Most desireable post-64 Winchester 94 variations?

[Canuck Bob]

I've tried searches here and google but it is hard to narrow down the info on post-64 94's. Often websites contradict each other and there seems to be a lot of issues needing discussion.

Post-64's are cheap and available. I'm referring to 94 Carbines in 30-30, non AE for me.

1- When did the carrier upgrade after '64?
2-When did the roll pins get replaced and upgraded?
3-What years did the receiver have non-blueable metal?
4-Was there a time after '64 when fit and finish improved?
5-Any other issues that need considering?

If I stumble on a sad looking rifle with a low shot count and good bore it would be nice to know it is as good as can be expected for a post-64.

[Arminius]

I would be most interested in this infos, too!

IIRC there was a change in Main spring around Serial Number 4,6 Million??? From flat to coil?

Hermann

[J Miller]

I've tried searches here and google but it is hard to narrow down the info on post-64 94's. Often websites contradict each other and there seems to be a lot of issues needing discussion.

Post-64's are cheap and available. I'm referring to 94 Carbines in 30-30, non AE for me.

1- When did the carrier upgrade after '64?
Approximately 1977

2-When did the roll pins get replaced and upgraded?
Not sure but I believe in the late 60s.

3-What years did the receiver have non-blueable metal?
64 to 82. Here is a quote from George Roghaar Firearm Refinishing:

WINCHESTER MODEL 1894
Winchester 1894 receivers between 2,770,000 and 5,024,957 (1964-1981) were machined from a graphitic steel casting and will not accept normal blueing. To make it more confusing, serial numbers 3,185,692 to 3,806,499 (1968-1972) were black chrome plated, and 3,806,500 to 5,024,957 (1972 -1981) were iron plated.
I can hot blue all of these, but must first grind off the plating. The shiniest finish that can go on these is 400 grit ( about factory).
George Roghaar Firearm Refinishing.
http://www.gunblue.homestead.com/Stainless.html

4-Was there a time after '64 when fit and finish improved?
Late 70s to early 80s. These were the iron plated and hot blued ones as mentioned above. In good condition they look almost like a pre-64.

5-Any other issues that need considering?
Finding the time to shoot and become proficient with the Win 94 you choose.

If I stumble on a sad looking rifle with a low shot count and good bore it would be nice to know it is as good as can be expected for a post-64.
Many, possibly most 94 Winchesters have been carried a lot and shot a little. Most that own them are hunters rather than shooters. Many of us here have brought home beaters that you'd swear were on their last legs only to find they were tack drivers. Remember: "You can't tell a book by it's cover."

Joe

[J Miller]

I would be most interested in this infos, too!

IIRC there was a change in Main spring around Serial Number 4,6 Million??? From flat to coil?

Hermann

I'm thinking 4,580,000 actually. And in reality the flat spring to coil spring don't make one bit of difference in function. Just feels different and is probably cheaper to make.

Joe

[Griff]

I've tried searches here and google but it is hard to narrow down the info on post-64 94's. Often websites contradict each other and there seems to be a lot of issues needing discussion.
Post-64's are cheap and available. I'm referring to 94 Carbines in 30-30, non AE for me.

1- When did the carrier upgrade after '64?
My 1972 mdl 64A and 1976 BiCentennial both have the uppgraded carrier. Both were NIB when I got them.

2-When did the roll pins get replaced and upgraded?

The change to roll pins was in the late 60's. I don't recall my 1969 44Mag version, but the '64 Canadian Centennial has the hollow roll pin in the lever/link pin, and all from my 1970 to 1980 models have the solid rollpin there. Other pins... ???? I haven't disassembled any to check.

3-What years did the receiver have non-blueable metal?

From '64 to '77 I believe.

4-Was there a time after '64 when fit and finish improved?

I think it remained pretty constant. While metal finish was fairly consistent, especially after they went to the iron clad receivers, fit was good all thru, wood finish was probably not as consistent, and depended on the model. Commemoratives, the Antique and Classic were all good.

5-Any other issues that need considering?

My opinion is that the late post '64 models from about '77 to '81 are the very best of model 94 Winchesters produced. They were consistent, the coil mainspring was much smoother and provided longer life than the leaf springs of earlier models and they didn't have additional lawyer inspired redundant safeties.

If I stumble on a sad looking rifle with a low shot count and good bore it would be nice to know it is as good as can be expected for a post-64.

I have 12 post '64 Winchesters. 6 of them are project guns, (2 completed), one commemorative, 1 mdl 64A (a mdl 94 variant), the rest are carbines. I don't have an issue with any.

I've heard of carrier failures with them, yet 2 of mine have the stamped steel carrier, yet neither shows any signs of fatigue or premature failure. I think any failures were due to other factors... and the carrier failed as the weakest link.

[Sixgun]

Nothing personal, but everything made after 64 (1952 in my opinion) are great guns but shooters only. I might break that opinion and include the 7-30 Waters, .356, and possibly the .307.--------Sixgun

[willygene]

i have one made in 1977 and other than the metal finish it functions better than my 1925 mod but it don't look as good, and the accuracy is about the same. any good 94 that will shoot is worth having and i have never seen a lack of ammo for them anywhere.

[J Miller]

Well, lets see .... I've a had prewar 1894 SRC, a post war flat band carbine, an early 60s pre 64 carbine, and various vintages of post-64 carbines. Currently I've got a 1950 carbine, a 1980 Trapper, and a 1985 Trapper. In the very near future I"ll have a 1921 rifle. I've never found a single solitary one that wouldn't do what it was supposed to do.
Some were smoother than others. Some were uglier than others. Some were new, some were old. Some were unused, some were nearly worn out.
But I'm a fan of all but the latest with the added on safeties and rebounding hammer.

Joe

[gak]

+1 to the most positive 1977-1981 comments. They are fine guns and often you'll find these in next-to-new condition. I have several Pre 64s and a Pre War SRC which are my babies, but the last years before switch over to USRAC are my go-to hunters and general trail, camp and field guns without any concern/hesitation. They still have most of that "special something" and history as the vaunted early-to-mid 20th Century guns.

The guns from this era in my experience aren't (generally) quite up to the wood "quality" (or at least appearance) of the "Pre's" but are close all around and much better than the earlier birch or ?? Post 64s. With exposure to moisture, the receivers are also still susceptible to some pitting or, like my trapper, minor speckling but not nearly as much as the earlier (non-iron?) Post 64 guns. The "fix" here anyway is reasonably quick wipe down (and ultmtely oiling when storing) but you can say this about all 94s/1894s. I'm in dry country so this is perhaps not nearly the concern others might experience elsewhere.

[buckeyeshooter]

How about the odd balls--- big bores in 307, 356 or the timber carbine series?

[Streetstar]

How about the odd balls--- big bores in 307, 356 or the timber carbine series?

I have a place in the gun safe for a .307 myself if one crosses my path at the right price

[Canuck Bob]

Nothing personal, but everything made after 64 (1952 in my opinion) are great guns but shooters only. I might break that opinion and include the 7-30 Waters, .356, and possibly the .307.--------Sixgun

What makes the 1952 and earlier years different from the other pre-64s?

[Griff]

Nothing personal, but everything made after 64 (1952 in my opinion) are great guns but shooters only. I might break that opinion and include the 7-30 Waters, .356, and possibly the .307.--------Sixgun

What makes the 1952 and earlier years different from the other pre-64s?

They weren't drilled & tapped for receiver sights. My only fault to find with later mdl 94s!

[Cimarron Red]

Some time in 1952 or early '53 circa serial number 1,800,000, the 94 carbine (the rfile had long since been discontinued) forearm was shortened from 9 1/8 inches to 7 7/8 inches. The location of the rear barrel band remained the same resulting in less of the forearm protruding forward of the barrel band. Among many collectors this is considered the end of the collectible period of the model 94. Of course, other collectors will cite the discontinuation of rifle production in the early 1930's as the end of the collectible period. There may have been some mechanical changes in '52/'53, also. I don't presume to be well versed on this issue. But if collectors say they have little or no interest in guns made after this time, then prices will reflect this. From my perspective I have little interest in those 94's made after the rifle and saddle ring carbine were discontinued circa the early '30's.

[Arminius]

Some were smoother than others. Some were uglier than others. Some were new, some were old.

Some were unused, some were nearly worn out.

But I'm a fan of all but the latest with the added on safeties and rebounding hammer.

Joe

Amen!

Hermann

[gak]

Some time in 1952 or early '53 circa serial number 1,800,000, the 94 carbine (the rfile had long since been discontinued) forearm was shortened from 9 1/8 inches to 7 7/8 inches. The location of the rear barrel band remained the same resulting in less of the forearm protruding forward of the barrel band. Among many collectors this is considered the end of the collectible period of the model 94. Of course, other collectors will cite the discontinuation of rifle production in the early 1930's as the end of the collectible period. There may have been some mechanical changes in '52/'53, also. I don't presume to be well versed on this issue. But if collectors say they have little or no interest in guns made after this time, then prices will reflect this. From my perspective I have little interest in those 94's made after the rifle and saddle ring carbine were discontinued circa the early '30's.

The last year the so-called "long wood" forearm was consistently (as in 100% guns) installed was 1950. Thereafter, in 1951, that configuration appeared sporadically, maybe as a matter of remnant NOS pieces out of the '50 bin. By 1952, factory-installed long woods had virtuallly ceased and if any new guns were so-equipped they were an anomaly.

[Canuck Bob]

That helps explain why an earlier post noted that 1952 and earlier were his preferred carbines. This is really helping to seperate the pre-64s and post 64s. I now realize that the 53 to 63 models do not have the same collectable satus of the earlier rifles.

[J Miller]

Boy howdy I'm glad I'm not a collector. There's not enough Excedrin in the country to cure the headache that would create.

Joe

[Canuck Bob]

Looking at a 1976, low shot count and long term ptoper storage. My only concern is the whole rebluing thing. The current finish is fine on the receiver and I'm thinking wit my use schedule it will last for awhile.

If the iron plated rifles are treated right and kept lubed and such is there any reason to expect the finish to just peel off and look real ugly one day?

It seems to make sense to buy one of these and use it rather than a nice pre-64 and look at it.

[J Miller]

Looking at a 1976, low shot count and long term ptoper storage. My only concern is the whole rebluing thing. The current finish is fine on the receiver and I'm thinking wit my use schedule it will last for awhile.

If the iron plated rifles are treated right and kept lubed and such is there any reason to expect the finish to just peel off and look real ugly one day?

It seems to make sense to buy one of these and use it rather than a nice pre-64 and look at it.

Bob,
The later Win 94s with the bluing over the iron plating are not immune to abuse, rust, corrosion or scratches. But they do hold up pretty well.
Check out the receiver on the post-64 in this photo essay:
http://onesticky.levergunscommunity.org ... sters.html
It is my 1980 trapper. It's been carried, shot - a lot, hunted with, fondled, handled, taken apart for photo purposes, and it does show some wear and tear. But nothing I'd be concerned about considering it's 30 years old.

Joe

[Canuck Bob]

Thanks Joe,
You put my mind to rest. The rifle I'm looking at is in nice condition due to long term storage. I'm reasonable with my guns so I won't worry.

Bob

[J Miller]

Bob,

You're welcome.

Joe

[Old Time Hunter]

How about the odd balls--- big bores in 307, 356 or the timber carbine series?

Why are these odd????

My current favorite hunting gun is a '94 Timber Carbine chambered for .444 and straight from the factory the fit, finish, and function is absolutely superb. Also have all three levels of the BB's, but the .307 and .356 are from the '80's and are AE's. The .375 is a top eject from around 1979 ( I'm guess'n when I bought it) and off all my Winchesters, no matter what model, it has the slickest action. Maybe it is worn out, but I can cycle that lever with the back of my little finger and barely breathe on the trigger to light it off (I'll wager that the trigger breaks at 2.5lbs or less). The only issue is that the beautiful stock has chips on either side of the upper tongue where it engages the receiver (you gotta stay on top of keeping the screws snug).

Also have a mid 80's .30-30 XTR that I bought for a song (fifty bucks) from a pawn shop in Las Vegas back in the late nineties that is an absolute tack driver, just not to pretty to look at. So don't judge the book by it's cover...like Joe said.

[tman]

The BigBore 94's are everybit as good or better than any post 64. I'll stack them against any pre 64, with one big exception, trigger pull weight.

[J Miller]

Trigger pull weight and quality is not something to judge a rifle by. All vintages have good ones and bad ones. Some of my pre-64s were wonderful, and some weren't. Same can be said for the post-64s I've had.
The AE models ..... ugh, those are a different story.

Joe

[buckeyeshooter]

How about the odd balls--- big bores in 307, 356 or the timber carbine series?

Why are these odd????

My current favorite hunting gun is a '94 Timber Carbine chambered for .444 and straight from the factory the fit, finish, and function is absolutely superb. Also have all three levels of the BB's, but the .307 and .356 are from the '80's and are AE's. The .375 is a top eject from around 1979 ( I'm guess'n when I bought it) and off all my Winchesters, no matter what model, it has the slickest action. Maybe it is worn out, but I can cycle that lever with the back of my little finger and barely breathe on the trigger to light it off (I'll wager that the trigger breaks at 2.5lbs or less). The only issue is that the beautiful stock has chips on either side of the upper tongue where it engages the receiver (you gotta stay on top of keeping the screws snug).

Also have a mid 80's .30-30 XTR that I bought for a song (fifty bucks) from a pawn shop in Las Vegas back in the late nineties that is an absolute tack driver, just not to pretty to look at. So don't judge the book by it's cover...like Joe said.

I called them oddballs because of the rairity of the gun and low production numbers. I also own a timber carbine in 444 and a big bore in 307.

[cshold]

Trigger pull weight and quality is not something to judge a rifle by. All vintages have good ones and bad ones. Some of my pre-64s were wonderful, and some weren't. Same can be said for the post-64s I've had.
The AE models ..... ugh, those are a different story.

Joe

So very true.
Like products made on a Monday versus Made on Wednesday or Thursday.