Pre vs Post M94 Winchesters? Big difference?

J

JJ45

New member
I always thought the "Pre 64" Winchester thing was mostly concerning the Model 70 bolt action rifle. I know the significant changes of the M70 after 1964 but...

it seems also to describe the differences between all Winchesters. (especially on Gunbroker, etc. :) when someone is trying to sell one :)

I know the Model 1894 or 94 has gone through several changes throughout the years but would like to know what the difference is between post and pre 64 Model 94 carbines and what makes the pre 64 a better weapon, if indeed it is.

I always wondered about this and would appreciate any expertise, Thanks JJ
 
The model 70 was an almost complete redesign starting in 1964. There is a good argument that the 1964 rifles should have had a different model designation.

The changes to the model 94 were more gradual and subtle as Winchester was looking for ways to reduce manufacturing costs. From a design standpoint I don't think there are any major differences, but by the late 1960's through the 1970's QC and the level of finish declined on all Winchester products.

Winchester was actually sold to a group of investors in 1979 or 1980 who renamed the company United States Repeating Arms Company. USRAC was stamped on many of their early 1980's guns. They bought the rights to the Winchester name and used it too.

The 1980's and 1990's Winchesters are generally considered some of the best. Winchester closed their New Haven factory in 2006 and the guns made after about 2000 started to decline in quality again.
 
pre and post

Can't add a lot of detail, but seems I've read the post-64 M-94 receivers are mad from an alloy that does not refinish well, if at all.
 
of course

Should'a thought of this right off. You will never encounter a pre-64 M94 with a safety. Lawyer proofing the classic American lever rifle, whether Marlin, Win or other, is now the way of things, but from a purist and use standpoint, I would not want one so equipped.

That said, I get it (the safety). I've encountered lots of new and young hunters, who cannot manage the traditional half cock safety correctly and in a safe manner.
 
If you know Win 94s you can tell the difference in the dark. The post 64 m70s were junk.
History OF Winchester is in most libraries. Terrible dry read abound the company and its manufacturing processes. I forced myself to read it. History goes to 63.

Receivers on pre 64s are nickel steel hard to blue, post 64 sintered metal won’t blue.
 
In 1963, Winchester was getting their butt kicked by Remington, who had applied a lot of the manufacturing efficiency lessons it learned during WW2 to making civilian sporting arms. Use of round billet, automated machinery, extensive use of stamped sheet metal and blanked parts made Remington's rifles cheaper to make. So Winchester redesigned many of their guns to eliminate unnecessary machining steps and combine machining steps to make manufacturing simpler, and use castings instead of forgings to reduce machining. They also dropped several popular guns because they were difficult to make and the designs had not aged well.

Biggest difference in the post vs pre-64 94 is replacement of turned pins with long screws, leaf springs with coil springs, changed many of the parts to external screws holding them in place, and the metallurgy of the receivers. Ended up biting them in the butt because the buying public hadn't really asked for those things, they ended up paying for the retooling and losing customers.
 
Can't add a lot of detail, but seems I've read the post-64 M-94 receivers are mad from an alloy that does not refinish well, if at all
Click to expand...

This is my understanding as well. You can tell too when looking at pics. I’ve seen quite a few post 64’s with pitting/rust, whereas all pre 64’s have receivers that look brand new. 80’s and 90’s receivers looked good though
 
If I remember correctly (and I probably don't), at some time after 1964, Winchester began to put light colored hardwood, stained to look like Walnut on their '94 Winchesters instead of real American Walnut. Does/can anyone else concur/remember that?
 
Post 64 had a light colored wood, stained. I refinished mine, maybe 40 years ago. Think the wood might have been birch and it finished up real nice. The receiver was some sort of alloy (not sintered metal-I own a powder metal manufacturing plant and know a tiny bit about sintering). The coating didn’t seem to be a paint, but more of a plating substance, deep dark blue in color.

I still have the 94. It is a 30-30, and shoots very well. I put a Lyman receiver sight on it, and it is a fine PA hunting rig. Would I buy another post 64? Well, they’re priced a lot cheaper than pre 64, and still a decent gun.
 
I don't know if the post-64 receivers are "sintered metal" in the usual sense. One friend told me they were made from a "sintered metal" billet. What I have heard, consistent from different places is that the post-64 receivers were made from something that wouldn't blue, and that Winchester put a thin plating (possibly iron?) over them that would take a nice blue. BUT that thin plating did wear and when worn off regular reblue wasn't possible.

One thing most "hated" about the changed 94s was that the went to a stamped lifter. These would flex, and break, particularly in the shorter pistol caliber 94s, or so I've heard. I do know that after a few years of bad press, Winchester dropped the stamped lifter and went back to their old design.

The post 64 m70s were junk.
Click to expand...

I have a post 64 Model 70 Varmint in .22-250, and I can assure you, its not junk. Not even close.

People saw the change from the controlled round feed as a step down, especially since some of the gunwriters of the era told them so. The push feed guns would get you killed hunting dangerous game, etc.,,, Not true, but people bought it.

They saw the gap between the stock barrel channel and the barrel as a sign of poor workmanship, NOT as the free floating Winchester did so the rifles would shoot better, overall. Again, nothing but a perception on the part of the comsumers who expected one thing and when they didn't get it, decided it was poor quality, not a design change.

Lots of folks went for the then new Ruger M77, because of its "dependable" Mauser claw extractor. The Ruger claw extractor looks like a Mauser, but IS a push feed gun.
Again, perception over reality...
 
Post-64 94s made from 1964 to the early 1980s used a siliceous steel casting for the receiver. It was very tough and a lot cheaper than machining a forging into a receiver. Winchester ordered several million of them. They liked the way they machined, but found out they would not blue. They put black iron oxide plating on them to look like bluing. Many of the commemorative 94s had black nickel instead of the black oxide plating. And yes, the black iron oxide had a bad habit of disappearing after a few years of hunting use. After all, the plating was only half a thousandth thick or less.

Post-64 Model 70s were fine, but they got a black eye from gun rag writers because they had changed to push feed. Nothing wrong with them, just the writers forgot that Winchester needed to make money from selling guns. The early 1960s Model 70s were worse, finishes were rough and quality was dropping off because of cost cutting and labor issues. By 1963, it was no longer the same quality as it was in the late 1940s or 1950s.
 
Last edited:
I think Scorch got the receiver material correct. My Post 64 Model 94 receiver does not have any wear to the coating, though it has a few scratches, but none have gone through to the base material. There are a few very tiny spots where the plating flaked off.
 
An author I've quoted before regarding this issue, Robert C. Renneberg, made the following observations in his book Winchester Model 94, A Century of Craftmanship:

"Third Model. This is the design change that illustrates the historic and infamous 'Pre-64'/'Post-64' changeover. The Third Model receiver is the first to carry the designation of Post-64, and while not being in production for a particularly long duration (only about 19 years) was produced in quantities equalling about half of all Model 94s to date.

"There is an ongoing dispute over the exact serial number of both the last production Second Model receiver (Pre-64) and the first Third Model receiver (Post-64) but Second Models most assuredly end near or at the very early 2,600,298 range and the Third Models were introduced somewhere 2,700,000. The rumored last Pre-64 Model 94 assembled is number 2,600,298. The gap between this number and the very earliest known Post-64s is so far unexplained.

"The problem is not distinguishing between a Pre-64 and a Post-64. The difference is glaringly apparent...

"Introduced after a few years of development was the new 'cost effective' Third Model.

"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.

"It rattled when you shook it. The action was an abomination with a flimsy steel stamping serving as the carrier, and the receiver itself did not take kindly to the bluing process. Even the fit and finish of the wood was terrible-on a par with the rest of the gun...".

The Fourth Model was introduced in 1978 at serials around 4,600,000 and the general consensus is they "were well-thought-out changes for the better". Also introduced in 1978 was the Fifth Model (or 5A-Angle Eject BigBore).

The Sixth Model (6A-Angle Eject, 6B-Angel Eject with Button Safety, 6C-Angel Eject with Tang Safety), was introduced in 1983 at around serial number 5,300,000. Sixth Models were considered to be much better made Model 94s and all of them were made with one hundred percent steel forgings, among many other construction, material, workmanship and finish improvements.
 
Tony Z said:
Post 64 had a light colored wood, stained. I refinished mine, maybe 40 years ago. Think the wood might have been birch and it finished up real nice. The receiver was some sort of alloy (not sintered metal-I own a powder metal manufacturing plant and know a tiny bit about sintering). The coating didn’t seem to be a paint, but more of a plating substance, deep dark blue in color.

I still have the 94. It is a 30-30, and shoots very well. I put a Lyman receiver sight on it, and it is a fine PA hunting rig. Would I buy another post 64? Well, they’re priced a lot cheaper than pre 64, and still a decent gun.
Click to expand...
The receiver was some sort of alloy (not sintered metal-I own a powder metal manufacturing plant and know a tiny bit about sintering).
Click to expand...
All metals other than elemental metals are "...some sort of alloy...". Did you mean, "...some sort of steel"? Do you think it was an Investment Casting?
 
Dahermit, it was some sort of casting, what type and alloy is anyone’s guess. I might have to dig out the old lever and take a look at the inside of the receiver for clues (a speck of rust is a dead giveaway).
 
Tony Z said:
Dahermit, it was some sort of casting, what type and alloy is anyone’s guess. I might have to dig out the old lever and take a look at the inside of the receiver for clues (a speck of rust is a dead giveaway).
Click to expand...
It was an investment casting, I take it?

I had an original Ruger .44 Magnum Blackhawk (not Super Blackhawk), that had a "plumb" colored loading gate. His early investment castings had a very strange reaction to the Bluing salts.
 
My refinish on post 64s was to buff the reciever out to bare metal then wax, then send that piggy down the road. Never messed with post 64 m70. Bought new 270 about 1967. Piece of junk all around. Sold it off and bought Ruger 77 which I still have.
 
I was told a long time ago how one can quickly tell a pre from a post 64, M94. A pre 64 will have a retaining screw on the floorplate to hold the hinge pin that secures it to the receiver. The post 64 won’t have it. True or not, it’s always been the first thing I look for when checking out an old 94 in a rack in a store, or an auction, or whenever I have the chance to check out an old 94. Gotta always check ‘em out if I can, just because.
 
"I was told a long time ago how one can quickly tell a pre from a post 64, M94. A pre 64 will have a retaining screw on the floorplate to hold the hinge pin that secures it to the receiver. The post 64 won’t have it. True or not, it’s always been the first thing I look for when checking out an old 94 in a rack in a store, or an auction, or whenever I have the chance to check out an old 94. Gotta always check ‘em out if I can, just because."

That's absolutely correct. I have both pre and post 64 Winchester M94s I prefer the pre version though. The only post 64 I have is as accurate shooter though and makes a good truck gun ow that I has a receiver sight on it.

Funny thing, I've also had pre and post 64 M70s and the post 64s are still in the safe while the pre-64s are all long gone. If I want controlled feed I'd use a rifle based on a real Mauser action. But then again. I doubt I'll ever hunt dangerous game anyway. :D
Paul B.
 
44 AMP said:
I have a post 64 Model 70 Varmint in .22-250, and I can assure you, its not junk. Not even close.
Click to expand...

Agreed! My first year (1967) M70 22-250 Varmint is by far one of my most accurate rifles after taking the time to develop a proper load.

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top