Quality of 70s-era Winchester 94s ??

J

jambrdly

New member
I saw some young fellow pontificating on Youtube today saying that the quality of the Winchester 94s produced in the 1970s - and this is a direct quote - "sucked."

This actually hurt my feelings as my favorite rifle is a 1971 Winchester 94 in 30-30 (big surprise there). I suppose I need to save my pennies and buy a pre-64 but, in the meantime, is there any real problem with the 70s-era 94s or was the aforementioned youtuber just being a doofus?

Is there anything likely to break? Do I need to lay in a supply of parts and a "how-to" gunsmithing video?

Please don't tell me to stick it in the closet and get something made in Japan - I've had way too much fun with this gun and I hope to have more still.
 
Weeellllll, the 94s from the 1970s were OK, but just OK. As you probably already heard, in 1964 Winchester released the new 94 (and almost all their other guns) with several cost-reduction "improvements": cast receivers, stamped carriers, screws used for link pins, roll pins to hold it together, etc. All in all, it was not a bad gun, but compared to the older JMB design with machined receivers and machined carriers and machined pivot pins, it was kind of a miscarriage. The 94 was supposed to fade away with the advent of the new, more affordable scopes on rifles, so Winchester did not want to continue a dying design, but made enough money from the design to keep making it. And people bought it anyway, in spite of the changes. Then they started complaining about carriers failing, bluing on receivers that literally rubbed off, poor ejection, and overall failures to perform, and Winchester was literally forced to come up with a fix. By 1970, they had introduced several of those fixes. In the case of the 94, the biggest one was the cast cartridge carrier, and it was pretty good. Maybe not as cheap as stamped carriers or as good as machined carriers, but still cheap to make, at about 1/10 the cost of machined. People quit complaining and started buying 94s again, and although the cast carriers were prone to snapping, it allowed Winchester to continue to sell the 94 and still make money. Accuracy was as good as before, so it flew. So, that was a long answer to a simple question, "were 94s from the 70s good", but there it is. They were OK, and that's all I'm gonna say about it. I have owned several, and I no longer do, but that has little to do with the rifles themselves. There are a lot of folks who bash the post-1964 rifles without ever having laid hands on one, just because they read somewhere that "the quality sucked" or whatever. No, the quality was OK after the problems were fixed, it was the change from the old design to the new design that got the purists all puffed up and acting prissy.
 
Last edited:
Some are better than others--sounds like you got a good one! They were inconsistent over the years but did seem to get a bit better as the 70s drew to a close prior to USRAC's taking over in '81. There seems to be relatively little argument about the late '60s period of the Post 64 (post 63) era, however, as a "difficult" period for Winchester. Does yours have a cast (slightly contoured) cartridge lifter or stamped (flat rectagonal with no "profiling" to it)? In the 70s--forget when--Winchester started to improve some of the bits (presumably) as a response to outcry about their changes in '64. That (going to cast on the lifter, more reminiscent of the Pre 64s) was one of the pieces addressed. IIRC, the Pre 64s were milled. The 70s seemed to improve upon the material or finish of the receiver which had a thorough going over (the wrong way) in 1964--going from forged to scintered plating, then "painted" an abominable black finish that tended to flake. The later improvements still didn't take kindly to re-blueing, but appeared better out of the box and stayed that way longer. Toward the late 70s, the receiver finish/material at least seemed to improve yet more at least on a fair number of guns. The 60s-70s guns also tended to freckle or even pit from moisture, again the earlier ones being the worst. All 94s, Pre and Post, were vulnerable to moisture from handling--sweat etc in the receiver area--if not wiped down after use regularly. Post 64s, generally, were less forgiving. As one got further from the 60s the wood seemed to improve as well. At one point especially early on, they'd gone to birch or some such, some with pretty plain, almost bleached finishes. Later on they returned to walnut--at least on the standard or "upper" line. Rangers may have retained the birch-type wood, I don't recall.

So, no, it's not all hooey, but there are good guns to be found in just about all those periods. Harder to find good examples in some time spans than others.
 
Last edited:
Everytime someone comes up with a new model, someone is hollering about the old one being better and collectible. Belgian Brownings have brought a premium for years, but lots of the newer stuff has been superior. Since Glock has come out with a Gen. 4 handgun, I expect the Gen. 1 thru 3 to start being touted as collectible and better.
Your Winchester should continue to give you and your heirs service for many years with no worries on your part. Anything mechanical is prone to breakage, but if I were you I wouldn't lay awake nights thinking my rifle is inferior.
 
All Winchester models made during the 1950's-1970's were very inconsistent. Even the last few years of the pre-64's were starting to suffer from QC problems. The re-designs in 1964 were an attempt to make a better gun, but with cost cutting measures.

The older, pre-64 rifles required a lot more handwork, Winchester found itself in a position where they could not continue to produce a quality rifle of that design, sell it at a profit, and stay in buisness. They could have chosen to raise prices, and continue to produce the same desings and maintain quality. Not really an option, because Remington was selling guns of equal quality for a lot less money already.

The model 70 was completely redesigned in 1964. The 94 was not redesigned, but many parts were made from cheaper materials and quality of construction declined. Many of the rifles made during this time are just fine. but quality was all over the place. Lots of junk made during these years too, and you are taking a chance buying any of the 1970's Winchesters.

Winchester was sold to United States Repeating Arms Co. in 1979. USRAC made a commitment to build better guns, and startng with the 1980 models things did improve considerably, at least for a while. By about 2000 quality started to decline again and by 2006 Winchester closed their doors. Browning owned Winchester by now and is making model 70's in their FN factory and limited numbers of some other guns in Japan.
 
Biggest problem I have with my 1970's top eject model 94 is the finish on the metal. My receiver rusts terribly, I'm thinking of having a coating of some sort applied to it since it will hold up better than the bluing on the M94. Other than that my M94 feeds and shoots flawlessly everything I want to put through it, cast or jacketed, round nose, flat nose, and flex tip, factory, or handloads. I love the rifle, but I'd still like to pick up a pre-64 someday.
 
"Sucked"...? BS! It depends. I have owned pre-64 model 94's that were no where NEAR the level of craftsmanship that my Winchester 94 (Made for Sears, Ted Williams model 100, vintage 1970's), is. And I have had other pre-64 Winchesters that rivaled the quality of my old 1886 Winchester. And, true enough, I have owned a 70's version of the 94 that was rough, so bad in fact that I wondered if it was made in Spain out of pot metal... :D. But to state that post 64, specifically all 1970's Winchesters "suck"... well, that is highly subjective... and false. Is the Youtuber a Doofus... yup!
 
But to state that post 64, specifically all 1970's Winchesters "suck"... well, that is highly subjective... and false. Is the Youtuber a Doofus... yup!
Click to expand...

my impression is that the post-64's were in fact inferior in every way when put alongside pre-64's and even the 80's models, mainly because Winchester did use pot metal to make their guns and cut corners to lower production costs. Even Winchester experts will tell you that this is the case. Just because you have a Winchester 94 that has worked for you doesn't mean that 10 others haven't had bad experiences with theirs. if somebody gave me a 70's Winchester 94 i'd take it but I wouldn't spend money on one
 
If you have been using this Winchester made in 1971 and have found it accurate and reliable, then you have a good gun. Sure, the fit and finish of the older Winchesters are better, but if you buy an older one still in good enough condition to use you will pay art object prices. Everybody doesn't care enough to do that. And remember this, the best rifle in the world is the one in your hands when you really need it.
 
I have four Winchester 94 30-30s. One made in 1896, one made in 1910, one made in 1971, and one made in 1982. The one made in 1971 is a NRA centennial musket. This one has the stiffest action of the group but I have had zero problems with any of them. All of them shoot accurately and function flawlessly.
 
I have owned and sold more of these guns, each one warked just fine. I even traded one for a dog once...

Still have one tho.

Another much ado about nothing thing. Some juse want to nit pick and most were not even born at the time they talk about. Now I do remember 1964...was a great year for pheas and quail, limit here was 3 roostrers and one hen.... 8 quail
 
I think mine was made in 79. It not only shoots pretty well it is also just pretty. Never had any FTF or FTE. It all works pretty smooth.
 
Got a USRA, half cock non-rebound hammer, no safety, cast carrier, freckled receiver. Shoots fine, cycles slick. No "pot metal" was consumed in its construction. You could lay in a magazine tube spring, firing pin and carrier if you wanted to have some parts on hand.
 
Like MARKJ, I remember 1964 well and the pheasant hunting was great (in nebraska), but I also remember years prior to that where my brothers and I were used as my father's bird dogs. We logged a lot of miles through corn fields and ditch banks in the snow. A little off topic here...just an old brain in a nostalgic moment.
Don't worry a bit about shooting and being happy with a newer Winchester, unless you need to impress your friends and neighbors with an old one. Yours' will fulfill your needs just fine. if you have a pot metal frame and all the finish is worn off, it just adds character to it.
 
The 2 biggest issues with the post 64 models were the cast receiver and the stamped lifter/carrier. The lifter/carrier was so bad that Winchester soon ditched it around the time your gun was made and went back to the original one. I recommend you check yours and if it's stamped replace it with a cast one, it's cheap enough. The cast/plated receiver lasted a few more years but it also disappeared when Winchester came out with the AE (angle eject) model.

I had a 70's Trapper that while the receiver was a ugly, pitted POS the gun shot very very well with handloads. Talking 1 1/4" three shot groups with a receiver sight @ 100 yards.

So yes the post 64 guns are not up to pre 64 standards but once the lifter/carrier issue is solved they still work just fine.
 
Some of the fit and finish details of the 1970's era carbines are less than ideal. But accurasy and handling remain quite good. I would not be ashamed to own one.

Jack
 
nra centennial front sight

hi all,

I recently inherited a 1971 Winchester NRA Centennial Musket - but it's been missing it's front sight for a very, very long time. otherwise it's a very pretty lever action rifle that i'd love to try out. it has been shot before, so no worries on destroying collector values or anything i suppose.

Anyone able to accurately measure the height of the plain blade front sight dovetailed into the barrel? the supplier I have contacted wasn't able to find part numbers or heights for the sights dovetailed into the barrel such as this. Any known part numbers would be great to know as well.

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