Pre 1964 Winchester 94 versus later years?

bought it for 400 bucks

The Win 94 is now mine, I bought it for 4 beans, and its beautiful. It only had 5 rounds thru it! I put ten! and its sweet..not a nick on it 100% mint.. The reason I bought it is so I can shoot it, not collect it. I wont have to worry as much about this vs. a pre-64.
 
The Marlins have been very consistent in quality in my experience. They have made some changes to stock designs over the years. They offered some budget versions with cheaper wood and sights, but the top of the line 336C has always been well made. Even the budget models are well made, just using cheaper wood and less polish on the metal.

I have heard some grumblings about some very recent guns not being quite as good, but have not experienced any issues personally.

To me the 1970's Marlins are the nicest looking. Current guns have a fat foreend that just does not look right to me. Many from the 60's and earlier are even fatter than current production guns. During the 70's the foreend was smaller and trimmer, much like the Winchester 94. That was also before the lawyers made them put a safety on the receiver.
 
I don't know who makes what anymore, only a Winchester is a Winchester no matter who makes it. I know they aren't made in China but what's the difference between something made in a factory in China or by someone from China working in a factory in Seattle. Well, frankly, it isn't that simple. There are still differences (in the product, I mean).

I've only owned one Marlin and six Winchester lever actions. The Winchesters were very nicely sized carbines but I swear you could make the screws loosen just by staring at them hard. None ever fell out, though. And the levers were all looser than it seemed like they should have been. The Trapper model was the handiest and I should have kept it. One was a Model 95 that was the second longest rifle I ever had, which surprised me when I realized it. Very, very nice rifle but I found it hard to load. I didn't care for the sights on any of them, however, and for that matter, on none of the other rifles I've owned except for a No. 4 and a No. 5 Lee-Enfield.

I'm no expert but it's hard to generalize. The older ones that I've examined but didn't own had much nicer wood-to-metal fit. Never having seen a brand new old one, I'm not sure about the other aspects but some of the newer ones had pretty nice wood and the finish usually seemed more practical (not an oil finish). Same with the Marlin.

Why did they have to quit making them anyway?
 
They quit making them because todays generation is buying AR15's. In other words, they don't sell. No profit, no factory, no new rifles. Now they are Japanese, an irony if there ever was one.

My Oct. '64 is a functional rifle, the finish pitted, and not getting any better. It seems that Winchester had to make the decision back then to 1) go out of business for lack of profit, or 2) stop putting in expensive hand labor and parts to increase the profit margins. They stayed in business, only the purists got their noses bent, and they have warped the market price ever since. If I can get mine for $175, and it shoots the same as one four years earlier, the deer certainly won't notice or care.

As a matter of money management, I certainly would buy the early model - for it's collector value, as an investment, to be sold in the future. It's utility value as a shooter, no. It's overpriced. Be aware of what it's bought for and treat it accordingly, no one much wants a pitted rusty pre-64, unless it was owned by a movie star or such. It's all about the grade of condition and provenance.
 
Lost track of the post-64's I've had, not sure how many I have now. :D When the going price was $250 for a 95% gun I bought all I could, kept the best. They're all beautiful shooters. When I decide to quit shooting and start collecting I'll try some pre-64's.
 
you can do a tephlon coat on one if the finish is bad and my gunsmith says he can make them smoother to load for 50 bucks and 75 for a new tephlon finish the finish on mine is a lil ruff and its hard to load so for a $375 rifle all together its a good gub:)
 
if a pre 64 and post 64 are laid side by side the noticeable difference is the stock and forearm.

this is a post 64 M-94,
win94-2.jpg


this is a pre 64 M-94,
94%20SRC%20RH.jpg


also here is a good site to see the differences: http://shootingwithhobie.blogspot.com/2010/08/differentiating-between-pre-64-and-post.html
 
Bpowderkeg said:
if a pre 64 and post 64 are laid side by side the noticeable difference is the stock and forearm."

Actually, the bottom pic while technically a Pre 64 (of course), is more often thought of as "Pre War." (Meaning up 'til the mid 30s most carbines had the features shown, but afterward more closely resembles the later Wins. By then, the ladder sight (shown) had been largely replaced by the "current" semi buck/leaf--available all along as an option, as was the front post sight replaced by ramp/hooded, and curved carbine butt replaced by the flat(ish) shotgun).

So, the only main visual distinction among late 30s-1964 Pre 64s was that long forearm. From 10 feet, most Pre 64s after early '51 look virtually identical to Post 64s. Finish issues aside, to a layperson on close up the number and location of some screws is about it. (A minority of 1951s still had the long forearm).
 
Last edited:
you can do a tephlon coat on one if the finish is bad and my gunsmith says he can make them smoother to load for 50 bucks and 75 for a new tephlon finish the finish on mine is a lil ruff and its hard to load so for a $375 rifle all together its a good gub
Click to expand...

Mine was made in 79 and she ain't purty but she will put a deer on the ground as well as anything before or since 64 and better than a lot of them. I'd rather see good honest wear than teflon any day.


027.jpg
 
One of each!

One is a 1962 Mod 94, clean as a whistle. The other is an Mod 94 AE. Love both, but use the AE more. That '62 is just sooo nice. It is CLEAN!
 
All a bunch of embellished hype & BS

I own both in 30-30.
The post 64 (1973) is a bit more accurate with the 170 grain WW Power Point ammo I use.
You can tell the deer shot with the 1960 made 94 are deader than the deer shot with the 73 made 94.
I had polished of a pint of Jack after the deer were gutted and hung a coupla years ago and I swear the buck shot with the 1973 rifle winked at me.
Most of the differences are all in peoples heads and don't mean squat diddly in the woods where the bullets meet the bucks.
A lotta media made up hype and BS that was swallowed hook, line & sinker.;)
 
I've slain a slew of whitetail with my 1980 Winchester 94 and with my 1978 Marlin 336.

I bought them both new at the Walmart in Crossett, Arkansas for $99 each.

I scoped my 336 and used my 94 when I didn't need a scope.

I never owned a pre '64 but neither my Winchester nor my Marlin will ever be for sale. Not while I'm breathing, at least.

My 94 does not have angle eject or a rebounding hammer. Safety is still half cock.
 
Last edited:
I think I may be one of the only Shooters in the world that likes the later 94 angle eject Winchesters with the cross bolt safeties. I know the finish is not as good as the pre 64, but for a Hunting Rifle its what I prefer. I am getting ready to mount a Leupold Ultra light 2.5X20 Scope on mine in low Rings on a two piece Leupold Mount. The one I have is a great shooter.
 
Have 2 Winchester pre 64 94s (1949 & 1955) that won't be going anywhere.
I've bought and sold a lot of post 64 94s over the years but the 2 pre 64s are part of the family.
The Winchester decision in 1964 to show their arrogance and contempt for customers continued until their demise in 2006.
Nobody wanted those crappy, useless lawyers safeties but the Almighty Winchester knew better.
Where are they now? Just a wholly owned (FN) rump of their former arrogant selves.
 
The various USRAC models were very nice, Big Bores, Long barreled versions, Trappers, XTR's and the addition of angle eject. Hard to go wrong with one of these. The 356 was a bruiser, but I never could find bullets with the crimping groove in the right place. The 7-30 lives as a fairly popular Contender round.
 
Last edited:
Why did they have to quit making them anyway?
Click to expand...
Uuuuhmmm, because they went out of business? Because they were contractually obligated to manufacture them in a plant where the workers could/would not make them profitably? Because they were obsolete and sales were declining fast? Look at it this way: if the Winchester Model 94 was a real money-maker (like the Model 70 is), someone would be making them somewhere (in Italy, China, Namibia, wherever). And I'm not talking about the current abomination coming out of Japan, which, although it is a well-made and very pretty rifle, is not intended as a hunting weapon (which is the role the 94 was primarily sold to fill after WW2).
They quit making them because todays generation is buying AR15's. In other words, they don't sell. No profit, no factory, no new rifles.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
It's not all bad....

They quit making them because today's generation is buying AR15's.
Click to expand...
This is a good thing in my book. A generation ago I couldn't afford a model 94 of the vintage I prefer; and, a model 12 was out of the question too. Thanks to so many kids trading in their family hand-me-downs for something tacticool, the vintage stuff I like is now within reach. I particularly like the 94's from about 1937 though WWII until they shortened the forearms and replaced checkered hammers with serrated. If the bluing is worn off,..... even better! Gives it character.
 
quote: Scorch

And I'm not talking about the current abomination coming out of Japan, which, although it is a well-made and very pretty rifle, is not intended as a hunting weapon (which is the role the 94 was primarily sold to fill after WW2).


I'm curious why you say the current Muroku rifles are not intended as a hunting rifle? They certainly can do the job and have for me. Pretty, yes they are, but so was every rifle I own when they were new. Most still look great, but looks alone are not the judge of a rifle. I have pre-64, post-64 and the current versions and they are all capable of the same thing. Are the new ones expensive? Yes they are but so is nearly everything else these days. Doesn't stop me from using them. They are tools, and pretty good tools at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top