Winchester 1894 30-30: Pre vs Post '64 - Relative Value?

grayrc

grayrc

Regular
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Location
Ottawa
Winchester Model 1894 Lever Action Question:

All else being equal (calibre, length, use, condition, etc.) - how much more is a pre-64 worth vs. a post '64? (i.e. would the same gun made in 1962 be worth $100 more than one made in 1972?).

As I understand it, in response to the customer backlash in '64 Winchester backpeddled and 'fixed' some of the 'issues' with that year's run (stamped loading ramp, etc...)... I've seen references to these 'issues' being corrected shortly after '64... Does anyone know by what year the guns were modified to alleviate these concerns (i.e. 65? 66?).



Thanks -
Gray.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about the story of problems in the first few years of the change Gray, but the big issue is they're two different rifles. Pre are mauser type controlled round feed and post 64 is push feed. Some say fit and finish suffered with the change too.

Very roughly I'd say all things being equal a decent push feed is worth $400 up to maybe $600. While a pre '64 is worth $800 to the sky's pretty much the limit for rare calibres, Super Grade etc...
 
There are almost no differences between a pre 64 model 94 and a post 64. There were some differences later on, when they switched to a different metal for the frame for example (careful rebuing them, they come out purple). You seem to be quoting the issues concerning the Model 70's. I would pay no extra for pre vs. post, unless it was an unusual early variation or caliber. - dan
 
Canuck44 said:
Think he is talking about the Win Model 94 lever gun. I have one made in the 70's and it shoots just fine.

Take Care
Click to expand...

Oops. Better get another cup of coffee and open me eyes up :redface:

Agreed on the model 94s. There were no changes in 1964....
 
Doh! Sorry that wasn't as clear as it should have been in the subject - I've tried to remove the ambiguity above. You had me scratching my head for a minute with the Mauser reference... lol.
 
There were a number of changes made pre and post. Mostly to do with ease of manufacture, and reduced cost. Because of criticism, improvements were made. Last major change was to angle eject to allow for on the top scope mounting.
 
There were a number of changes made pre and post. Mostly to do with ease of manufacture, and reduced cost
Click to expand...

What were tha changes tiriaq? I thought only the model 70 had a design change in 1964, and was sure I read somewhere that it is a myth about any change right then to the model 94 :confused:
 
I don't know exactly when, but there was a period between 1964, and 1971 that the '94 was very cheaply made. The cartridge lifter was made from a piece of stamped sheet steel, so was the back sight, among other parts. I think the magazine stop on these rifles was softer too, as I've seen a few with pinched cartridges as a result of them getting by, or partly by the stop.
 
Excerpted from two reviews by Chuck Hawks: http://www.chuckhawks.com/win_pre_64_M94.htm

Unfortunately, by the early 1960s the production costs of the traditional Model 94 with all of its forged steel parts had risen dramatically. Winchester executives realized that soon the Model 94 would have to be priced beyond the reach of the average hunter.

To save the Model 94 and restore a reasonable profit margin, Winchester redesigned the action for cheaper manufacture, substituting stamped sheet metal and roll pins for parts previously machined from forged steel. The steel buttplate became plastic and a less durable metal finish was substituted for the traditional bluing. The new guns still worked and shot just fine despite their aesthetic flaws, but the credibility of the Model 94 took a serious hit, and examples manufactured prior to the 1964 changes became instant classics.

Most of the shortcomings of the post 1963 Model 94s were eventually corrected, but the pre '64 versions remain the most desirable of all Winchester Model 94s.
Click to expand...

and http://www.chuckhawks.com/win94_syn.htm

The changes to the Model 94 were relatively minor, but never the less devastating to the 94's reputation. Stamped sheet steel parts were substituted in non-critical areas for formerly forged steel parts. The most visible of these was the shell carrier, which raised cartridges from the magazine to the breech, and stood out like a sore thumb every time the action was operated. The loading gate became a stamped and riveted part, which was also obvious. And hollow steel roll pins, which just plain looked cheap, replaced the solid steel action pins. These were not the only changes, but they were the most obvious changes and . . . the ones which drew the most criticism.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Salty - Let's see. Starting at the rear of the action: lower tang no longer made with lugs that slide into grooves in the receiver. It is secured only by the hammer screw and tang screw. Consequently weaker assembly. Tapered mainspring with link to hammer replaced with two scraps of flat spring steel pressing directly on hammer without low friction link. Stamped lifter secured with a through screw, rather than two lifter screws, one from each side. Trigger/safety spring replaced with one made from bent wire. Plated cast receiver. Firing pin no longer has a retaining pin. Link secured with a cross screw rather than a pin and lockscrew. Altered cam slot in lever, resulting in a less smooth action. Occasional tendency for lifter and link screws to loosen. Later, a rebounding hammer was fitted, pivoting on a roll pin through the tang. Coil mainspring with rebounding hammer. No half #### notch. Return to a solid lifter, redesigned cam slot in lever to improve smoothness of action. Most of these changes mean that parts interchangability is limited to rifles in the same production variation. With pre-64s, mechanical parts were essentially unchanged for 70 years. In addition to design changes, less expensive production technology was used to produce many parts.
 
What I have noticed is that the clearances seem to be less in my 1950 model than in recent models.If you open the action and move the lever fron side to side,the lever doesn't move as much in the older model.The newer actions seem sloppy by comparison.
 
While "condition is everything", I would decidedly pay a premium for a pre-'64
Model 94, even more for a 24" or 26" rifle, additional if it were octagon, and more still if it were a .38-55 !

Same goes for the '94-like variation Models 55, 65 and 1933-1957 era
Model 64's, especially in calibers like the .25-35, .218 Bee, .219 Zipper or
.25-20.

Post '64 .30-30 carbine .... "Pass"
 
Salty said:
Oops. Better get another cup of coffee and open me eyes up :redface:

Agreed on the model 94s. There were no changes in 1964....
Click to expand...

The 1964 date is very important to some sellers who will add an extra $100 or more to a Model 88 because it is "pre '64". Western Gun parts Catalogue has a complete list of parts changed on the 94 in '64. Some of these are improvements, others production cost cuts. The model 70 was changed in 1964 but to some folks it is a magic number used to increase the price for all Winchester products made before 1964.
When these guys are buying the gun, they will tell you the date doesn't mean squat. When they are selling, they will reverently say "it was made prior to 1964" as if it was something special.
Either incarnation of the 94 is an excellet rifle and fun to shoot. Just be aware when you have to replace parts.
 
Last edited:
Model 94 changes

As well as the cheapening of parts one of the most objectionable changes to my eye and hand was the change of contour on the bottom exterior edges of the receiver. The older manufacture had bevelled edges which were decidely comfortable to the hand. That nicety was changed to square, almost sharp, corners. It's not a case of differing values for the different years of manufacture to me. I simply wouldn't buy one of the newer ones at all.
 
I purchased a 30-30 Winchester 94 lever gun in about 1953/4. At the same time I purchased about 10 or 12 boxes of Winchester amunition. I do this with every gun I purchase. I sighted the gun in at 100 yard, standing no support I could hit a 9 inch pie plate every time. Good enough for a deer hunt.I hunted most every year and would shoot 5 to 10 rounds to make sure the rifle was still shootin where I pointed it. The last 5 round I fired in about 1980 and I still hit the pie plate. I then proceede to load just purchased Winchester amo (similar to the old style) and proceeded to shoot at my pie plate. All the shoots were 9 inches low. I then put up a target and started over, same result. Next day I phoned Winchester to find out what was going on. After much humming and hawing I was told that they had to load down the amo because the old stuff was to strong for the 1964 and later 94 guns. I'm not sure if this was an excuse or what but I can tell you that the ballistic charts that Winchester put out on the 30-30 amo did not change from before 1964 to after 1964.
Zurihegel
 
Zurihegel

Sounds to me you got somebody who was blowing smoke. Did Remington, CIL and every other cartridge manufacturer load down their .30-30 cartrdiges to allow for the weaker guns? Sounds like a crock to me. If your gun was indeed shooting 9" low at 100 yards then either your sights were off or you had a bad batch of ammo.

Take Care
 
Interesting. I assume that you were comparing apples : apples (i.e. that you knew which one of the x3 150 grain and x2 170 grain Winchester factory loads you were comparing the old ammunition to).

I think there are Federal and those new Hornady 'leverRevolution' loads that have better ballistics (according to the tables, & reviews) than the Winchester ammo. I'm waiting for my new (1958) '94 to arrive but once I've got it I plan to fire at least one box of each factory 30-30 load I can find to see what the gun likes best.

/gc
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom