Pre-64 thing

D

Duffy

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Location
Rocky Mountain House, Alberta
It is my understanding that Winchester drastically changed the design of the Model 70 action after 1964. And since then everyone wants a "pre-64" model 70.

But what is the deal about people talking about "pre-64" model 94s and "pre-64" model 88s and 100s?

Robin in Rocky
 
You could most likely do a search which would give you in-depth details on the situation, but I believe in 64 they revamped all their production processes in order to keep costs down and stay competitive in the market. Meaning they used cheaper components in assembly of their rifles.
 
Yup,1964 was not a good year for Winchester lovers. Some models would never be the same after that. Those that would,took many years to make it back to some sembalence of what they were prior to that date. Ain't bean counters just dandy?
 
I've never really seen the year 1964 as being important to any model other than the Model 70.

The big deal was the loss of the controlled round feed, Mauser-clone action, in favor of the push feed.

Never seem anything in print that said any of the other models were significantly changed in 1964, other than fairly vague descriptions of production changes being made, and I find it hard to place any value whatsoever in a "pre-64" anything other than a Model 70.

Certainly fluffs out an ad, though.

Cheers
Trev
 
One of the greatest changes was made in the Model 94. For a few years, starting in 1965, they were much inferior to the pre 64 models.
No, pre 64 is not just an advertising gimmick.
 
Pre-64

From what I understand post-64 model 70 and model 94's have more stamped parts and the fit and finish is not nearly the same. Pre-64 guns were all machined and required alot of hand fitting making them too expensive to produce as a production gun. Bean counters came in and said lower your price to this level and hence all the manufacturing short cuts and cost saving measures. That being said you can get Winchesters today that are control round feed that are made very similar to pre-64 guns.
 
What'd they do?

I gotta figure they stuck the crappy woodwork onto them.

And probably as important, did they change back to something closer to the pre-64 model somewhere along the way.

Never really paid all that much attention to the 1894's. They seemed a sort of generic, honest, working class rifle, but were not very interesting to me.

Cheers
Trev
 
I don't know about the other rifles in their post 64 line up, but I have of a model 94 cartridge lifter example.
I posted these pics in a thread a while back when I discovered this while exchanging parts in my Model 94 (c.1966).

Stamped 1966 part original to my rifle (the one painted black).
Pre 1964 part I found at a gunshow (the shiny one).
See the difference? :eek:

100_3407PS6.jpg


100_3414PS2.jpg


100_3405PS4.jpg


100_3406PS5.jpg


Having been a turret press operator for a short while I'm not against stamped parts, even in guns, but I'm against badly worked ones like this. The bur shown on the black one in the top pic looks to me like they had probably had rather dull tools and dies in their press that day.

I have little sympathy for the company going under for putting out such substandard work...And I bet at a higher price.
No wonder folks were mad at the changes after 64.

So I have been slowly and carefully replacing the inner parts on my Model 94 with pre 64 ones when I find them. And I would have used this one, but my gunsmith pointed out that it looks like the lifter was broken at one time and brazed together again. :mad:

Anyway there yah go. :)
 
Last edited:
Did the post 64's not also have pressed checkering and other such economic shortcuts also. Nobody has mentioned that either. I have seen a couple of ugly post 64 Winchesters 70's, but also I have seen a couple of really nice 'Classics' that were post 64. I only own one Winchester right now. '57 94 in .30-30.
 
Pre 64 Winchesters were hand fitted better, especially where the wood meets the metal. They usually were better finished with a more even polish and blue. Some pre 64's had really nice walnut grains in the wood. Checkering was cut by hand, and I believe after 64 checkering was pressed into the wood. The over all final shaping of the inside parts were done with more quality control, too. You can feel it when you work a pre 64 action compared to a post 64. There's a difference in smoothness, etc. Other than that, the deer and moose won't know the difference.
 
NAA said:
Just like people.... pre-64 is better.... ;) :p
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this statement too:p , but as for the rifles, now you are looking at a rifle that is 46 years old or more, I would imagine some of them might just be old worn out rifles now.:confused:
 
I've seen a number of failures in post '64 94's. Very few in pre-64's.

I'd like to point out though, that rifles of recent years, made by machine, compare quite favorably with the pre-64's. Techniques, methods, and steels have improved.
They lack of course the historical sentiment that really makes the old ones shine.
The worst years, are from '64 to about '71, and there are exceptions in those years as well.
The impressed checkering for example on the 100 and 98 rifles improved after the first few awful examples, and it's really just the thought that bugs me. Impressed.... ugh.
 
Did a little search and found this.
"Other than the checkering change on both guns, there were no other wholesale changes to either the Model 88 or the Model 100 in 1964, so the easiest way to recognize pre and post '64s is by the checkering alone. I actually prefer the look of the cheaper basket weave pattern. Such is my appreciation for the "classic."

Forgot to catch the name of the author.
 
Not sure about other models but as far as I know why the pre-64 were so sought after was because the pre-64 model 70 has the Mauser type extractor (controlled round feed) which is important for dangerous game hunting with positively chambering a round and extract a round and they change the design on the model 70 on all post 64 model by using plunger type ejector.

After many years of using this design (can't really remember when I think is the late 90s or early 00s) they come up with a model called the classic which adapted the original Mauser type claw extractor same as all pre-64 model 70.

Ruger mk II using the Mauser type extractor as well as until recently Remington offers the model 798 with more or less the same design.

If you ask any hunters who hunt the most dangerous game (Safaris) on this planet they will tell you why they prefer the controlled round feeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom