Win 94's (pre vs. post 64) Is there really any difference?

Riflechair

Riflechair

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.7%
369   1   2
Location
NWBC
I've only owned post 64 winchesters and I'm not impressed at all. Are the pre 64 rifles really all that much better?

The post 64's I've owned were
1. Really loose
2. Stiff to cycle even when properly lubed
3. Terrible finish / blueing
4. Horrible triggers
5. Poor quality wood
6. Cheap plastic but plate

Better to have a butchered lee enfield behind the seat than one of these 94's.

I had decided to stick with marlins and never look back but I thought I'd ask before giving up on these rifles all together. So I'm trying to keep an open mind but at this time I don't see why generations have revered the model 94 winchester.

Editted to add: I should include what I like about these guns and not be too negative:
What I like about the M94 (the reason I was originally attracted to them):
1. Lighweight
2. Easy to bring into aim
3. I like the .30-30 calibre

So I'm not hating these rifles but I'm thinking Marlin made (and still continues) to make a superior platform. Can anyone correct me?

Richard
 
Last edited:
Now, there you go....trying to unseat me as #1 sh*t disturber....:D

Truth be known the pre-64s were just as bad, but with more 'classic' machined parts. I've never come across one that didn't shoot waterpail sized groups. I guess the guys that used them didn't care if their moose were all gut shot; like an old native guy once told me "Why are you trying to hit a pop can at 200 yards? Moose are BIG!"

I suspect the biggest attraction to 94 Winchesters was that they made some people feel like cowboys.

Now that we've settled that, what do you think of those stupid .375 Rugers that these greenhorns are all hot and bothered about?:D

p.s. One of these days when I'm on my way to Rupert, we're going to have to have a coffee at the Hortons.;)
 
I'm no Winchester expert but from what I have seen in owning and taking a few apart, generally speaking Pre 64 tends to be milled parts, post 64 tends to be stamped parts.

100_3414PS2CrSm.jpg


100_3407PS6CrSm.jpg


Too bad the search function here sucks donkey balls as there has been some great posts on this.

As for truck gun I'd rather have a Winchester or even a Mosin carbine as a truck gun then a jam prone Enfield.

Why the Brits never figured out a cartridge cutoff for their rimmed case is beyond me.

[youtube]FXRY2j3RaUs[/youtube]
 
The pre-64's are much better than post -64's in my experience especially the ones made before 1940. I think Tumbleweed just isn't a 94 fan, fair enough, we're all different. But I have seen quite a few that shot way better than their design would suggest and I have never seen a jam prone Lee-Enfield, that must be why they were so unpopular as a combat rifle.
 
I have a '74 and a '56 and though the 1956 model is way more beat-up than the 1974 model it shoots great groups with a receiver sight at 100 yards while the '74 has the aforementioned bucket sized groups at 50 yards.
 
hmmmmmmmm

So you're saying my gun collection will never be complete without a 1940's era M94 aren't you......

I'm trusting you guys as the resident experts here.

Oh and Calum
I've seen the occaissonal enfield that needed a little attention in order to be reliable. But at the same time I know quite a bit about how they work. I believe the lee enfield rifle is the most reliable detachable magazine platform human beings have ever built.
 
Mike Webb said:
I have never seen a jam prone Lee-Enfield, that must be why they were so unpopular as a combat rifle.
Click to expand...


Popularity is moot as in the Army you are issued what you get and learn to love it and you get no choice in the matter.

Case in point... :p

Riflechair said:
Oh and Calum
I've seen the occaissonal enfield that needed a little attention in order to be reliable. But at the same time I know quite a bit about how they work. I believe the lee enfield rifle is the most reliable detachable magazine platform human beings have ever built.
Click to expand...

A detachable magazine is about as useful as selling a car claiming bucket seats as it is a maintenance function not an in combat function.

And yes I'm calling you biased given your connection with the Rangers. :p

BTW I have seen Mosins work in conditions I know would jam an Enfield, hell I have seen Enfields jam up on clear skies warm weather at the range, those feed lips on the mag are a weak design.

The only Enfield I'll keep in my safe now is a Pattern 14...Mauser action goodness. :D

The only things I have ever had to worry about in a Mosin is the 12"point of impact at 100 meters, and the use of sticky Hungarian lacquered cases, but these are more of an ammo quality and variation issue.

And yes you need a Ranger 30/30 before you can talk about the Win 30/30 again, those are great little rifles. :p
 
Every home should have at least one M94. Preferably a pre-64 as they are far superior in the manufacturing details than the post-64. I have several M-94s of different calibers that are at least 100 years old. They cycle and shoot like the day they were made. the 1971 model 94 ( first gun) is a rough cycle and terrible grouper. At 50 to 100 yards,using the 1971 winny, the barn looks unscathed where the gong ( 10 inch ) at 200 yards rings for the 100 year old girls. There is a great difference in the grouping patterns




in the carbine verses the rifle also. I do prefer the rifles even though they are a bit heavier to carry. you soon get used to it.
 
I have heard that accuracy can be affected greatly with the way the barrel bands are attached on the Win 94 and may account for the variations in accuracy among the same rifles.
 
Last edited:
The best built 94's of any era if there such a thing are the ones built in the 80's and 90's all the rest are quite crude especially the real early ones 1894-1930's.
 
The pre 64's are far and away nicer (smoother and tighter) than any post 64's I've handled. You owe it to yourself to try a nice pre 64 before you make up your mind on the matter!
 
I've had a half a dozen of them....30-30s, .32 Specials, even a very pretty .375 Winchester. None of them shot worth a damn.

The only one that shot half decent was my old Dad's .38-55, a 9 pound, octagon barreled glorified crowbar that had a habit of feeding a fresh round under the lifter every now and then. You'd pull the trigger, take a leak, roll a smoke, and start listening for the bullet to hit. When it worked it shot pretty well, but after a very pissed off cow moose ran him out of the muskeg with a jammed rifle (in about 1963) he finally let me buy him a Model 99 Savage. The .38-55 got sold to an American tourist hunter for $40, and I always figured my old man got far the best of that deal.

I think Winchester probably found the most complicated way on earth to get a cartridge from a magazine into a chamber, and then the roughest possible means to get it to fire.

But, hey, the cowboys had 'em in the movies, so they MUST be good, right?:D
 
My buddy in the interior had a pre 64 model 94 winchester but built not much before 1964. I wasn't overly impressed. It was loose, it even rattled going down the road in the truck. I have handled real old model 1894 winchesters that would be around a hundred years old now and they seemed much better in this dept.

But I'm a Marlin guy full stop, comparing a Winnie to a Marlin of any equal vintage there's no contest IMHO. And on this model 94 WCP Ranger rifle idea you do not need to have a second class Winchester. Marlin made a few, including the one in my avatar ;)
 
Salty said:
And on this model 94 WCP Ranger rifle idea you do not need to have a second class Winchester. Marlin made a few, including the one in my avatar ;)
Click to expand...
So you're saying that the Marlin in your avatar is a second class Winchester? :nest: :D

I have a late 1971 '94 Winchester I bought new. Took quite a while to loosen up, and smooth out, but it certainly is now. Accuracy when new, was about 2.5" with it's issue sights. I got that down to better than 2" on average, and have shot at least once a 3/4" group. After my installing a peep sight, and removing pressure points from the magazine bands, front screw, and forend.
my old 1910 was a lot smoother, yes, but it wasn't as accurate. my wifes 1948 version isn't as accurate either.
 
:pirate:

Can anyone comment on the quality of the Winchester commemorative rifles? Is there any difference between them and the standard 94's aside from the receiver, butt plate and barrel band finishes?

Thanks,
 
My dad and I each have late 1950's vintage 94's. They are both accurate and good quality carbines in my book. Some of the later stuff I've seen and handled was outright garbage, but functional no less.

The very latest XTR angle eject series looked and felt better made, but I can't comment on it's accuracy. I only had the opportuity to shoot one some years back in .307 Win chambering in a very crude sighting in process out in the bush. It was heavier than the typical .30-30 to to the beefed up receiver design, but a beautiufully made 94.

I suppose that why XTR's are quite difficult to find used. Most who have one, keep it. (I'd love to get a hold of one with a 20" barrel in .30-30 chambering.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom