post 64 Win 94 question

[O.S.O.K.]

I've got a Win 94 - serial 3228xxx that has stamped lifter and "pot metal" receiver.

It's been through some hard use and has a spot in the bore that's rough - slightly pitted. It shoots OK but I was thinking this might be a candidate for a restoration and rebore to 38-55.

Question is - can the receiver be refinished to a blue appearance? The alloy is such that it won't take a blue I don't think. What's the deal on this?

Thanks.

[Tycer]

not so much. I understand CCH works well.

[Griff]

The receiver of '65 to '82 receivers were made of a scintered steel, it doesn't take a standard hot blue. But, it can be refinished in a variety of ways. There are some that were iron plated in order that they would take a blue, but... you can also get it done in pewter, bronze or CCH.

Check with Classic Guns Inc., they've been recommended to me for a couple of my projects by a gunsmith friend.

[O.S.O.K.]

Thanks guys - I didn't know these could be color case hardened - that'd be my first choice hands down. Hmmm. It could be done up as an old timey 94

Scintered steel... they used powdered steel compressed and heated to form? Weird.

How do these compare in strength to standard forged?

[Premo]

OSOK,

The powdered metallurgy has been in use for quite a long time, more than 100 years, and is used to produce many complex parts from many different types of metals. The press-and-sinter process is widely used and is quite interesting. A short primer below for the interested.

The press-and sinter process custom-blended metal powders are fed into a die, compacted into the desired shape, ejected from the die, and then sintered (solid-state diffused) at a temperature below the melting point of the base material in a controlled atmosphere furnace.

The compaction step requires the part to be removable from the die in the vertical direction with no cross movements of the tool members. The sintering step creates metallurgical bonds between the powder particles, imparting the necessary mechanical and physical properties to the part.

Conventional PM offers many advantages over the other consolidation methods. It offers the lowest manufacturing cost, including modest tooling costs. It also produces the closest tolerances in the finished parts. Since it is a net-shape processing technology, it yields parts requiring little or no secondary machining operations. Lastly, it makes available to designers and fabricators a wide variety of material systems from which to choose.

In short, or loing in this case, depending on the specific metallurgy, the press-and- sinter process is no worse that the conventional steel, again depending on specific metallurgy.

FP

[awp101]

There are some that were iron plated in order that they would take a blue, but... you can also get it done in pewter, bronze or CCH.

That explains the one I saw that looked like the receiver had been copper plated...

[gak]

I have a few 79 and 80 models - as well as Pre 64s - and they look all the world like the vaunted earlier classics - in the receiver area. If what the one gent said is true, they must've improved the process so that at least cosmetically it held up much better than the early to mid "post 64s" and just as good as the early pre AE USRA models. I have seen this (better) characteristic on many late 70s up to USRA take over. Any commments?
Btw, these same (late 70s to early 80s) models SEEM to have returned to the "better," earlier (Pre 64) style lifter....again is that just cosmetics - or maybe just shaping but still not the real article of the Pre 64s--or did they truly improve?

[Griff]

Many collectors denigrate the post 64 Winchester 94s at every opportunity, yet, by and large, they are every bit as functional and well made as their older counterparts. In fact, given the choice, there are some parts of the post 64 that I prefer over the earlier ones. I like the late ('76 & later) coil mainspring better than the two piece mainspring of the early ones. It is easier to lighten up, and gives a smoother feel. In combination with the style with a hammer bushing, it is also much easier to disassemble and re-assemble than the flat spring models, as the lower tang can be completely assembled before it goes in the receiver... no more trying to line up the hammer, lower tang and receiver holes to put the hammer screw in place... all against spring pressure. The cast lifter is a vast improvement over the stamped part, and using guide screws from outside the frame, a single lifter screw, and a roll pin here or there ease removal and replacement of some parts with no loss of functionality. And, functionality is what the bottom line is for me.

Yes, it takes a special formula to blue them... alas, woe is me; I don't like purple guns, but... even they have some place in history. Now, when they went to the AE, rebounding hammer, crossbolt safety, I felt they'd completely ruined the gun. NEVER understood why they abandoned their VERY successful design, ignored their loyal followers repeated requests, and ruined the most beautiful lines a gun can have, just to add the dubious ability to mount a scope... but that's my opinion, one obviously not shared with 2 million buyers... (out of 6+)

gak, treated with care and attention, any of the post 64 Winch 94s hold up. You go throwin' any of 'em in the bed of the p/u, droppin' it on the ground, sliding down mountain sides using it as a brake or rudder, you're goin' to put a few dents and dings in anything.

[gak]

Many collectors denigrate the post 64 Winchester 94s at every opportunity, yet, by and large, they are every bit as functional and well made as their older counterparts. In fact, given the choice, there are some parts of the post 64 that I prefer over the earlier ones. I like the late ('76 & later) coil mainspring better than the two piece mainspring of the early ones. It is easier to lighten up, and gives a smoother feel. In combination with the style with a hammer bushing, it is also much easier to disassemble and re-assemble than the flat spring models, as the lower tang can be completely assembled before it goes in the receiver... no more trying to line up the hammer, lower tang and receiver holes to put the hammer screw in place... all against spring pressure. The cast lifter is a vast improvement over the stamped part, and using guide screws from outside the frame, a single lifter screw, and a roll pin here or there ease removal and replacement of some parts with no loss of functionality. And, functionality is what the bottom line is for me.

Yes, it takes a special formula to blue them... alas, woe is me; I don't like purple guns, but... even they have some place in history. Now, when they went to the AE, rebounding hammer, crossbolt safety, I felt they'd completely ruined the gun. NEVER understood why they abandoned their VERY successful design, ignored their loyal followers repeated requests, and ruined the most beautiful lines a gun can have, just to add the dubious ability to mount a scope... but that's my opinion, one obviously not shared with 2 million buyers... (out of 6+)

gak, treated with care and attention, any of the post 64 Winch 94s hold up. You go throwin' any of 'em in the bed of the p/u, droppin' it on the ground, sliding down mountain sides using it as a brake or rudder, you're goin' to put a few dents and dings in anything.

I appreciate this, I really do, but there are a whole bunch of early to mid Post 64s (vs none Pre 64 that I've encountered) that absolutely look like c*** - look like black paint finishes when they're in good shape and like the bottom of a well when not....and yes, it's true that if exposed to moisture including - and perhaps especially - blood (!) repeatedly and then unattended-to/un-oiled - any 94 will rust/pit - but nothing like the era of which we speak (or if you prefer, let's say it doesn't take as much for these to look much less than the sum of their parts.....so the question remains: did they do something specific late 70s to improve the receiver finish and/or metal "quality" in reality or is it just something superficially cosmetic? Your comments to the contrary notwithstanding, I will remain a devotee of the Pre 64s but many of these late Post 64s (but still pre USRA or AE) also seem fine to me - though not nearly as nice wood/finishes...so that is, in most regards.

[jlchucker]

In the very early '70's they got rid of that stamped-sheetmetal lifter and replaced it with one that's much more like the pre-64 type. My classic rifle (1970) was produced when the lifter was the stamped type, but the newer version was installed at the factory for me while the gun was in production-a feature that I had asked for, as an employee there, at the time. The receiver, though, is that glossy, plated-looking thing. They went to the later version two or three years later in an effort to upgrade the 94's. Those post-64 94's for the most part had barrels as good as the earlier ones.

[t.r.]

My best friend in HS bought a new 94 Winchester in 1971. I think he paid $70. at the Western Auto Store in Cody. I hunted with Grandad's much older 30-30 carbine. That year we hunted the foothills of Bighorn Mts together and each shot two deer. Buck and a doe apiece. Only 4 shots were fired that day! These mulies were taken at varying distances of 75 to about 125 yards or so. Nothing appeared to be wrong with either carbine as far as accuracy's and functioning was concerned.

After 'Nam, he traded the Winchester for a Remington autoloader in .308 and installed a 2X -7X Redfield scope. He still hunts with this rifle but has a couple Marlins in his rack as well.

In my opinion, the Winchester Legasy models made in mid 1990's - the end had best looking walnut and steel. You're allowed to disagree.

The animals in this photo are bighorn sheep. Nope, I didn't have a sheep license at the time.

TR