Pre 64 vs post 64 winchester 94's

[tokguy]

This may be better suited for the hunting forum but I'm betting there are folk's here who can answer this faster.
I know that pre 1964's are more highly sought after but why? What exactly are the flaws in the post 1964's? Do they function as well as the older ones? I've a friend who has asked me to keep an eye out for a decent 30-30 for a truck gun.
Is there a reason to steer away from the post 1964 models or is it merely aesthetics?

 

[41 Colt]

Post '64 had some stamped parts IIRC.

 

[Lee Enfield]

Post '64 had some stamped parts IIRC.

M.94s manufactured from 1964 thru 1970 have a stamped lifter, They are generally chintzy in appearance as Winchester experimented with improving finish durability due to the steel alloy material changes. Winchester went so far as to use black chrome and iron plating as the post 64 steel alloy did not take conventional blueing properly.

In 1971 they altered the geometry of the lever link for smoother operation, and returned to a solid metal lifter. By this point they had figured out some blueing systems which worked.

Any post 1971 M.94 is a mechanically better gun than a 1964-70 and on par (superior materials) with a "pre-64".

Any "post 64" receiver is stronger than a pre-64 receiver due simply to useage of modern alloy steel; but they don't have the cachet.

I took the 1966 manufactured M94 which I used to have and modified it by the addition of a post 1971 lifter and lever. I had to fit the lever link and a few other items, so I can't really recommend doing it... but it can be done...

 

[Mike Webb]

Quality was higher on the pre-64 Winchesters, plain and simple. As far as the post 64 rifles being "stronger" than pre-64, I call BS. Considering the time frame and the limitations of the design the pre-64 is perfectly adequate for any of the cartridges it was designed for. The science of metallurgy really didn't change a whole lot between 1955 and 1965.