Pre 64 Winchesters "Better" than post 64 Lever Actions?

[RIFLE MAN]

Many people believe the pre-64 lever action Winchesters are "better"
than post 64 Winchester lever rifles. Which side of this "debate" do
you stand on and why?

Thanks,
Rifle Man

[Swampman]

The pre-64s contained few stamped metal parts and the metal finish didn't peel off of the receiver.  Fit & finish on the pre-64 is outstanding.

[mannyrock]

   For goodness sakes, there is no controversy about this.  It is a fact that the pre-64s are far superior to the post-64s.  The post 64s were substantially cheapened up, to save money in the manufacturing process.

[Sweetwater]

For goodness sakes, there is no controversy about this.  It is a fact that the pre-64s are far superior to the post-64s.  The post 64s were substantially cheapened up, to save money in the manufacturing process.

[/color]
Them's the facts. +1

The pre-64s contained few stamped metal parts and the metal finish didn't peel off of the receiver.  Fit & finish on the pre-64 is outstanding.

My pre-64's don't have enough finish left to say so, and the fit is, well, they fit. When it's wet, they are a little proud, when it's dry, they are pretty close.

I would have to ask the OP, what do you mean by "better"? I have a 1927 M94 32WSpcl. I bought a 1975 M94 32WSpcl for this gal I was dating. The '75 finish was at 95% or better. It was basically unmarked and mostly unused. Everything was fairly tight. It shot good, it handled like a Winchester. No issues. The '27 was my grandfather's. My dad had used it. I had used it. Now my son has used it. Some day his son will use it (born June 29, 2010!) Both rifles shot nearly the same loads to equal accuracy. One no more outstanding in any respect than the other, Except for the "history" of the older model. I saw no difference "using" them. Oh, FWIW, the gal broke up with me - and I sold her rifle -  seemed fair to me.

[jimster]

A buddy of mine has a 94 that was made in the early 70's, we compared our 94's, mine is pre-64.  At some point after 64 it seems they went from stamped to more cast parts, his appeared to have the cast parts, maybe better than the stamped parts that came out in 64. It worked as well as mine for the purpose he used it for. That being said, I am glad I still have the pre-64, I like the idea of having one with the better steel parts, and there is a sound that the pre-64 makes when you lever it that is different than the post 64's.  If I thought I needed another 94 I'd look for a deal on a pre-64 myself, but truth is the one I have now will last well after I'm gone.

[Swampman]

That iron plated blued finish they had in the 70s & 80s was the worst ever.

[Hooker]

My last 94 was made in 71 it was the most inaccurate rifle I ever owned.
I sent it down the road and dug my Marlin 36 back out of the closet.
Never have wanted another 94 Winnie.

Pat

[Winter Hawk]

It depends on what we are talking about.  The post-64 model 94s and model 70s went to stamped parts and a plastic (?) finish over chrome plating on the receivers, at least on the 94s.  I believe this changed when U.S. Repeating Arms took over.  There were other problems.  I bought a new 94 in 1969 for my future wife.  It would try to load two rounds if you short stroked the lever.  A pre-64 would just shove the second round back into the magazine, no problem.

On the model 88, there were numerous improvements in the design which made the post 64 a better rifle.  Maybe not cosmetically with the impressed checkering rather than cut, but mechanically the newer ones are better.  Mine is first year of issue (1955) and I broke the firing pin.  The new one  is the latest version which has better metallurgy and a better chance of remaining whole.  I still use a snap cap just to make sure it doesn't break again.

-WH-