Approximate age and value of Model 94

No..LOL different province and the other one doesn't have some weird cross on the stock.
Ones on a table the other is on a floor.
Conspiracy theorists. :runaway:Laugh2
 
Winnipeg Toymaker said:
i apologize for my assumption that the action was post 64. i looked at my 1907 and 1949 and they appear the same as the ones posted. I do not think the two guns are the same one as the one is much darker woods than the other and do not have the same marks in the woods.Until a serial number appears for either one, i still wonder about the age. from the pic, i cannot tell whether it is a strange forearm or just the shadow making it deformed looking. blurry pics do not help much.
Click to expand...

I was going by the little screw above the loading port. Pre 1964 this screw was inserted from inside the action and all that was visible on the outside was the round end of the threaded screw (bolt,)
After /64 they changed the works a bit, so that the bolt could be screwed in from the outside, leaving the head visible, as is shown in the picture of the rifle in question.
 
Hopefully I can pick this gun up tomorrow. This guy is being a little weird. I'll have a serial number for you then. I'm worried that this gun is going to be missing a bunch of screws. It looks like the one in the forestock is missing.
 
i examined the photos here on GN. as blurry as they are, i did notice that the two screws just above the lever seem to have different head sizes. could this gun be possibly a model 92 or another model besides a 94? my two pre 64s have the same size screw heads in this same hole area . A lot of naive owners do not associate the levers made by Winchester to being different models or calibers. I bought 3 model 92s that the seller said were 30-30 m94 Winchester levers. And one was a 25-20.
 
Winnipeg Toymaker said:
could this gun be possibly a model 92 or another model besides a 94? .
Click to expand...

The rifle is definitely a 94, and it is definitely a post 64 action with a pre '64 buttstock fitted. As H4831 pointed out, the screw above the loading port is an out'sy, whereas a pre '64 would be an in'sy. The screw heads above the lever are different sizes and are lined up one above the other... on a pre'64 they would be the same size with the upper slightly to the rear of the lower.
 
I have the gun in my hands it's definitely a post 64 with a serial number like I've never seen before. Both stocks are not original, the buttstock has been "custom" fit and the front looks like it came off a Marlin or something.

The metal is decent but the bluing is faded/gone on the receiver. It's a 30-30.
 
Tazzy said:
I have the gun in my hands it's definitely a post 64 with a serial number like I've never seen before. Both stocks are not original, the buttstock has been "custom" fit and the front looks like it came off a Marlin or something.

The metal is decent but the bluing is faded/gone on the receiver. It's a 30-30.
Click to expand...

I noticed that in one of the photo's. Looks to be a "perch belly" Marlin or clone thereof.
 
I took the fore stock off and was shocked and disappointed. Bubba has done some of his worst work here. Someone had taken a file to the barrel because they couldn't get a screw to fit.

Is this gun shootable?
If not can the barrel be replaced easily? Can I change it to .44 mag?
If it's now a parts gun what's it worth?


 
I do love 94's, pre '64's that is. That rifle is worth nothing to me, too much Bubba there. I wouldn't even want it for resale or a wall hanger.
 
Um there is channels cut in at factory for the screw to fit between the barrel and mag for both clamps.... It's hard to tell if someone made the channel deeper or not?
 
Wish I had seen your post earlier. The M - as far as I have ever seen - was only used as a suffix on post 64 Model 94 serial numbers to denote Magnum. 1972-1973 receivers built specifically for the 44 Mag had this M after the s/n. The s/n you provided is a mid 1990s production. In 1986 the 44 Mag was re-introduced and 357 Mag in 1992. My fear is that your receiver is actually for one of these magnum calibers. As previously noted, the buttstock is off a very early 1894 SRC (or 1892 SRC as the two were interchangeable) and the wood appears like Marlin wood. Take a good look at the internal in the receiver, just to be on the safe side.
Good luck,
Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom