Winchester Model 1894

8

'88Scrat

New member
I'mSo I went to my local gun show and was looking for a 30-30. I found one in fair to good condition that a guy had for sale for $475. It was the most reasonably priced one I could find so I bought it up. I looked up the serial number and discovered it was made in 1971. I knew it wasn't a pre-64 going in.

I've read online now for several hours now that the 94s made in the 70's were all junk...

I suspect I overpaid a bit but as long as it is reasonably accurate and functions ok I'm happy (it'll just be a can killer) but the comments I keep reading make me nervous.

Am I being paranoid?
 
You probably overpaid but it isn't junk. Others will have better information but I believe the finishing process was inferior. I have one from the 70's and the bluing or finish on the receiver is brownish. It is still accurate and killed several deer.
 
They're not junk, just lesser guns.

The guts were re-designed slightly in '64, by '71 the stamped lifter had been replaced, at least.

The frames were sintered metal (a form of casting) that would not take bluing.
They were iron-plated, and the iron plating was then blued.

Typically they shoot OK, but the frames are well documented for rusting through the bluing & the plating.
Not all, but many.

When that happens, you don't just buff it & re-blue.
Denis
 
No need to have second thoughts about you're purchase.
I'd rather pay 475.00 for a Winchester made in New Haven no matter its made date than 1200.00 for one made in Japan. New Haven models will always command a collectors value. Be happy with your purchase. Enjoy its company. Your most likely the onlyest one on your block who owns a piece of 100% American made New Haven pride.
 
I did not say sintering was the same thing as casting.
Sintering is a form of casting in terms of molding, as opposed to forging.
It results in a molded part, as opposed to a forged part.

It could be regarded as an ancestor of MIM.
And there is no collector value inherent to a 1971 Model 94.
Denis
 
I don't think you over paid. I probably would pick one up at the price.

...............no, not probably, I would. But I like Winchesters.

Collector Value? I'm 68 years old, what good is collector value to me. I'd buy it, and shoot the crap out of it.

But again, I like Winchesters.

$475............pffffff, you guys would cringe if I told you want my wife just paid for a 1926 made Saddle Ring Carbine Model 94.
 
They always shot, no reason yours shouldn't.
Just keep that frame oiled & hope for the best.
Denis
 
I have a 94 made in 1981 IIRC and the blueing is gone from the receiver except where a side mount for a scope was screwed on. Does it bother me? Nope. Not at all. I put t williams peep on it and think its just the berries. Its one of the guns I look at and admire the most.

It has dents in the stock. Scratches in the metal and thin blueing. I love it. As far as I can tell I have no stamping but I suppose all the guts are cast. So what? My truck engine has a ton of cast parts and works just fine.
 
This is mine made in 79. It ain't purty but it's not rusty either and I don't do anything special to keep it from rusting. It's accurate and reliable and I don't have to baby it.

 
Does anyone have anything official saying that Winchester used the sintering process (or any other process) to make those receivers? Sintering involves the compression and heating of powdered metal to the point where the particles bond and form a solid piece of metal. While sintering is fairly common in the manufacture of solid parts, it would not seem suitable for use in manufacturing something like a 94 receiver. Further, I have examined those receivers pretty carefully and they have the characteristics of castings with only minimal machining on critical places. Even tool marks from the original master are cast in, something I would not expect to see in a sintered metal product. (Sintered iron was first used, AFAIK, by the Germans in WWII to make bullets for 9mm pistols and SMG's, a use well suited to the product.)

Another story is that the receiver was cast from graphitic steel. That is possible also, but graphitic steel is made especially for easy machining; it would be desirable in manufacture from a billet, but there would be little value in using it in a casting which would require little machining. Neither process would prevent bluing; that would be a matter of the metals used, not of the shaping process.

So I would like to see something from Winchester. Anyone can make guesses based on what someone thinks someone might have said to someone else, etc. Any actual knowledge out there?

Jim
 
Jim, I don't know anything official but I read somewhere those receivers have a high nickel content is why they won't accept bluing.
 
That also I have heard and makes the most sense. But I would still like to have some official word.

Jim
 
Back in about '94 I was talking to then-USRAC's service department about Model 94s.
He confirmed those Post-64 frames were sintered, which could not take conventional bluing, but by the mid 1980s (by his recollection) they had reverted to forged.

My longtime gunsmith of 30 years had previously told me the same thing about the sintered process used.

A different nickel content in the sintered metal could have been a part of the materials spec & could have been some or all of the reason why those frames wouldn't blue directly, but those are my person-to-person info sources on the sintered process used.

This is long-known and others have given approximately 1980 as the switch-over date.
Denis
 
I've probably had a dozen post 64's over the years, most of which were 70's guns. Finished ranged from good to speckled to an almost coin finish. They all worked well held 2 MOA or better. I'd like to have a whole rack of them.
 
Not to nitpick, but a 1970s gun is not a 1894, it is a Model 94. Says so on the barrel. That said, the 1970s guns are some of the best post-64 lever actions Winchester put out. They had the issues solved by then and hadn't started that whole angle eject silliness yet.

As far as the receiver goes, I have read several different claims as to what the metal is. Some say graphitic steel, some say siliceous steel, some say high nickel, some say high copper. Whatever it is, it is, nothing you can do about it. The bluing issue is not that big of a deal. If your rifle needs to be reblued, you can have the receiver rust blued or GunKoted.
 
You can't have the frame re-blued without buffing out the rust & pitting if it goes that far.
Which typically removes the iron plating.
Which takes you down to the base metal.
Which doesn't blue.

I've seen samples where that finish has rusted through & pitted.
The gun will still function, but it looks like crap & tends to continue the spread of that rust once it begins to creep under the plating.

It is not a simple matter to just re-blue those frames.
Denis
 
I would argue that the USRAC forged receiver 94's were a step up from the typical post 64 M94. They even addressed the lever rattle by adding the pre-64 screw to the receiver floor pivot plate. Also the XTR finish's were pretty nice option. I had an early 80's 94 that I ruined by trying to cold blue a BB size rust spot. I ended up with a quarter sized iridescent spot instead. My mistake, should have just let it be but I didn't now about the re-bluing issues with these vintage 94's.
 
I know several people who have dealt with the non-bluable finish on their post 64 Model 94s by using Brownell's baking lacquer.

They've actually come out rather nice looking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top