Win 94 Post '64 - things to look out for?

[Eric_911]

Just wondering If there's a little more information out there that might help.

Using the ol' search, I picked up a quote from H Wally which brought up some interesting questions:

Yep - winchester 94 carbine in 30-30. They're plentiful, can be had for under $400, and often $300. Pre 1964 and post 1975 (1980 to be safe) guns are better owing to their manufacturing quality. Not to say post 64 guns are all that much worse, there are just things to be aware of, especially if it's your first win 94.

The 3030 in a carbine is very accurate at 100 yards and still has power at 150 if you're good enough to accurately shoot that far with a carbine. Has light recoil and points very nicely.

What kind of things should the owner of a post 64 Win 94 look for, or be cautious of? Its certainly not my first rifle, but it is my first lever rifle, and my first rifle in 30-30.

 

[Dark Alley Dan]

What follows is my understanding - I can certainly stand to be corrected.

In the years immediately following 1964, Winchester cheaped out big on their standards and materials. The two glaring things I know about (and I'm sure others will chime in with their knowledge as well) are the sheet metal elevator and the mystery metal receiver.

Pre '64, the elevator had been a sculpted piece, quite complex to machine I imagine. In '64, it was changed to a bent sheet metal gizmo that looked ugly and worked reasonably well, but feels and looks cheap and nasty.

The receiver material was changed to something (not sure what - different steel, I imagine) that wouldn't take bluing. As a result, the finish was changed to a sort of paint that does not have a reputation for longevity.

By the mid 70's, Winchester twigged to the idea that reputation beats profit margin and fixed a few things. Later guns are said to be solid enough, but the pre-'64 rifles have a magical voodoo reputation that continues to this day.

Dan

 

[H4831]

Well said, Dan. Those pre 64s, like your Dad's, just don't wear out!

 

[bogie]

I borrowed a friends when much younger. Thought "its new-should be real good" until it dropped bits on a deer run. Fortunately I found the screw and the cheap piece of stamped steel -some kind of slide I think, and put it back together. Never ever had any other gun ever lose a chunk in the bush. Ever. I own 2 Winnies -one an 1894 made in 1900 and a 9422 that is my wifes baby. I like guns made out of machined parts. Stamped bits are ok for cheap 22s like my Cooey 64 (yeah Winchester again) but not a deer gun. Buy a Marlin instead and then you can clean the barrel thru the chamber. Maybe 8 moving pieces in all and built like a brick....Winchesters are popular but not necessarily the best gun or choice. Marlin any year is pretty much ok. Hard to mess up on that one.

 

[Brutus]

Another few personal observations I would like to point out (Oh yeah Pre-64 superior)
Around 1970 or so, Winchester starts to 'correct' some issues, most notably, at least a cast shell-lifter versus stamped cheap metal.
I would also like to point out the early Big Bore top eject, (1978-1982?) and XTR angle eject Big Bore models, (.307, .375,& .356) seem to be pretty darn smooth in operation, nice wood, as well as very good deep blueing.
A person could make a great debate on the superior merits of the AE/XTR series. (optics friendly boomer)
But then again, my 1956 made Winchester 30-30 carbine is something else. (classic)

 

[Calum]

There were at least 3 posts on this topic over the past few years that had links and pics showing all the differences between pre vs post 64 but the search engine sucks ass, or they were deleted for some reason.

 

[Dark Alley Dan]

Well said, Dan. Those pre 64s, like your Dad's, just don't wear out!

Happy New Year, H4891! Hope you're well. Yeah, Dad's "Ol' Pet" is a tank. They truly don't make 'em like that anymore!

...most notably, at least a cast shell-lifter versus stamped cheap metal...

Some folks have had issues with the cast lifter. I've heard of cracks and breakage. I have one in my 94 Trapper in .45 LC, and it seems to work fine, but given the choice, I'd just as soon have a piece that was whittled down to the proper shape rather than cast. Gotta wonder if there isn't a cottage industry/niche market to be exploited there - "go fast / go hard" bits for newer '94's...

There's a lot to recommend Marlins. They don't seem to wear at all, and I've never heard of a QC issue with them.

 

[madtrapper143]

The post 64 receivers were a type of cast metal that would not take blue. I think the finish they used on them was like a black chrome. It would flake. I had a sheet metal lifter on a post 64 that never let me down. I must admit every time I used it I expected it to. I had it changed to the cast lifter and again it worked fine. I would still seek out a decent pre 64 . They can be had for around 400.00 and are worth every penny.

regards, Darryl

 

[gunrunner100]

Another thing to watch for is the Post 64 "link" made of cast pot-metal. They are prone to chipping, resulting in a dumping of the magazine into the action, often under the lifter.

 

[blasted_saber]

Hmmm, my '94 is from the mid 70's i believe, and hasnt given me any headaches, at all. I have 100% trust in it. Ive used pretty extensively for the past 7 years. As far as I know, the previous owners didnt have any issues either (its made its way around a few members of my family/family friends)

I sometimes wonder if the problems are a bit overrated. Most average hunters wouldnt know or care about the difference

 

[dirt dog]

there like the older 870 remingtons tough as nails I used the great grandfathers this years made 1896 model 94 in 30-30 26" barrel it works better then some newer ones deadly accurite.

 

[gunrunner100]

I sometimes wonder if the problems are a bit overrated.

Maybe, but tell that to someone that needs parts.