pre 64 Winchester 94 opinion

B

BeanKozi

Regular
Rating - 100%
189   0   0
Location
Ladysmith, BC
I'm not all that knowledgeable when it comes to Winchester 94's and I know a lot here are, so I'm hoping to get some opinions on the two I have here.

I'm wondering if you can see anything that is obviously not original (I know the sling attachment is not original), and which you would rather have... they both have pros and cons as far as I can see, and would think the values are pretty similar, but maybe not?

the top gun was made in 1958, caliber is 30-30. the blueing is excellent with a bit of wear on the receiver; no rust or pitting. wood is not good, as you can see, with a big gouge out of one side and the finish is flaking off; no cracks. internally the action is excellent and looks to have been used very little. the bore is shiny with no pitting, but is not as bright as the bottom gun.

the bottom gun was made in 1952, caliber is 30-30. blueing is not as good as the top gun, but there is no rust or pitting. wood is excellent, but I wonder if it has been refinished? Its certainly a very different finish than the other gun. internally it looks very good, but could use a cleaning. the bore looks perfect, and is very bright and shiny.

let me know if you need anymore details. now the pictures.
















 
Last edited:
The 94 in the top pic had the stock finished in spar varish from the look of 'er and also looks like the butt had a chance encounter with a proper sized chainsaw. The Uncle Mikes swivels are fine for huntin' but collectors tend to poo-poo them, but not me. A fresh stock set would fixer up dandy.

The lower 94 looks like someone stripped off the original finish to dull it down, but again no worries for folks that want a nice, functional rifle to work with. They both appear fine to me.
 
If I wanted a Winchester '94 I'd be quite content with either of those. If I could afford my preference I'd rather have the one with better bluing and perhaps fit a replacement stock set, keeping the originals to include if I ever sold it.
 
They are good shooters. I have a 1957 in rougher shape than that on the outside.
 
Of the two, I would take the older one ( bottom one in pics.) Upper one has more condition issues. Stock looks like someone sanded the hell out of it, rear sight elevator is a post-64 replacement, front sight blade looks like a replacement. The only question I would have about the lower one is the screw holes for the peep sight; I can't remember what year they started doing that at the factory. I think either '52 or '53 so that might have been the first year for it. Both look to have had the stocks refinished, but the lower one is in better overall condition, imo.

If you just want a rifle to go hunting with I suppose it wouldn't matter, but I tend to be a little OCD about such things; always makes me wonder what else has been tampered with.
 
thanks for the replies guys.

9.3- good eye on the sights on the upper gun, that is something I hadn't noticed. what makes you think the stock has had the hell sanded out of it? the wood is still slightly proud of the metal everywhere... not that it matters much as its pretty rough.

looky- the screw on the front barrel band is actually screwed in past being flush... and it is pretty beat up as well. as an aside, I used to go to hockey camp in Logan lake for years in the early 90's... nice area.
 
I was looking at the comb... if you compare the two buttstocks, the comb is much more rounded in the upper one. The front half of the comb seems to have a curve to it. My own gun, made in '57, is more like the lower, older rifle in your pics. Makes me think somebody's tried to sand out some wood damage.
 
... and now that I look at the pics again, in the close up of the buttstocks, the stock wrist seems elongated, so I'm sure somebody's done some alterations to that one.
 
If I had to choose between the two carbines, I would go with the best bore. . The sights on the top gun are correct including the rear site elevator. . The lower gun elevator is most likely correct enough too as well. . Both of my PCMR pre-war carbines have rear site elevators like the top gun.

The buttstocks on both guns are pooched. . The bottom one has been over sanded on the wrist where it meets the receiver. The top one doesn't appear to have been sanded but the moon shaped dug out doesn't help the appearance. . You may be able to do a decent repair with that .

The top gun has better bluing and appears to be the better of the two. If the bore is very good, that would be my choice.
 
It's quite common to see both types of site elevators used on 1950's carbines. . I've had both types, on 1950's, with no reason to choose one gun over the other. . With Winchester there were no set cut-off rules. These guns were assembled on different assembly lines and whatever was in the bins was used until the bins were empty. . This was common, especially during the 1950's when Winchester was trying to cut costs, referred to as running changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom