Winchester 1894 pre '64 vs Post 64
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion > Winchester 1894 pre '64 vs Post 64

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-11-2013, 10:33 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Gh0zt36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Micco,Florida
Posts: 1,487
Liked 261 Times on 181 Posts
Likes Given: 372

Default Winchester 1894 pre '64 vs Post 64

When I first bought my 1894 I read alot about the gun . I've noticed alot of enthusiasts not only dig the pre 64 because of the nostalgia factor but alleged changes in production quality .

From everything I've learned about those changes I have come to the conclusion ( now this is my humble opinion so feel free to disagree ) pre 64 version does not stand out to me as a superior rifle.

Let me explain

Pre 64 1894s had a solid steel receiver , solid steel roll pins and a solid steel cartrige elevator . And was a top eject rifle .

1964-1977 Errr dunno much cept they used more solid steel than post 1982


1982 -1992 1894s have whats called a sintered steel receiver ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintering ) which from everything I could find is either equal to or stronger than solid steel . The only disadvantages seem to be

1. sintered steel doesnt hold bluing as well

2. 100% sintered (iron ore) can not be charged in the blast furnace.

3. By sintering one cannot create uniform sizes.

Now again feel free to disagree as I am no metallurgist but Bluing on my rifle is immaculate after almost 30 years

What does charging in a blast furnace mean ? With any luck my rifle will never see the inside of a blast furnace sooooo I dont think that would mean much pre 64 post 64 argument .

And the fit is more than acceptable on my rifle so uniform size ??? moot

Advantages are


1. Very high levels of purity and uniformity in starting materials

2. Preservation of purity, due to the simpler subsequent fabrication process (fewer steps) that it makes possible

3. Stabilization of the details of repetitive operations, by control of grain size during the input stages

4. Absence of binding contact between segregated powder particles or "inclusions" (called stringering) as often occurs in melting processes

5. No deformation needed to produce directional elongation of grains

6. Capability to produce materials of controlled, uniform porosity.

7. Capability to produce nearly net-shaped objects.

8. Capability to produce materials which cannot be produced by any other technology.

9. Capability to fabricate high-strength material like turbine blades.

10. After sintering the mechanical strength to handling becomes higher.


Now theres alot there so I won't go over the specifics but I'd say that list speaks for itself .

Only other 2 differences are a stamp steel cartrige elevator ( Does that make a difference? I havnt seen 1 complaint of a elevator deforming or failing in all my research . )

Hollow roll pins ( makes it lighter?? again I havnt been able to find one instance of a hollow pin failing in all my research )

Ohh and lets not forget the angle eject allowing for a scope. Which the advantage is debateable considering the 150-250 max effective range for hunting for this rifle depending on the ammo flat nose vs hornady flex tip im referring to.

1993 - 2006 rifle is now CNC machined , solid roll pins re introduced and made by FN herstal ( good company far as I can tell ) with the only negative being the introduction of saftey sally crossbar safety 1992- 2003 and then tang saftey 2003-2006


Im not going to get into the jap models cause I dont know enough about them all I know is they are expensive and Japanese make good products as far as I know and use good steel but I cant say that is the case in the 1894 cause I just dont know that to be true .



So , in conclusion All I see in later models is A lighter stronger gun excluding the roll pins and elevator but again I've never seen anyone complain either of those components failing as far as I could find. And they make the gun lighter

So Aside from being a heavier nostalgic rifle you couldnt mount a scope to without tapping the receiver what advantages do the pre 64 rifles have ???

All I ever see is comments like " the pre 64 is a better gun cause it used solid steel components " but from everything I gleaned I couldn't figure out why that made it a better gun .

Now I'm simply proposing a question . Again Im no metallurgist nor expert . I very well may be wrong in my conclusions but Id just like someone to specifically tell me why with a more in depth answer than its got solid steel components with no explanation .

What say you FTF ?
__________________
" Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. " - Benjamin Franklin
Gh0zt36 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 12-11-2013, 10:45 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
stratrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: L.A. (Lower Alabama)
Posts: 1,594
Liked 1624 Times on 871 Posts
Likes Given: 2638

Default

I'm monitoring this thread for edumacation purposes. I really need to add a Winchester to my stable but I don't know much about them.
stratrider is offline  
Gh0zt36 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2013, 10:52 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Gh0zt36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Micco,Florida
Posts: 1,487
Liked 261 Times on 181 Posts
Likes Given: 372

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratrider View Post
I'm monitoring this thread for edumacation purposes. I really need to add a Winchester to my stable but I don't know much about them.
From all the changes ive read I like my circa 1985 1982-1992 the best . Its the lightest and can accept a scope . I've not had one failure or issue with the quality control of this rifle. And I also appreciate the lack of visible saftey except the lever button that needs to be depressed to fire ( which is more than adaquate in my opinion because it prevents the only AD I could see happening which is drop fire AD .

Again just my opinion though
__________________
" Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. " - Benjamin Franklin
Gh0zt36 is offline  
stratrider Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2013, 11:04 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4795 Times on 2681 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

The Pre-64 does not have roller pins hollow or other wise. The Pre-64 action is quickly identified by the machine screws which connect the linkage to the cams. The receivers of the Pre-64 were machined from 4140 Bar stock and Euro-Salt blued. The Post rifles are castings made from various alloys and the early ones had baked on paint finishes. The Winchester rifles had a tradition of machined steel and hand fitted American walnut stocks.
In the mid 1960s the company opt for high production and lower budget features in their products. Namely less hand fitting and machining. Knowledgeable gun enthusiast take the earlier quality features of the Pre-64 very serious. That is why Pre-64 Winchesters are so expensive. Winchester is only a trade name today.
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2013, 11:40 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hiwall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Cleator,AZ
Posts: 3,554
Liked 835 Times on 536 Posts
Likes Given: 254

Default

I believe the stamped steel cartridge lifters were in the 60's. Winchester went back to solid lifters. After alot of grief.
__________________
Just walking on the edge of of my grave.
hiwall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013, 01:03 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Wambli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 947
Liked 48 Times on 28 Posts

Default

There is nothing wrong with modern 94. That being said go find a pre WWII 94 and take a good, long, hard look at it. You'll see hand fitting of the parts, the wood to metal seams are perfect, and you'll see quality of workmanship that is just unattainable today unless you are willing to spend thousands of dollars. THAT is the appeal of older Winchesters. BTW the 94 was never supposed to be scoped and I'm sure some folks out there like theirs wearing glass and that is fine but if a scoped gun is the final goal there are a lot better options out there.
Wambli is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013, 01:11 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Gh0zt36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Micco,Florida
Posts: 1,487
Liked 261 Times on 181 Posts
Likes Given: 372

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wambli View Post
There is nothing wrong with modern 94. That being said go find a pre WWII 94 and take a good, long, hard look at it. You'll see hand fitting of the parts, the wood to metal seams are perfect, and you'll see quality of workmanship that is just unattainable today unless you are willing to spend thousands of dollars. THAT is the appeal of older Winchesters. BTW the 94 was never supposed to be scoped and I'm sure some folks out there like theirs wearing glass and that is fine but if a scoped gun is the final goal there are a lot better options out there.
Well I'd say scoped .30wcf is more the advent of innovation rather than window dressing . With the advances hornady has made you are on a fine line of needing a scope and not .

150yrds ? Good peep sight n you're good . 250yrds which is definitely probly max range for hunting for this rifle may be just out of a peepsight ability or a shooters ability when trying to make a humane kill.

But I agree before hornady ballistic flex tip a scope really wasnt needed . But now? Im sure glad they made that rifle able to accept a scope cause even with a williams peep I dunno if I'm good enough to make a humane killshot at 200+
__________________
" Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. " - Benjamin Franklin
Gh0zt36 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013, 02:06 AM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Wambli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 947
Liked 48 Times on 28 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gh0zt36 View Post
Well I'd say scoped .30wcf is more the advent of innovation rather than window dressing . With the advances hornady has made you are on a fine line of needing a scope and not .

150yrds ? Good peep sight n you're good . 250yrds which is definitely probly max range for hunting for this rifle may be just out of a peepsight ability or a shooters ability when trying to make a humane kill.

But I agree before hornady ballistic flex tip a scope really wasnt needed . But now? Im sure glad they made that rifle able to accept a scope cause even with a williams peep I dunno if I'm good enough to make a humane killshot at 200+
I agree that if that is the only or preferred option in the arsenal then it makes sense to give it every advantage possibly like modern Hornady Leverevolution ammo and a scope if capable. My '94 is a 1919 build with a factory tang peep that I can use very well so it will never see a scope or ballistic tip ammo because it only goes out when the weather is nice and I just want to go for a walk with an old gun is search of a short shot of opportunity. More nostalgia than hunting. When I want to hunt and not limit myself one the the bolt guns comes out to play, all of those are scoped for their use.

In any case again, there is not such thing as a bad 94, pre or post 64, in my book.
Wambli is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013, 02:28 AM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4795 Times on 2681 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

Not a bad Mdl. 94? Have you ever seen one that was made in 1965?
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013, 02:28 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Great North Woods
Posts: 2,565
Liked 2055 Times on 1074 Posts
Likes Given: 392

Default

What I have always wondered.....if the darn pre-64's are known to be so good (which I believe they are from what I have seen and heard)....WHY NOT MAKE THEM PER THAT DESIGN AND BY THE SAME METHOD.....NOW?



sure seems like there would be a HUGE market for them! (ie: re-tooling, non-automated should not be the reason why they don't)
chloeshooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Winchester 1894 30-30 Rich1028 General Rifle Discussion 16 09-27-2012 02:31 PM
cleaning winchester 1894 30-30? Rich1028 Cleaning and Maintenance 1 09-22-2012 08:51 PM
Winchester 1894 Davyboy Curio & Relic Discussion 11 09-11-2012 07:37 AM
Winchester Model 1894 HChevy66 Gunsmithing Forum 4 08-13-2011 10:32 PM
Winchester 1894 30-30 what a blast Pastense General Rifle Discussion 9 04-30-2011 01:47 AM



Newest Threads