would never treat a pre-64 (if I had one) the way I treat my post-64. Sometimes, I think "boy I sure would like to have a pre-64 Winchester...", but then I remember how nice it is to have at least one rifle that you can bang around with where more pitting and dings on the stock just add charicter to it.
Last edited:
Skans - I'm with you on all of that...however, the pre 64s are still abundant enough, the purchase especially of a Pre that isn't so pristine to begin with makes it so it's easier to "knock around" with--and still a lot more "fondleable" (pride of ownership) when not being shot - than the crappy early Post's. Otherwise, a lot of the earlier Post 64 problems (late 60s, early 70s) seemed to be solved - or at least reduced - (improved receiver finish, lifter construction, overall fit and finish, etc.) by the late 70s, that one of those makes a very nice compromise.
gak, don't get me wrong, I still have a longing for a pre-64 Winchester. I probably will get one some day, but no matter what it's condition, I won't be able to be as care free about it as I am with my post-64 Winchester.
FWIW, a buddy of mine needed $250 at one time and didn't want a Norinco SKS rifle and the Winchester post-64 that he had and offered to sell them to me for $250. I would never consider buying either of these rifles, as they just aren't my thing. I sold the Norinco SKS (which was a late 1950's make) at a gun show and got my $250 back. I kept the Winchester 30-30 because I needed something like that to keep at a cabin I've got in the woods. It serves its purpose and I've got no money in it.
FWIW, a buddy of mine needed $250 at one time and didn't want a Norinco SKS rifle and the Winchester post-64 that he had and offered to sell them to me for $250. I would never consider buying either of these rifles, as they just aren't my thing. I sold the Norinco SKS (which was a late 1950's make) at a gun show and got my $250 back. I kept the Winchester 30-30 because I needed something like that to keep at a cabin I've got in the woods. It serves its purpose and I've got no money in it.
Interesting that you mentioned that. I was going to try and sand down the stock on mine to put an oil finish on it. The stock had a cheap stain on it and was fairly light colored - don't know what kind of wood it is. I dropped the project and simply put a coat of satin urathane on it. I figured it was a waste of time trying to make that gun pretty after that.
Thanks Guys, The 1951 Model 94 in 30-30 is $300. I plan to buy it along with a 1941 Remington 241 SpeedmasterTakedown for $200.
Both look to be shot very little. I don't "need" them, but I wan't them. My only other Lever gun is a Winchester 9422M, and I don't feel complete without a 30-30.
Anything to be wary of?
Dick
Both look to be shot very little. I don't "need" them, but I wan't them. My only other Lever gun is a Winchester 9422M, and I don't feel complete without a 30-30.
Anything to be wary of?
Dick
longranger
New member
I just picked up a very nice 94 that was made in 1956 it is chambered in .32 Win. Special. Bluing is beautiful, locks up tight wood is nearly perfect except for a hole that was filled for a sling.Rifle was shot little or cast bullets were used.Very nice trigger,don't know if it's been worked or they were all like this.I hope to shoot it here in the next few days when my bullet mold will be here.Hornady has the Leverevolution for the .32 Win. Spec. hope they shoot as the 30-30 stuff does.
BusGunner007
New member
I sold a 1951 Model 94 for $300.00 and regretted it for a while. The guy said it filled a niche for him, and I used the money to get a nice Browning A-5 shotgun...
I've still got a 1969 that I'm glad I kept.
Step-Dad and Father's rifles, respectively.
Glad to see I didn't ask to much or lose out too much, either way, on my Step-Dad's rifle.
It WAS in excellent condition, though.
I've still got a 1969 that I'm glad I kept.
Step-Dad and Father's rifles, respectively.
Glad to see I didn't ask to much or lose out too much, either way, on my Step-Dad's rifle.
It WAS in excellent condition, though.
Bluefox9mm
Inactive
Thinking of buying this one.
A friend of mine has a 72' model 94 30-30 that he bought new for what he says was $75.00. He has kept it in mint shape.. He want's to sell it and Blue book says its worth up to $425.00. I know from the way he cares for his arms that this is a good gun to own. Should I offer $400?
A friend of mine has a 72' model 94 30-30 that he bought new for what he says was $75.00. He has kept it in mint shape.. He want's to sell it and Blue book says its worth up to $425.00. I know from the way he cares for his arms that this is a good gun to own. Should I offer $400?
The difference is that there was a big step down in quality on the model 70's starting in 1964. The 94's decline was gradual.
I wouldn't have a problem with a mid to late 60's model 94, but by the 70's up to the day they stopped making them in 2006 quality was spotty at best. I've seen and handled a few good ones. Most I wouldn't touch.
I wouldn't have a problem with a mid to late 60's model 94, but by the 70's up to the day they stopped making them in 2006 quality was spotty at best. I've seen and handled a few good ones. Most I wouldn't touch.