Author Topic: Do You Believe They Are Better? (Read 1011 times)

RIFLE MAN · « **on:** May 02, 2003, 01:46:27 PM »

Hello fellow Sportsmen:
Do you believe the pre-64 Winchester model 94s are "better" than the post 64s? If you, please tell why, how, etc. If not please detail your reasons. Seems the pre-64 Winchester lever guns command a premium if original and in original shape. What percentage does having a pre-64 restored take from the market price of one that is original?

Kindest regards,
Rifle Man

86er · « **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2003, 06:03:54 AM »

Hi, RifleMan.
There ia always the question concerning "modern" metals used in todays gun manufactering.In my opinion there is nothing weak about any of the 1894s made after 1910 when improved steel came into common use. One distinct advantage that the earlier guns have is superior fit anf finish. These guns were basically hand finished and assembled. Do a side by side comparison of a new and old 94 and this will be obvious. There are no stamped parts on the real Winchester, either. The action is also very much smoother. I call the new 94s "clunker junkers", but, that is only my opinion of them. A lot of folks like them; I much prefer the guns made before 1964. Excepting 71s I don't buy any Winchester made after 1935. Call me crazy, that's where my preference.
Best regards, Mike

107ch · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2003, 06:10:46 AM »

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the pre-64 guns were made of machined parts and post-64 were made of more stamped parts.
Dennis

Quiet Burp · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2003, 02:33:20 PM »

I agree with 86er. Just do a side by side comparison. In my humble opinion, up to 1964 they were designed by engineers but since then they have been designed by accountants. Post 64s are real finger breakers.

Florida Jim · « **Reply #4 on:** May 04, 2003, 02:27:17 AM »

I have several pre-64 94's, and a new "Angle eject" Trails end in 44 mag. I've also owned a couple of other "post 64" 94's over the years. When Olin bought Winchester, they were run by bean counters, who tried to squeeze every nickle out of the company. Olin changed the material of the receivers, and used stamped steel parts instead of forged. If you ever see a Plum colored receiver, that is a post 64 that has been attempted to be reblued. The fit and finish was poor. If you get a chance try the actions of the two different rifles and notice the smoothness of the pre 64.

Saying that. I noticed when USRA obtained manufacturing rights to Winchester, the quality has improved greatly. I believe that they have gone back to a forged receiver, they stopped using stamped parts, and returned to forgings. I recently obtained a "Trails End" SRC in 44 mag. I got a Williams FP receiver sight from Brownells, and installed it. When I took it to the range I was pleasently suprised. With my Hand gun load of 20.5grs of 2400 with a Hornady 240 XTP it shot less than an inch at 100 yds. I don't like the Lawyer mandated cross bolt safety, a item that is not needed, but the fit and finish is very good. I think that I'll probably hunt with this rifle this fall.

I hope that this helps

Jim

NM Brushpopper · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2003, 06:06:18 PM »

I have owned both pre-64s and post-64s. I use them very hard (Iam not a collector), the pre-64s are just a work of art. All of the metal and wood fit nicely, of good quality, and that darn safety isn't there. I currently use a '52 vintage for a working gun and I am always trying to justify buying a new model, a new one costs as much as a pre-64 found used in my area. One day I'm gonna cash in at the casino and horse trade new guns (ones everbody wants) for nothing but pre-64s! Kinda what Skeeter did with Colts in Mexico........