Winchester 1894 pre '64 vs Post 64

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by Gh0zt36, Dec 11, 2013.

  1. Gh0zt36

    Gh0zt36 Active Member

    1,523
    0
    36
    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 ?
     
  2. stratrider

    stratrider New Member

    1,590
    0
    0
    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.
     

  3. Gh0zt36

    Gh0zt36 Active Member

    1,523
    0
    36
    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
     
  4. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    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.:(
     
  5. hiwall

    hiwall Well-Known Member

    4,269
    22
    48
    I believe the stamped steel cartridge lifters were in the 60's. Winchester went back to solid lifters. After alot of grief.
     
  6. Wambli

    Wambli New Member

    958
    0
    0
    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.
     
  7. Gh0zt36

    Gh0zt36 Active Member

    1,523
    0
    36
    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+
     
  8. Wambli

    Wambli New Member

    958
    0
    0
    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.
     
  9. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    Not a bad Mdl. 94? Have you ever seen one that was made in 1965?:eek:
     
  10. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    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?

    :confused:

    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)
     
  11. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    I'm personally not a huge fan of them. They are nice guns. They tend to be a great source for scumbags to make quick money from beginner shooters at gun shows. I've had too many come across my bench that had mismatched or just plain wrong parts in them. They suck to work on and look like you are ripping their guts out when you cycle them. IMO top eject is just stupid. It makes mounting a scope a hassle ,and who the hell wants hot casing bouncing off their head?
    Pre or post I don't care, I'll take a Marlin at half the price.
     
  12. mopowerbmx

    mopowerbmx New Member

    1,093
    0
    0
    I have a model 94 built mid 1974 . One year shy of being 40 years old. Still a great shooter.
     
  13. nchunt101

    nchunt101 New Member

    1,202
    0
    0
     
  14. Winchester94

    Winchester94 New Member

    840
    0
    0
    Why do the post-64's not hold bluing as well? My grandfather's pre-64's bluing looks much better than mine, even before mine started wearing off.
     
  15. TLuker

    TLuker New Member

    3,937
    0
    0
    They don't make them that way anymore because there wouldn't be a market for it. The guns made that way would cost too much. How many new Winchester M70 classics have you seen compared to Savages, Mossbergs, and the Ruger American?

    Winchester made the best bolt actions and lever actions ever made until 1964, but everyone else was gaining market share because the Winchesters were more expensive than everything else. I've always felt like Winchester was in a really bad position. They had to intentionally cut back on quality in order to make cheaper guns to compete with everybody else's cheap guns. That upset all the die hards but it was something that had to be done for the company to remain competitive.

    That trend towards cheaper guns never ended. All the manufacturers offer a cheap bolt action now. They shoot well but in terms of quality they aren't even in the same category as some of those old rifles. Everything now is disposable including rifles. Those old rifles were built to last forever, which also hurt sales. After someone bought one they never needed another one. :(
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2013
  16. Wambli

    Wambli New Member

    958
    0
    0
    Lol. Yeah there is that... But still much better than some of the junk I've handled over the years...;)
     
  17. Gh0zt36

    Gh0zt36 Active Member

    1,523
    0
    36
    Its not they dont but they can be prone to bluing not holding as well because of the composition of sintered steel the receiver is made out of . But as I said in the OP my nearly 30yo early 1985 94AE bluing is in excellent condition.
     
  18. robertusa123

    robertusa123 New Member

    348
    0
    0
    I have a 1971 module that I inherited. Its a nice rifle. But if I was to buy one. I would have gotten the marlin its much cheeper
     
  19. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    The Mdle. 94 is much more popular in the West than is the Marlin. The open top allows easier access to the chamber. A rifle carried on a saddle or is out in the weather often has a stuck case. When your only tool is a stockmans knife a closed Marlin receiver is impossible to clear. When feeding single rounds the open top is also an advantage. Scoping a saddle carbine is not something that is often seen.
    My own Mdl. 94 circa 1957 has been a faithful and dependable rifle.:)
     
  20. AR10

    AR10 New Member

    2,264
    0
    0
    I have a 1998 & 1956 Traded my 1919 for a .308 AR10