Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Mine was made in 1961.
Why did my pre-64 Left Side come with the two extra holes to
mount either a side mount or a pep sight?
I did not have it D&T’d, I bought it brand new about
7 yrs. Ago. It was brand new in the original box all hang tags
wrapped in the brown paper. (Yes still have all)
So what yr. did Win. Start D&Ting the two extra holes from
the factory?
[Why did my pre-64 Left Side come with the two extra holes to mount either a side mount or a pep sight?]
BTW - The two holes weren't for scope mounting, since scopes weren't in general usage (yet) at the time - they were/are peep sight prep holes.
Years later, when scopes became popular and readily available, the side scope mount was developed to meet the demand to scope the Model 94, and so was designed to utilize the factory peep/prep holes and the bolt pin stop screw hole, so aspiring self-scopers could buy a "no gunsmithing" mount.
Pete44ru wrote:[Why did my pre-64 Left Side come with the two extra holes to mount either a side mount or a pep sight?]
BTW - The two holes weren't for scope mounting, since scopes weren't in general usage (yet) at the time - they were/are peep sight prep holes.
Years later, when scopes became popular and readily available, the side scope mount was developed to meet the demand to scope the Model 94, and so was designed to utilize the factory peep/prep holes and the bolt pin stop screw hole, so aspiring self-scopers could buy a "no gunsmithing" mount..
Yep, made just for me, I love that little K3 ridin the side.
My 1950 is not D&T'd for a side mount receiver sight ... yet. When I can find a drill press and get it done I have a nice shiny older steel Lyman 66A waiting for it. No carrying handles on my lever guns.
Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts .***
I'm noticing, other than the first post, no one's bothered to address the OP's question--at least in terms of substantial differences. As far as I know, the aforementioned lifter/feed ramp, fit and finish (pre's having more labor/hand finishing supposedly) and metallurgy of the receiver - the posts using a scintered metal that can't take blue'ing/re-blue'ing worth a darn (though I've heard case hardening works ok) and there was a lot of flaking. Early post-64 examples actually looked like black paint when new. All 94s are said to be somewhat prone to moisture on the receiver (sweat, etc.) resulting in pitting, suggesting frequent wipe-downs--but the posts even more-so. Later ones improved in this finish department gradually - during the 70s - to the point where, just prior to (and just after) USRAC's take-over in '80 the finish--at least cosmetically--and items such as the feed ramp had approached pre-64 levels again. Others more expert than I can fill-in or correct.