"pre-64" Winchester questions

[Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580]

I realize that the Winchester model 70 bolt action rifle was modified in 1964 to decrease the cost of manufacturing or whatever, so labeling a model 70 with "pre-64" makes sense to me. The questions that I have relate, however, to the model 94. Hither and yon I've seen model 94's labeled as being "pre-64", with the apparent idea that such a label adds value to the piece. But does it really? Was there some sort of modification made to the model 94 in 1964 that would make the later guns inferior to the older ones as seems to be indicated by folks? I'm asking from a position of, if not ignorance, then a lack of specific knowledge, which lack I would like to remedy and I figured that here would be a good place to do so..

 

Enquiring minds (or this one anyway) would like to know!

 

Thanks in advance for any info that you might like to share, folks!

[Alpo]

My understanding, and I am by no means of Winchester collector so I could be completely confused with this, is it in 1964 Winchester changed the way they make all of their guns. Not just the Model 70. ALL of them. Less forgings, more stampings. So yes, a pre-64 Model 94 is more better then a 64 and later Model 94.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

The biggest difference with the 64 models was they used some stamped parts.  The carrier was stamped and was junk.  If you look in one of the post 94s with the lever down it is just a flat piece of sheet metal.  Several years later they realized the error of their ways (sort of like when they started making controlled round feed model 70s again) and went to a cast carrier that at least looked like the old one and functioned better.

[Pulp, SASS#28319]

Yep, there is a difference.  Mine, made in ‘53 or ‘54 is a good pound heavier and doesn’t rattle when shaken.  The newer receiver is a different kind of steel.

https://www.gunvaluesboard.com/why-are-the-winchester-model-94-pre-1964s-worth-more-than-the-post-1964s....-395764.html

Regardless of pre or post, ain’t no deer ever outran the bullet from one.

[Dutch Nichols, SASS #6461]

Pre 64's were better built. The post 94's used as stated less forgings and other production shortcuts.

Post 64 1894's were a mess as to metallurgy.Receivers were made of 4 different type metal alloys

depending on year of manufacture. A couple of those years saw baked on finishes to resemble bluing 

and other means to blue them.

 

Design changes

Winchester 94 variants.

Three major changes have been made in the design and construction of the Winchester 1894 since World War II, all tied to major shifts in Winchester's corporate leadership and direction. The first and largest came in 1964, after the 1963 resignation of gun enthusiast John M. Olin from the presidency of the company he founded, Olin Corporation. The second came in 1982, after Olin's 1981 sale of the Winchester factory to its employees, who formed the U.S. Repeating Arms Company (USRAC). The third in 1992, after the 1989 bankruptcy of USRAC and its subsequent purchase by FN Herstal, which sought to market Winchester guns worldwide.

1964

Upon Olin's retirement, Olin Corporation's new chief executives sought to maximize company profitability, giving corporate preference to its flourishing chemical business over gun production, which was unprofitable and labor-intensive. As a result, Winchester ceased machining both the receiver and many small parts of the Model 94 out of solid steel billet as of 1964. Sintered steel was used on the receiver, stamped sheet metal for the cartridge lifter, and hollow rather than solid steel roll pins used in the action. While the rifle's function, safety, and accuracy were not adversely affected, the changes—in particular the sintered receiver, which was as strong as its solid-steel predecessor but which did not respond well to a traditional blued finish—were conspicuous and came as Winchester made even more fundamental changes to its flagship Model 70 bolt-action rifle. Taken together, they were seen as a retreat from quality production across the company's whole range, seriously damaging Winchester's reputation for making quality firearms in the process. In response, many sought out rifles made before 1964, (pre '64),[9] which command a markedly higher resale value on the gun market to this day.

1982

One of the drawbacks of the original Model 1894 action in relation to competitors like the Marlin Model 336 was that the Winchester ejects cartridges from the top of the receiver and over the user's shoulder, rather than to the side. A top-ejecting firearm cannot mount a telescopic scope on top of the receiver—the most convenient location for the shooter—without interfering with cartridge ejection. A scope for such a firearm must instead be mounted either far forward on the barrel (where it must be specifically designed for the purpose), or offset to the side of the gun (which creates problems due to parallax). Both options seriously degrade the usefulness of a scope for such a rifle.

This was not a major concern when the gun was originally designed; the most common upgrade to guns of the pre–World War II era was the installation of a peep sight to the rear of the receiver, which maximized the accuracy potential of the factory-installed iron sights. Winchester had long had mounting holes pre-drilled in the receiver of the gun to accommodate such a modification, and it was by far the most common upgrade installed on the Model 94 for most of its history. Nevertheless, consumer tastes changed in the years after World War II as high quality scopes became both widely available and affordable.[16] Commercial acceptance of the new scopes was likewise rapid, and by the 1970s the ability to use receiver-mounted scopes on hunting rifles had become expected by most gun buyers. With the competition able to mount scopes on its receivers without difficulty, this shortcoming was blamed for falling sales. In response, Winchester changed the design of the action in 1982 to angled cartridge ejection, which ejects fired cartridges at an angle that allows the rifle to function while fitted with a conventional receiver-mounted scope.[16]

1992

Despite these changes, U.S. Repeating Arms did not flourish, declaring bankruptcy in 1989. It was subsequently purchased by Belgian arms maker FN Herstal, which set about improving the whole Winchester line, instituting modern CNC methods of production at Winchester's factory while also seeking to expand the sales and marketing of Winchester rifles worldwide. This effort would culminate in two major changes to the gun in 1992: the reintroducing of now-CNC-machined parts and solid pins back into the action, and the elimination of the traditional half-cock safety notch on the hammer in favor of a cross-bolt safety, which enabled the gun to be sold internationally.

Though the increase in build quality was noted at the time, it was the conspicuous presence of the new safety that generated the strongest opinions. It was widely reviled by American consumers and gun writers alike as a "lawyer" safety, who said it detracted from the overall look, feel, and operation of the rifle. FNH and Winchester responded in 2003 by moving the safety to the tang behind the receiver, which largely quelled the controversy. Both the last Model 94s to leave the New Haven factory before American production ceased in 2006 and the new Model 94s produced in Japan since 2010 by Miroku Corp. feature these tang-mounted safety.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

Part of the reason why Winchester cranked out so many commemorative Model 94s from the late 60s onward was because it was easier to plate the sintered receivers than blue them, and since they were going for bling anyway...

 

I have two post-64 Model 94s, both commemoratives. One is a 1967 Canadian Centennial that used to be my dad's favorite rifle. He bought the later cast lifter and some other parts from Winchester and had a gunsmith install them. I also have a 1977 Wells Fargo that I bought simply because it has really nice wood furniture on it. Both are pretty decent shooters, although the accuracy is nothing to get excited about.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

BTW the reason why Winchester introduced the crossbolt safety was because of a lawsuit from the family of a hunter who shot himself out of a tree with a pre-safety Model 94. The dude climbed the tree to reach his tree stand, and he had tied a rope to the muzzle of his rifle which he used to hoist it up afterwards. Problem is, it had one of those hammer extensions on it for easier thumb-cocking with a scope. As the rifle was pulled upwards a branch caught on the extension and cocked the hammer. Then another branch ended up snagging on the trigger, and.....

[Yellowhouse Sam # 25171]

10 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

BTW the reason why Winchester introduced the crossbolt safety was because of a lawsuit from the family of a hunter who shot himself out of a tree with a pre-safety Model 94. The dude climbed the tree to reach his tree stand, and he had tied a rope to the muzzle of his rifle which he used to hoist it up afterwards. Problem is, it had one of those hammer extensions on it for easier thumb-cocking with a scope. As the rifle was pulled upwards a branch caught on the extension and cocked the hammer. Then another branch ended up snagging on the trigger, and.....

 

 

Its really hard to out design stupid.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

It's really hard to defeat stupid juries who actually buy these sob stories.

[Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580]

Thanks for the info, folks!

[Perro Del Diablo]

For the model 70 pre 64 had control feed bolt just like a Mauser. Post 64 they introduced the push feed bolt similar to the rem model 700. The  Mauser style bolt has been reintroduced.  There are also kimber and others who use the Mauser bolt

[Pat Riot]

The biggest gripe I have heard regarding the post 64 model ‘94s is the cross bolt safety. Much like the S&W internal lock it is shunned and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over it. 

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

I have a model 94 made in 1949, and a model 94 made in 1966. 

 

The difference is very apparent...in the way it: sounds; racks, feels; looks; quality of wood to metal fit; workmanship. 

 

They both shoot, but the pre-64 is more accurate, for whatever reason.

 

Other than that, I can't tell the difference.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Back in '78 or '79 (damn, that was a long time ago!) I set out to buy a new '94 for my kid brother.  I visited a bunch of shops throughout the Bay Area, and handled over thirty rifles (carbines) before I finally selected one at Stan's Sporting Goods in Daly City. 

 

I scrutinized each rifle carefully, noting obvious things like the wood quality, wood-to-metal fitting, and  I also shook each one.  Every single one of 'em rattled - some worse than others - except the one that I finally bought.  AND it not only had  better-than-the-rest fitting, but the wood itself was unusually nicely patterned.  Actually, other than the phony "bluing," it was a handsome piece; it felt as solid as a product of an earlier generation.  All purely an "accident of birth;" I reckon the law of averages would dictate that eventually one would slip through with a collection of parts that mated better than most.

 

My son now has the rifle.  Accuracy is adequate; my 1971 Marlin 336 is more accurate, but the Winchester is acceptable.

 

The worst feature of the piece is undoubtedly the imitation bluing.  Small touch-up best accomplished with a Sharpie; anything beyond a simple scratch one might as well just accept as just adding to the character.             

 

Other than that, it's still "Gee Dad, a "