Author Topic: Quality of Winchester 94 today (Read 2189 times)

cocojo · « **on:** September 20, 2003, 05:56:37 AM »

I have been thinking of buying a new 94 traditional but I keep thinking that the older pre-64's are better. I like the angle eject for a rifle scope but that ol'e pre 64 was built. How does the newer 94's stack up to the older guns in regards to fit, finish etc. I would think the steels are better today and most are using CNC machine to buld the rifles to closer tolerences. Any thoughts on this?

John Traveler · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2003, 01:12:59 PM »

Hmm... YES, I have some comments on the quality of current-production M94 Winchesters.

Let's see: Where should I start?

1. A like-new early 1980's production M94 found in a pawn shop that jammed repeatedly... occasionally double feeding a round out of the magazine tube while the lever was in the closed position. Problem was traced to a out-of-tolerance cartridge stop on the tip of the receiver floorplate (hinged to the lever).

2. Another like-new late 1970's M94 found in a pawn shop that sometimes failed to feed because the magazine tube retaining screw at the muzzle was too small to hold the tube in position. Cartridge rims would override the sloppy magazine tube-to-receiver gap and jam.

3. Peeling black chrome finish on receiver of a mid-1970's unused M94.

4. Bluing not as deep nor as durable as pre-64.

5. off-center muzzle crown.

Certainly, any or all of these can happen to the infrequent slip found in any production guns. but WHY does it seem to happen much more often to post-1964 Winchester rifles?

My suggestion is that a casual hunter can no longer buy a new M94 and take it hunting without FIRST thoroughly firing, cycling, and testing it to be sure it is reliable.

My two cents.

John

targshooter · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2003, 04:59:10 AM »

John Traveler,
I own both a pre-64 Winchester (.30-30) and a 1994 model 94 Trapper (.44 Mag). The Trapper is accurate and has been reliable. However, it in no way approximates the better fit and finish of the pre-64. That said, I would say the Trapper is as good as most modern method produced lever rifles as for fit and finish. The Marlin 1895 I own has better detail to fit and finish, but it also cost $175 more. The bluing on the Trapper has held up to some severe field duty, and again, its accuracy is very good. It is reliable, and its only annoying tendancies are it sliding forestock and loosening magazine cap screw.

John Traveler · « **Reply #3 on:** September 21, 2003, 07:47:48 AM »

Yo, Targshooter!

Like you, I too am a Marlin AND a Winchester lever rifle fan!
I've had good results with mine too. Surprise! Surprise!

My comments were directed at the many individual examples of apparently shoddy quality control, and was not meant to be derogatory of the M94 Winchester. I think it is a fine rifle, and a fine design.

Maybe they make too many of them too fast. Something that any manufacturer can be accused of. I dunno. It's just seems to be RARE that I encounter Marlin leve actions with as many problems as the Winchesters I've seen.

John

cocojo · « **Reply #4 on:** September 21, 2003, 08:42:53 AM »

John, do you think the quality has improved since the 70's and 80's with the newer CNC machines of today? I see where you had problems with these two guns but what about what's coming out of Winchester today including the newly located hammer block. I am going to look at both the old pre 64's, but I will check out the newer 94's. I do like the idea of the angle eject with a top mount scope, being a lefty. I started out with a 94 30-30 way back when and would like to go back. They were great packing guns, the older I get the less I want to lug around. If I buy a pre-64, I will go with the peep sight but with the newer guns I can mount a scope to my liking, tough to start getting old can't see as well close up on my sights.

les hemby · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2003, 08:56:29 AM »

havent shot one but if was going to get a new one i would get a real new one with tang safety instead of ugly crossbolt

John Traveler · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2003, 11:47:08 AM »

Gentlemen:

CNC machining is universally used by all the gun manufacturers today. I can think of no mass-produced firearm today who's major components are machined one-at-a-time on hand-cranked lathes and milling machines, grinders, etc. Well... maybe some of the Rossi and Norinco imports are still made on manual machines.

CNC by itself does NOT assure better quality of the finished product. It make for much less semi-skilled and machine operator input, faster output, and lowered production per-unit costs.

I've not seen the newer Winchester tang-mounted safties.

The manual cross-bolt safeties were forced on exposed-hammer lever actions because of product liability concerns. It's there for the product liability lawyers, not for the end users.

Would I buy a newer Winchester lever action today? ABSOLUTELY yes! I'd be very careful to check it for proper function and take it to the range for live-fire before any serious use.

John

les hemby · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2003, 05:00:39 PM »

tang safety may not be on the shelf yet but is in some advertisements but they really look good. i would buy one of them or an older model for this reason. i hate the crossbolt it is lawyer proof but i choose not to like it. i have a marlin 1894 that i would like to find a kit that would replace cross-bolt

Bob · « **Reply #8 on:** September 21, 2003, 09:26:28 PM »

I have a mid/late 70's '94 in 30/30 and a very recent Trapper in 44. Both have been utterly reliable and very accurate. Maybe I'm lucky, but I love my Winchesters. I have never tried a Marlin, but I wouldn't mind doing so. I've got my eye on a '92 Winchester though so the Marlin will probably have to wait quite a while.
Bob

The Happy Kaboomer · « **Reply #9 on:** September 22, 2003, 04:26:15 PM »

The Last 2 winchester mdl. 94's were both a P.O.S. in all regards. The first was a new winnie in .444 marlin (ala timber carbine). It fell apart at 450 rds.. It started snapping, the forend slid forward 3/16", the dovetail for the magazine cap came loose, the stock cracked at the wrist on both sides. PLus the sights were not able to be regulated to rem. 240 gr factory loads. IT WAS A P.O.S. IN ALL REGARDS. I SENT IT BACK TO WIN.. Winnie sent me a new one. It started acting up too so I promptly sold it and bought a marlin .444p. The marlin ahs had nearly 2000 rds. through it with nary a hiccup. It performed so well I bought a second one and scoped it. Both have performed flawlessly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not learning I later purchased a win. 94 pack rifle in 30/30. The stock cracked and it snapped right out of the box. I still got it and it still snaps(has excessive head space that win. did not correct.
All of my older winnnies work perfectly. Any thing new in the future will have marlin or rossi on it. Win. has forgot quality in their levers focusing more on the latest short super boomer.

WD45 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 23, 2003, 02:15:52 AM »

I cant speak for anything Brand new right off the shelf today but, I had a 94 in 30 30 back around 1981 and it made a better boat paddle than rifle :x
drove me to marlin and rossi :grin: :grin:

Mikey · « **Reply #11 on:** September 23, 2003, 05:38:40 AM »

WD and Happy Kaboomer: Guys, this just about breaks my heart to admit to this but I think the overall quality of the Winchester Lever Action has gone downhill ( I would normally say 'headed south' but I doan wanna go insultin' none of my Southern Neighbors).

I've got 4 Winnie levers - one is a 1923 manufacture 94 in 30-30 - what a gem. I will take that one to the grave with me, the hay with the kids. The other three are all big bore 94AEs in 444, a customized, long barrelled traditional rifle, a Timber Carbine and a Black Shadow. The traditional rifle is a gem, and I'm gonna make certain I have room in the coffin for that one two. The Timber Carbine hasn't given me any problems except that she shoots about a foot low at 100 yds and the sights won't regulate it - gonna have to get Winchester or Brownells to send me a lower front sight blade. The Black Shadow is, as you describe, a pos. The stock to metal fit is horrendous, the action and trigger were gritty as can be. The action does not cycle anywhere as smoothly as my other two and, the dang thing broke before I even got it to the range - it has since gone back to Winchester. I lubed the bolt and rails and proceeded to cycle the action to get a feel for it. I noticed unusual wear on the right side of the bolt just before the lever broke at the junction of the bolt stop and lever (or whatever you call it down there), after 53 leverings. This is not good. We wil see how it is when it comes back - if it isn't any good I may trade it off for something else but don't quite know what, yet. M2C. Mikey.

cocojo · « **Reply #12 on:** September 24, 2003, 06:48:32 AM »

Well I bought my Winchester 30-30. Let me first say this I went to KTP's up in Maine and I looked at the new Winchester Rifles with the new tang safety, not bad, much better than the old cross bolt. I then went to look at the used 94's. They must have had at least 20 pre -64's there. I was looking for a 32 special but they were all in poor shape. The guns ranged from $230.00 to $350.00. The price was deceiving because some of the guns that were $350.00 where not as nice, go figure. I looked for guns with a clean muzzle crown , good bores, good bluing and no cracks on the stocks. By the way there is NO compairison from the pre-64's and the newer guns, it's not even close. I bought a 30-30 very good shape with a clean bore and the muzzle was blue with no dings. The stock was not cracked and had a few scratches but only surface. The bluing was super but whoever owned this gun must have had it fall over, for there were a few small scratched on the left side, but not bad. It came with a lyman peep sight that was in tough shape. I have an old william peep I put on it that looks new.
The gun did not have a rear sight, it was coming off anyway. I took the gun apart and clean it totally. I am smoothing out the stocks and giving them a nice satin finish, the stocks are a nice dark walnut they look super.
I paid $275.00 out the door, can't be happier, now if it only shoots as good as it looks. By the way, I can't believe how some guns were so miss treated. They had a nice 32 in mint condition on one side, and rusted on the other, what a shame. For a 40 year old gun in the 2 million range it in excellent shape. :grin:

Yanqui · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2003, 01:39:06 AM »

Here is my 2 centavos worth's.

All but one of my Winchester lever actions are post 64. I haven't had a problem with any of them. The only one that was below par was the Winchester 94 "Antique" model where a few parts were stamped. The parts just do not "look" right. But many gun manufactures use stamped parts today. For instance the Sigs have stamped slides. Winchester has been put down for going with a cast receiver. But Ruger has been using cast receivers for years and still does and so does Taurus.

As far as I can see it has nothing really to do with quality. The minds of those that dislike new ideas are already made up before they even see the new item and tend to have a negative attitude towards it. So they look more closely to find faults. As for inspecting a pawn shop gun. It was probably screwed up by the previous owner who pawned for 50 bucks. He or someone most likely disassembled it and after reassembly screwed it up. A friend from work did the same thing. There are certain parts that can be installed incorrectly.

I can remember the days when you mentioned Rossi and gun store owners and shooters would bad mouth Rossi. The same would go for Italian made cowboy replicas. You can still hear some "gun experts" bad mouth them and you always will.

I had a Ruger Single Six in 32 H&H Magnum that I could not load because cylinder and the frame did not line up. This was brand new. So does that mean that all Rugers are junk?

Also so which Ruger Blackhawk is better than the other. The Blackhawk with the 3 screws or the one with the pins? The 3 screw Blackhawk does not have the safety and 3 pin does? But I have heard that the 3 screw is better.

Which firearm is better?The one with or without the safety? Is the tang safety better than the crossbolt safety? Do you prefer the transfer bar safety? Why doesn't anyone complain about the transfer bar safety on the Ruger?

But lemons do get past the inspection. Even that ol' pre 64 Winchester. My dad had one. Winchester would fix it and send it back. It still jammed from time to time. My dad got rid of it and bought a Sear & Roebucks Marlin.

It is all preconceived notions. Oh, do any of you remember this past year on many of the gun forums the discussion of the Rossi 92 454 Casull? Well, can it handle the pressure? What I read was that since Ruger, Marlin and Winchester could not handle the pressures that NOT made in American leveraction obviously can't.

Do I have any preconceived notions? Yep, it still bothers me to see MADE IN JAPAN on a firearm. But if it is made in Korea, Russia, Europe, South American, China ect it is OK. There was nothing wrong on that Winchester 1892 SRC made in Japan. But I found letter stamping problems and the forearm was to thick. So all Japanese Winchesters are junk. But if I can find one for half the price I'll buy it. Sounds stupid doesn't it?

They all do!!! But the sad thing is newbies listen to us "gun experts" and pass on our preconceived notions.

But one thing you have understand is that the quality on all levels of manufacturing has gone down. So get rid of that new fangled truck with air conditioning, auto trans, ps/pb, sterio sound system, power seats,shift on the fly 4 wheel drive and smooth suspension. Look for that ol' 47 Chevy or Ford truck with hand roll up windows with rough suspension and no air conditioning. Yeah, right.

BoarHunter · « **Reply #14 on:** October 22, 2003, 05:13:50 AM »

I own a Win 94AE big bore traditional in 444. bought three years ago.
My only complain was the trigger, too long, too heavy. I improved the trigger that now breaks at 1.6Kg (3.5lbs) and reduced the pull so as to have the trigger rest against the lever security.
I shoot reloads loaded to the max as per Vithavuori tables with 265 Hornady bullets. It kicks, is more powerfull than the Rem factory and so far (about 500 rounds) no problem.
Note I kind of glass bed the stock and front wood using steel epoxy to cancel all play.
I hate the cross bolt safety but not Win's fault, just an other reason for lawyers population culling. I only use it when unloading the gun.
Of course, it is not the quality of a Sako, Beretta or Merkel gun, not in the same price league too, but far above brand like Savage that I consider the worst I have ever seen. I own a Savage combination gun in 22Hornet, 20 gauge which is heavy like a boat anchor, made out of cast iron, breaks firing pin and shoots were it wants disregarding totally the shooter's injuctions.

Horsefeathers · « **Reply #15 on:** October 24, 2003, 05:19:42 PM »

I Have had pre-64 Win.94's that were gems as all of them were. But I bought one made in Japan for $50. The stock inletting showed daylight through it. The action was loose,the lock up bars were undersized and loose. I never fired it. Sold it to a teenager first time hunter for the $50. On the other hand I had a trapper 30-30 Original style with a case finished receiver That was super accurate that I bought in the 70's.It was well made. Winchester has changed hands a couple of times. Lately I have seen economy models that look crummy and Legacy types that look great. Each gun has to be checked out too be sure. Horsefeathers.

Yanqui · « **Reply #16 on:** October 25, 2003, 05:34:05 PM »

Quote

But I bought one made in Japan for $50. The stock inletting showed daylight through it. The action was loose,the lock up bars were undersized and loose. I never fired it.

As far as I know all Winchesters were made in the U.S.A. except for the most recent 92's and 85's. But these are basically Brownings that were made in Japan by Miroku.

I'm curious about the Winchester made in Japan. Was this Japanese Winchester pre or post? Can you tell me more about it?

Or is this statement just a bunch of horsefeathers?

Win71 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 26, 2003, 06:59:49 AM »

There were no Model 94 Winchesters' made in Japan at any time. Some called the earlier Post '64's Japanese Winchester's ( 1964-1969 era), because of the rattle, caused by rolled pins instead of screws. But none were made in Japan or any other country. The recent Model '95's, 86, 92, and '85's are made in Japan.

Yanqui · « **Reply #18 on:** October 26, 2003, 09:27:29 AM »

That's what I figured. A bunch of horsefeathers.

Horsefeathers · « **Reply #19 on:** October 26, 2003, 06:40:58 PM »

If some of the post 64 Win.94;s were never made in Japan then I stand corrected. Can't recall the source that was 30 years ago,I sold the guna couple of days after I got it. But I do recall that it was the poorest excuse for a lever action that I had ever seen. And that's no horse doo-doo!Horsefeathers......

Yanqui · « **Reply #20 on:** October 26, 2003, 07:25:41 PM »

I do recollect a number of off brand shotguns and revolvers that I have come across over the years. Some pretty shabby. There is a side-by-side shotgun at the pawn shop I go through. There are no markings just a serial number and gauge size. It's kind of shabby also. So it is very likely that you came a cross a lever action in the shape you mentioned. It could have been made in Japan. Ever seen a fake ROLEX?

I came across some ALLPINE sterio speakers at a swap meet. The sterio box looked just like the real ALPINE box. ALPINE makes great speakers. The ALLPINE sucked. I didn't notice the misspelling.