Post-64 Winchester 94s

[bradkincaid]

Hi all,

I will be kicking off a search in earnest for a Winchester 94 soon and I had a quick question for you lever action experts. I understand that a pre-64 is the best 94 in terms of build quality, etc., but I wanted to get some opinions on the post-64 rifles. Specifically, I wanted to know what years post-64 would you suggest targeting in the event I can't find a pre-64 at a good price?

I have done some research already and I believe that the rifles made in the first years after 64s are at the bottom of the totem pole and that up until 1983-ish the rifles had iffy receiver finishes. So I would expect that rifles from the mid 80s up until whenever the garish cross-bolt safety was added would be the best post-64 specimens (excluding the Ranger model). Is this generally correct?

This will be a hunting gun, but I am a sucker for a nice finish, so if I ever have to refinish the gun I don't want it to turn red on me (but I guess case hardening is always an option for those 1965-1982 production rifles).

Anyway, any and all advice is appreciated. Thanks.

Brad

[RIHMFIRE]

i would not worry so much about the date they are mfr..
and just worry about the fit and finish of the particular rifle...
My Favorite 94 is my saddle ring carbine 44 mag with the cross bolt saftey.
chemical case colored, large loop, excellent wood grain, checkered, sling studs,
fit and finish is great, action is tight, and very accurate....with my loads....awesome

every trails end i have handle with the cresent butt plates and oct. barrels have been
very, very good...butt now the are $$$$.$$

Both my legacys are very nice rifles, with one exception....loose lever, side to side...
but they shoot well....

some of the commemoratives are very nice....and some are junk...

the one thing that bothers me about the post 64s...more than the safeties,
is the crappy gumbo wood they used...no grain, yellow...

as far as pre 64s...the last gun show i went to i saw a few around 5 bills...30-30s
other calibers vary widely....

[Tycer]

The fit, finish and wood on the cross-bolt safety guns is generally very good. You can fix the safety with the old style tang/hammer and plug it with a case.

[gak]

I do believe that year(s) of manufacture can matter greatly. "Post 64" is usually, if informally, used to describe 94s (in this case) up to/through about 1981 or pre USRAC take over from "Winchester." So, of these "Winchesters" I believe by the late 70's they had finally combined some improvements (started in the early-mid 70s with a cast vs the earlier Post's stamped lifter), adding better wood (real walnut in my 79-80 examples and most I've seen, and "some sort" of treatment or material for the receivers which at least seems a much better mimic of the Pre 64 forged/blued receivers. I'm sure there are exceptions and someone(s) will chime in here saying their 78/79-81 is just as c***** as the earlier Post 64s, but most I've seen have actually been pretty nice. My '79 trapper has some very minor freckling, of the type seen "even" on many Pre 64s or other guns of the era (all were prone to moisture/sweat etc if not wiped down from time to time), which I plan to attack with some oil--and mild enough I expect to go away entirely. My 20" carbine ca 1980 is pristine and, other than slightly lighter toned wood (but still walnut) hard pressed to distinguish from a new Pre 64. These guns seem also to have a tightened up action from the earlier "Post" rattlers. All'n'all they just appear to have regained some or much if not most of the good ol' Winchester mojo.

A year or two ago I happened upon seven or eight of these late 70s-early 80 Pre USRAC at a LGS--all lined up and seeming same condition - obviously (seemingly) trade-ins or consignments from the same person. Drool. I fantasized about buying the entire lot and displaying "old sheriff"s office style" but was not able to do anything with even one...but at $450 a pop seem like bargains now."even" not being Pre 64s. Can't say that about many other Post's. Though obviously well-kept, "same condition" earlier Post's just don't show that well. Many of the earlier ones are certainly serviceble, but these--what I call "Pre USRAC" or more accurately "just Pre USRAC--are the ones to look for IMHO. Didn't think I would, but with these Pre USRACs I've got pride of ownership the same or close to my Pre 64s.
My .02.

[Old Savage]

Technically it is Pre 64 and Post 63.

Someone, here I think, pointed out that Winchesters have not been Winchesters since 1931 when Olin took them over - if I have that fact correct. There are many features that have changed from time to time and many opinions about them. I like the AEs up until the cross bolt safety and the ones with the tang safety the best. The ones I have like that will shoot sub inch groups with the right ammo. I believe these rifles have forged receivers.
I do not care for Pre 64s because you can't mount a scope right and they can want to drop the brass on your head.

I also have a couple of the cross bolt safety models and both are very good shooter and the safety does not bother me. One note about changing the safeties - if there were ever a mishap with the rifle I would think that almost certainly would be an issue that was made. In Ca. here they have criminalized guns that are not locked up.

[J Miller]

I have had pre-64s from the early 1900s to 1963, nothing to complain about.
I have had post-64s from 64 to 80 and many years between and had only one that just would not cooperate. I could probably fix it now, but I've learned a lot since then.

Many folks dislike the stamped carriers. I don't care for them, but I never had one malfunction due to the stamped carrier.

The receivers were cast from scintered (sic) metal from 64 up to just after 81. Other than not taking a normal hot chemical blue there's nothing to worry about. They are not soft, brittle, fragile, defective, or anything else negative.

I have seen more crappy wood to metal fit in the AE models than I ever did in a Post-64.

Find one that looks nice, keep it decently cleaned and wiped down so moisture and body acids won't ruin the finish and go hunting.

Oh, and if it's going to be a hunting gun, you really don't want a fancy finish on it.
Scratches, moisture, and wear go with hunting tools.

Joe

[Carlsen Highway]

We are splitting hairs here, and I agree it all depends on the indiviual rifle, but I have owned pre 64's and post, and of the post 64 years I will buy anything made in the 1970's. I think that decade was the best of the later rifles. I don't mind the scintered metal receiver (unless some fool has tried to reblue it in which case it will go purple) and I prefer the version before they went to a coiled spring on the trigger. The quality seems perfectly fine and on a par with my '52 made rifle.
The earlier port'64 rifles the actions can tend to be too sloppy for me, but that is just my opinion from what I have seen. I cannot stand the black chromed receievers that start peeling off.
The serial number for starting the early 1970's is about 399,XXXX
After 1981 they went to the angle eject and I cannot own one of those, my father would disown me. And as for cross-bolt safeties, even our Rossi's over here don't have them so I will not abide one on a Winchester 94.

But why - oh - why did they continue to go with a square-bottomed receiver instead of the bevelled edges of the older pre-64 rifles? More uncomfortable to carry, and such a little thing for a big improvement. We carry our rifles long distances continually and it matters. I have a 5 hour walk in tomorrow for example.
I think of filing off the bottom edges myself sometimes to match a pre-64 contour.

[Griff]

1st, and Welcome to THE Forum.

Just like a used car, you can kick a lot of tires, some will hold air, others will deflate.

An awful lot of the pre-/post- stuff is sheer elitist in nature. I have an almost equal number pre- and post-'64 Winchester 94s. Both have their great points and not-so-great points. The pre-64s have history and forged receivers on their side. But, sometimes that means they have age and have experienced abuse in that history. The top-of-the-line collectibles are expensive and few and sometimes far between. They may move from collector to collector, and are seldom seen in the hands of shooters. The "shooters", those that collectors won't deign to stoop low enough to buy run the gamut from almost pristine but very common, to flat worn-out! Many of those that parrot the "pre-'64s are far better than the post-'64s" (which include just about all produced during 1964), are basing that on comments by others, one or two examples they've seen and handled; not based on handling a hundred or more examples.

With over 24 currently assembled 94s, 6 more in "project form" I have favorites from both eras. My most frequently shot 94 is a 1979 that I customized. In fact, today, I shot a speed long range match with it... no, I didn't win (at least I don't think I did), this rifle is just plain wonderful at 200+ yards. Today was 5 rounds, starting with an empty chamber, my time was inside of 8 seconds. Should be a respectable finish. However, my most frequently hunted mdl 94 is a 1978 that's just as she left the factory. It's take an untold number of coyotes. Another that's my most favorite to fondle is a 1913 mdl 1894 that was once in the rack of the San Francisco PD. A partner & I bought several and sold the worst ones, keeping two of the best each. My B-I-L talked me out of one of mine, mainly by promising that my niece will get it... and she has taken a deer with it. So it's in a good home. Maybe some day when I'm hard up for a house payment or two, it may find a new home... NOT! It has my son's name on it!

"Rattly" is an oft complaint about the post'-'64s. But... sometimes that translates into smooth and easy motion. The action of any 94 is not really smooth; at smooth in the fashion that an 1873 is smooth! That link dropping down, and the "S" shape cut in the lever that allows for the transistion of the lever movement from dropping the locking lug to the rear movement of the bolt makes for a "hitch" in it's "get-along"! Yes, that can be smooth, but it's nowhere near as smooth as other models with out that "dropping of its guts" that a mdl 94 has. And one CAN shim some of the pivot points that will decrease that sloppiness. And that can be found on any era mdl 94!

Enjoy the hunt. And when you find one that you like, fits your budget, don't worry one bit what others think. It ain't their money nor, truthfully, any of their business. As one of my friends that made fun of me customizing a 1979 mdl 94... finally admitted, "...well, its pretty, and it can certainly shoot." I'd just beat him thru 31 rounds of a tie-breaking run! Finally! As we'd worked our way out to 400 yards and then ended up attempting that distance offhand on a 16" gong. I may have been the better shot that day... but ever since, when we end up to shoot against each other with .30-30s, he opts out!

[t.r.]

94 quality improved in a big way when US Repeating Arms took over from Olin Corp. in the late 1970's. The angle-eject models are TOPS!

TR

[gak]

.

An awful lot of the pre-/post- stuff is sheer elitist in nature. I have an almost equal number pre- and post-'64 Winchester 94s. Both have their great points and not-so-great points. The pre-64s have history and forged receivers on their side. But, sometimes that means they have age and have experienced abuse in that history. The top-of-the-line collectibles are expensive and few and sometimes far between. They may move from collector to collector, and are seldom seen in the hands of shooters. The "shooters", those that collectors won't deign to stoop low enough to buy run the gamut from almost pristine but very common, to flat worn-out! Many of those that parrot the "pre-'64s are far better than the post-'64s" (which include just about all produced during 1964), are basing that on comments by others, one or two examples they've seen and handled; not based on handling a hundred or more examples.

With over 24 currently assembled 94s, 6 more in "project form" I have favorites from both eras. My most frequently shot 94 is a 1979 that I customized. In fact, today, I shot a speed long range match with it... no, I didn't win (at least I don't think I did), this rifle is just plain wonderful at 200+ yards. Today was 5 rounds, starting with an empty chamber, my time was inside of 8 seconds. Should be a respectable finish. However, my most frequently hunted mdl 94 is a 1978 that's just as she left the factory. It's take an untold number of coyotes. Another that's my most favorite to fondle is a 1913 mdl 1894 that was once in the rack of the San Francisco PD. A partner & I bought several and sold the worst ones, keeping two of the best each. My B-I-L talked me out of one of mine, mainly by promising that my niece will get it... and she has taken a deer with it. So it's in a good home. Maybe some day when I'm hard up for a house payment or two, it may find a new home... NOT! It has my son's name on it!

"Rattly" is an oft complaint about the post'-'64s. But... sometimes that translates into smooth and easy motion. The action of any 94 is not really smooth; at smooth in the fashion that an 1873 is smooth! That link dropping down, and the "S" shape cut in the lever that allows for the transistion of the lever movement from dropping the locking lug to the rear movement of the bolt makes for a "hitch" in it's "get-along"! Yes, that can be smooth, but it's nowhere near as smooth as other models with out that "dropping of its guts" that a mdl 94 has. And one CAN shim some of the pivot points that will decrease that sloppiness. And that can be found on any era mdl 94!

Enjoy the hunt. And when you find one that you like, fits your budget, don't worry one bit what others think. It ain't their money nor, truthfully, any of their business.....

Griff you make good points as usual, but I am one of those who doesn't just parrot what others have said, has handled literally hundreds of both major (pre/post (but predominately pre USRAC)) "eras" - have had maybe twenty Pre's, and five (currently two) Posts, and one Pre War (another "era" to me) ...and I will repeat: Up into the mid to late 70s the 94s are lacking in more ways than not with many examples regardless of condition looking to be more candidates for "truck" gun - OR projects as you say. I'm not saying unserviceable. Heck, a Yugo will run--for awhile. (Maybe bad example s some didn't even do that!) A Datsun F10--#1 on some fugly lists--is serviceable! Life for some including it sounds like the OP, is looking for more than just serviceable.

For instance, someone mentioned "no problems with the stamped lifter," to paraphrase. It's not (necessrily) that stamped vs later cast or earlier "milled" lifters is a huge point by itself but symptomatic of the larger or broader cheapening of the line. Looking inside your 94 expecting to find a modicum of "refinement" and quality (as in days of yore), to find it looking like an SKS. And when they "fixed" the lifter, they continued with medoicre cosmetics, though better again than the 60s.. Recently i had to rent a car while my crashed car was in the shop. Same brand, different year. In the intervening six years of production the new rental looked like made in China--and parts probably were--versus mine which now looks like a Rolls Royce by comparison. Not for my $30k, thanks...and so with Winnies, not for my $450-500 +/- $150 I in most markets. $250-300, perhaps different story. You wouldn't expect more than a truck or csbin gun anyway.

Griff, you go on to mention two of your favorite Posts are 78-79, exactly to my point that by the late 70s they'd begun--or if you prefer, continued--to improve "more" even if inconsistently (some guns nicer than others). One of my favorite guns is my 79. Clearly the late 60s were the bottom and there seems little argument about that. While the 70s were a marked improvement, wood selection continued on most or at least many examples to be relative c***, and the "look" of the receivers only so-so even new (if an improvement over the "you've got to be kidding" late 60s).

The fact of the matter is there were major differences, at least as defined by many especially re "refinement," (but clearly not by all), in between and among the eras. That's not just idle, uninformed internet chatter. But the main point is the gent asked for opinions, the whole reason for the thread...which have been rendered - by myself, you and others. That's what this is for. The more you pound the "and ...none of their business" gavel, then continue to press your thinking on the matter, the more it calls attention to your view of how the OP should look at things. That's fine--I happen to like your thinking! Again what this is for,...but, how's that any different? Where's the criticism? And there are a heck of a lot of us here with similar or more years as you handling literally hundreds of these things. Not everyone is just an internet commando (my term). Where do you get that - ? - speaking, ironically, of parroting what others have said and being elitist. C'mon Griff, you're better than that!

To me the bottom line is - they"re all serviceable, but the early Posts leave a lot to be desired--in varying degrees/different intervals--but are more than not c*** by comparison with Pre's and then later 70s Post's,...and to some wanting/needing the AE feature (not I generally, but...), later pre safeties especially better yet. For some. the safeties didn't bother and to them better yet.
Me, of the Posts, I like the late 70s XTRs and wish I had one or two or...Now those were nice! And I'll even allow an AE in there. A friend's 24" "carbine" 7-30 Waters XTR AE - ca 83-4 (?) -pre safety, perhaps the nicest of the bunch to me. Something about that gun. Great balance and stellar fit and finish. Don't know if they ever made a .30-30 XTR in that specific (pre safety, 24" round, double banded) configuration?
Note to the OP, look for an XTR if looking (also) for nice cosmetics.

[Sixgun]

You guys over analyze.

Pre-war= money + interest + works

post war= scrap metal that works ---------------6

[bradkincaid]

Thanks a bunch to everyone! Your responses went above and beyond what I expected and I feel adequately prepared to hit the stores and gun shows. I will be sure to let you all know what I end up with.

Thanks again.

[Griff]

gak,

You're right of course. What I was attempting to get across, and maybe went a bit overboard, is; if you run across a nice, well-put together post '64, don't be afraid to buy it. I have found them to be excellent bargains.

[gak]

gak,

You're right of course. What I was attempting to get across, and maybe went a bit overboard, is; if you run across a nice, well-put together post '64, don't be afraid to buy it. I have found them to be excellent bargains.

Griff, 10-4. I think there are plenty of good ones to be had--or made!--in virtually all eras. I mentioned earlier that line up of several 79/80-ish ones at a LGS, near new, I still think about. Aside from the high end collectibles, as nice a group of Winnies you're likely to see that you'd actually use. You truly make some fine points. I stepped out a bit there and apologize - bad week, car crash 'n such (a good whack--my first in 44 yrs of driving(!)--but thankfully no one badly hurt)...should learn to shut up or tone it down when a bit edgy from those things!

[Wes]

Nicest Winchester I owned or shot was my 94 XTR 7-30 Waters. Made in mid 80's I reckon. Beautiful rifle, shot inch groups give or take, balanced perfect with the 24" barrel.
Probably THE rifle I wish I had back. Needed money and had to sell it.

My dads old pre WWII is sure a great rifle but is not near as accurate as my 7-30 was.

[gak]

Nicest Winchester I owned or shot was my 94 XTR 7-30 Waters. Made in mid 80's I reckon. Beautiful rifle, shot inch groups give or take, balanced perfect with the 24" barrel.
Probably THE rifle I wish I had back. Needed money and had to sell it.

My dads old pre WWII is sure a great rifle but is not near as accurate as my 7-30 was.

Wes - my exact same observation on the 7-30. A friend's 24" pair like yours are two of the nicest Winchesters I've seen and handled (one for sale btw on consignment at a LGS). I think the culprits are the nice XTR furniture and finish along with a particularly aggreeable combo of 24" round barrel and .284 bore (or .308 as the case may be...his similarly configured Pre War round barreled 24" .30 WCF is perhaps the favorite). To top it off, as you say, it flat out shoots. That 7-30 is a sweetheart of a round. Ammo availability aside, that gun is near the top of my "if you could have only one rifle" list.

[pricedo]

The two best eras of Winchester model 94 making are pre-64 and post 2010 (the Miroku built 94s).
Have a 1955 built 94 and one of the new Miroku 94 Trails End takedowns in 450 Marlin.
They are both slick & accurate.
The old 1955 94 (30 WCF) really likes those new factory Hornady 160 grain FTX rounds and will consistently shoot keyhole groups at 50 yards with them.
The 94 TE was factory stiff but after 500 or so dry cycles it is slicker than greased lightning.
Not a single round of a 20 round (factory Hornady 350 grain FP) volley strayed outside a 1.5" circle at 25 yards with the iron sights of the 94TE at the range recently.......not bad shooting for 6 decade old eyes.
The rimless 450 Marlin cartridge lends itself to smooth cycling despite its size.
The w/m fit & finishing, machining, workmanship and the iron sights on the Miroku built gun are superb.

* I have a 1973 built Indian Yellowhead Commemorative 94 in 30-30 (below) which isn't one of my working guns. It has a brass receiver, butt plate & barrel bands and the furniture is a beautiful "black" walnut. I bought it as my gun safe queen cause it's so darn purty. It's never been fired.


POST-64

PRE-64

POST-2010