Winchester Mod 94 - Pre/post?

NorthernMopar

NorthernMopar

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Location
Yukon
OK, I have heard repeatedly that the pre 64 Winchesters are highly coveted, and the post to be viewed as crap. Ive also heard that there were a few years after 64 that Winchester still had some American made models that were decent.

Could someone please explain this to me? I have a pair of 1972 30/30s, and I honestly find nothing wrong with either one - both action perfectly and have no trouble ringing a 6" gong at 100 meters, open sights. One has yet to see a full box of rounds through it, the other, well, more than a few cases I am sure.

Does someone have the lowdown on this? (I do have Winchester's pdf detailing which serial #s where what years, so I am certain of the years of mine.)
 
I have a pre-64, 1957 vintage, and my brother has a post-64 from 1972 like yours. As far as accuracy, reliability, trigger pull, there's not much difference. My pre-64 has a nicer finish, especially the blueing, but my brother's has had decades of hard use, so it's hard to make a direct comparison. A lot of the parts that were machined were replaced by stampings and the steel buttplate replaced by plastic. I know the trigger system was changed but I can't remember exactly what my brother's is like. The stock on the pre-64 is real black walnut, on the later guns I believe it is some other hardwood (birch?) stained to look like walnut. If you refinish the wood, they come out blonde looking.

In my opinion, later 94's really started to deteriorate, with rebounding hammers and extra idiot switches (crossbolt safety). Blueing isn't very durable on these later guns either.
 
There are several threads regarding post/pre 64 model 94 Winchesters on CGN. If you do a search, you will find lots of reading. As far as I am concerned, pre 64's are underpriced in comparison to post 64 rifles on the EE. If you can get $450-$500 for a post 64 in very good/excellent condition, a pre 64 even in lower condition should be worth $700-$800. The price differential is closing partly because the 94 as originally designed is no more and a lot of newer shooters want one. But as far as fit, finish and quality go there is no comparison, the pre 64, especially pre WW2 is far superior.
I agree with 9.3 too, a 94 with a crossbolt safety is an abomination.
 
I have a 1956 made M94. Very nice carbine with quality parts obviously.
And three Post-64s. The 1967 rifle has had some issues with poor quality parts wearing out much too early. The stamped shell lifter broke way too early. And I have not shot/used the 356 Big Bore enough to have an informed opinion about it.
However I also have a 1983 made Angle Eject Trapper that has well out survived the 1967 rifle.
It works great and shoots pretty darn good. It's a shame about the 1967 rifle as the long barrel is a great aid to offhand shooting.
IMO the earliest Post-64s are about the crappiest. It seems to me by the early 1970s some things were changing for the better. But fit/finish/and substituting cheesy roll pins has never been equalled as the better quality Pre-64s for sure. Does this mean they cannot both serve well in the hunting fields? Perhaps equally if you perhaps put aside the real lemons such as my 1967 rifle?
Some later ones such as the Wrangler had a very poor reputation for parts issues such as the loop lever breaking also if you do some online searching.

my opinion only
 
I've had both pre's and post's. I now only have pre's. I have no interest in the posts anymore. Even most non real gun guys, I find can see the difference in the quality of the two when they are sitting side by side. I remember away back many yrs ago, when it was announced that all the new 94's coming out soon would be angle eject only! So I rushed out and bought 2 new post's with top eject before they were all gone. They were cheap at the time, CTA was clearing them out for $350. each, if memory serves. The wood was nothing to look at and the blueing was crap!
 
I have a 1978 top eject model 94. No idea how many rounds through it as i bought it used. It is in good condition and never had a problem with it. The action is nice on it. I haven't handled a pre 64 one so i can't compare but i haven't had an issue with mine. Some of the prices these guys want for pre 64 stuff is crazy as far as i am concerned. I can say i have a 1979 Model 70 .270 that the Bolt actually cracked and had to be repaired......so take that for what it is worth. I think there is some truth to the pre 64 lure and some people who take it far beyond the truth. Now i try not to buy Winchester at all so i don't have to worry about it. I say buy what makes you happy.(unless it is a Mossberg tactical Lever....lol)
 
Ill just note both mine are top eject as well without the crossbolt safety; and as I said,neither have ever caused/had trouble.
 
I've never owned a pre but I have owned several posts. The worst part about them is the triggers, which were god awful. I recently picked up a Marlin 1894 that is pre Remington and its a real Gem.
 
I've shot both and there's little functional difference between the two. It's when you disassemble them that you see how much better the quality is on the pre's. You'd probably have to shoot thousands of rounds to notice a difference in wear.
 
blasted_saber said:
And if the gun functions flawlessly, does this really matter?

My only complaint with my post 64 is the finish. Its poor. Other then that it works flawlessly and is as accurate as one could expect.
Click to expand...

In a practical sense, no. But quality is quality, no way around it. Personally I have no desire to own ANY post 64 94 rifles. I have in the past and they are junk compared to the pre 64's. Just a personal opinion, but the difference in price is vastly different from the difference in quality.
 
Mike Webb said:
In a practical sense, no. But quality is quality, no way around it. Personally I have no desire to own ANY post 64 94 rifles. I have in the past and they are junk compared to the pre 64's. Just a personal opinion, but the difference in price is vastly different from the difference in quality.
Click to expand...

What makes them junk though? Because in theory one is better? Because in reality there really doesnt appear to be much of a difference.
 
1972 was the year Winchester woke up. I have one as well, Have had it since I bought it in 1972. Works flawlessly, and is fairly accurate.
It took quite a while to get the smoothness worked into the action, they were rough when new, but I was younger then, and shooting it, and playing with the '94, were high on the agenda.
Winchester uses a parts from the bin mentality, so there is no magic serial number for when the stamped parts stopped, but mine has none of consequence.
They still cut corners on production, the rifles are not as nice as the pre-64 models, but as a rifle, they function and shoot very well.

The parts on the earlier rifles that were of major concern were firstly, the cartridge lifter, it was a piece of sheet metal, and crappy, even the rear sight was sheetmetal on the gins between '64 and '71.
I have a friend with a '71 model, his has failures to feed, a broken firing pin, and worn magazine stop. Shoots fine however, when it works. It sounds worse than it is, his problems are rare, just that mine (1972) are non-existent.
 
blasted_saber said:
What makes them junk though? Because in theory one is better? Because in reality there really doesnt appear to be much of a difference.
Click to expand...

It's not a theory. The pre 64 94's ARE better. Winchester changed the production process in late 63 to cut costs on all of their models. Stamped parts were used, wood to metal fit was worse, in the early guns, much worse. Wood used was lower quality, receivers were no longer polished and blued, they were plated with a black chrome which fell off in chunks. The reputation of the company as a whole was damaged irreparably. This is what happens when accountants and beancounters not gun people are calling the shots. A fine company with a reputation that took 100 to build was practically destroyed in a couple years. Granted, by the late 70's Winchester had taken steps to undo some of the damage but the reputation of the 94 never recovered. The rifles produced from the late 70's on were adequate and quality did improve but high labour costs made it impossible to produce a rifle equal to the pre 64 at a competitive price.
 
Mike Webb said:
It's not a theory. The pre 64 94's ARE better. Winchester changed the production process in late 63 to cut costs on all of their models. Stamped parts were used, wood to metal fit was worse, in the early guns, much worse. Wood used was lower quality, receivers were no longer polished and blued, they were plated with a black chrome which fell off in chunks. The reputation of the company as a whole was damaged irreparably. This is what happens when accountants and beancounters not gun people are calling the shots. A fine company with a reputation that took 100 to build was practically destroyed in a couple years. Granted, by the late 70's Winchester had taken steps to undo some of the damage but the reputation of the 94 never recovered. The rifles produced from the late 70's on were adequate and quality did improve but high labour costs made it impossible to produce a rifle equal to the pre 64 at a competitive price.
Click to expand...

I get that the internals are different. What im saying is that if the function is the same (which in my gun I dont know how it could be better), then the only difference is that in theory it is supposed to be better. Stamped parts or not, it works flawlessly.

I agree on the finish, mine is awful. However functionally it has zero issues. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom