Pre vs Post M94 Winchesters? Big difference?

I was told a long time ago how one can quickly tell a pre from a post 64, M94.
Click to expand...
Sure, easy. You just look at them. They look different.

Post-64s are more squared off on the edges, pre-64s are nicely beveled.

Yes, the screw in the link, also. Screws all over the outside of the post-64 receivers.

But to the untrained eye, they kinda look the same.:rolleyes:
 
What young cowboy kid doesn't want a lever action rifle? I wanted a Winchester and when I finally found one it was an 1894 Sporting Rifle manufactured in 1908. Of course it was a .30 WCF, .30-.30 or "thuty-thuty" to the old farts. Amazingly, the receiver looked almost new, but for two scope mounting holes on one side. I found some matching screws to cover them up. The stock was dinged up, but I stripped, sanded and refinished it. It has an octagon barrel which someone tried to re-blue, and give it a false plum patina. They failed miserably, but it still shoots great. Not a safe queen. I am amazed that something over a century old still works so well. 1964 is the cut off date. One can get collectables in pre-'64, but pre- or post are shootable. Good shootin' to y'all.
 
Funny thing too, I grew up watching Westerns and they might have been M92s, etc. but I became intrigued by the lever carbine.

Another thing, as a kid I used to look through the my Mom's Penney's catalog at the rifles (those were the days, huh? :) and still remember the opening sentence describing the M94; "dependable, easy operating deer rifle".....
 
My 94 was made in 79 and looks like it has been to hell and back and then drug down a gravel road but it will shoot with the best of them.
 
A post above has a quote attributed to a book by Robert C. Renneberg:

"This new model was such a blow to Winchester fanciers, such a departure from the quality of even the worst example of the previous design, so disappointing in appearance and feel, that sales plummeted dramatically."

This statement is true only if you define "plummeted dramatically" to mean "increased dramatically". In just twenty years after the revised model was introduced in 1964, Winchester sold about as many model 94s as in the first 70 years from 1894 to 1964.

In the ten years before the 1964 model was introduced they made on average a bit over 58,000 model 94s annually. In the ten years after the 1964 model was introduced Winchester made over 141,000 model 94s annually.

Personally I think the model 94s made after WW II until 1964 were the best ever. But to say the 1964 model was a failure in terms of sales is nonsense.
 
US Repeating Arms took over Winchester in 1979. The 94 was upgraded to the beefier receiver to handle "hotter" cartridges such as the 375, 307, and 356. In 1981, the 94 was introduced with Angle-Eject. All of these guns were far superior to the post 1964 Winchesters produced by Olin Corp. Yet there are uninformed shooters who ignore these facts.

TR
 
Just depends on why you buy an 1894. If buy to use, it don't matter much. If buying as a collector item, then yes.
 
You don't need to be a "collector" in order to appreciate (and insist on having) superior workmanship, finish and material on any firearm, not just Model 94s.
 
Each to his own. For a utility hunting rifle, I'll keep my 1964 Model 1894 and enjoy every minute I spend with it. It does exactly what it was designed to do and it has done it for 57 years. I expect it will do the same for another 57 years.
 
Funny thing, I got my post-94, new, around 1967 or 8 (getting harder to remember that far back), and loved that gun (still have it). I didn’t know it was inferior till I started reading gun magazines, sometime in the early 80s!

I suppose all the whitetails that gun took will be glad to hear that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top