The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 4, 2013, 03:12 PM   #1
SRE
Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Location: Southern York County, PA
Posts: 95
1964 Winchester Model 94 Receiver Finish?

Please check out my attached pic of my Winchester Model 94. This rifle was as per serial number was made in 1964. I've had this rifle for a while, acquired it in a trade and am wonder if anyone has seen this receiver finish before. The barrel is blued and gorgeous as well as everything else that is supposed to be. Except for this receiver, the way the finish is, inside the receiver and out, it appears to be factory. Can my assumptions be correct? Or did someone just do a really good job of removing the bluing some time ago?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_1431.jpg (243.5 KB, 105 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_1432.jpg (240.5 KB, 89 views)
__________________
Combat Commander
SRE is offline  
Old July 4, 2013, 03:27 PM   #2
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4,609
In 1964 Winchester changed several things about the Model 94 to cheapen manufacture, which also cheapened quality.

One was the switch to a sintered metal (sorta a cast process) in place of a forged steel frame.
The new process metal wouldn't take conventional bluing, so it was iron plated, and the iron could then be blued.
The result was a finish that didn't hold up well with use & frequently ended up wearing off or rusting. Or both.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old July 4, 2013, 03:39 PM   #3
BillM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: Amity Oregon
Posts: 343
As mentioned above, they tried to make them cheaper by changing the
receiver metal. The finish wears, gets rust freckles, and generally doesn't
hold up well.

I sort of suspect that your gun has been refinished. The edges on the
receiver look a little soft, and some of the screw holes look a touch
dished. One of the other attributes of the "new and improved" '64
metal was that it doesn't re-blue well. Usually comes out some shade of
gray or purple. Your finish is pretty even over the whole receiver, I'm
thinking it was polished out and tanked, with poor results.
BillM is offline  
Old July 4, 2013, 03:49 PM   #4
SRE
Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Location: Southern York County, PA
Posts: 95
Polished out and tanked?

I know all about pre/post 64 pre/post war etc... this receiver just looks different, and its hard to explain. Pics do not do it justice, in person the gun looks almost like you want to say it came that way from the factory. But pointed taken on the dishing. I can see that faintly.
__________________
Combat Commander
SRE is offline  
Old July 4, 2013, 03:52 PM   #5
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4,609
He was saying if it had rusted beyond its previous owner's ability to tolerate, it could have been polished to remove the rust & oxidized surface and then dunked in a bluing tank, which wouldn't have produced a normal blued appearance.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 04:20 PM   #6
PetahW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 4,679
.

It's a reblue that didn't "take" on the receiver, due to the reason(s) listed above about the change from a forged steel receiver in 1963 to one of sintered (pressed powdered) metal (steel ?) in the 1964 model year.



.
PetahW is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 05:59 PM   #7
LAH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2002
Location: In The Hardwoods
Posts: 918
I also have a 94 made in 1964. My receiver is exactly like yours only more worn. I love the way it looks. Mine isn't a re blue, the blue is just worn away. The little rifle functions like a champ & shoots very well with my cast loads.
LAH is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 10:38 AM   #8
Malamute
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2004
Location: Rocky Mts
Posts: 820
I had one that went motley off colored. I tried to cold blue it but it didnt take well. After trying several types, the stuff from Brownells did best, tho it looked more like color case hardening than blue. A guy on the leverguns forum refinished one by carefully sanding/polishing off the iron plating, then cold blueing, it turned out pretty decent actually. It took the cold blue pretty well.
__________________
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-
Malamute is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 02:35 PM   #9
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,634
My ex-son in law has a post 64 M94 that had the bluing on the receiver go bad. He polished the reeiver down to bare metal and cave it some kind of clear coating that was not shiny. Make a pretty nice looking gun. I do have an M94 made on or about 1981 (when I bought it NIB) that is a servicable rifle but is a bit loose and rattely. Shoots OK and is good enough to be a truck gun. Shoots cast bullets just fine. If the receiver ever gets ratty looking, so be it. After all, truck guns ain't supposed to look purty.
Paul B.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old July 8, 2013, 03:56 PM   #10
Jack O'Conner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2005
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,481
The alloy used in the mid-1960's to late 1970's did not "hold" traditional bluing very well. One way to refinish is with powder-coating in flat black.

Jack
__________________
Fire up the grill! Deer hunting IS NOT catch and release.
Jack O'Conner is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 01:06 PM   #11
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,719
Quote:
The alloy used in the mid-1960's to late 1970's did not "hold" traditional bluing very well. One way to refinish is with powder-coating in flat black.
I'd rather have it scruffy looking.
Hawg is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 01:21 PM   #12
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,000
I thought Winchester went to a cast receiver in 1964, not a sintered metal receiver...
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 01:30 PM   #13
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4,609
Nope, sintered.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 01:49 PM   #14
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,719
Most of what I've found says sintered.
Hawg is offline  
Old July 9, 2013, 06:17 PM   #15
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4,609
Several years ago I was told sintered by Winchester people.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 06:05 AM   #16
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,000
I've looked into it a bit more and yep, it's sintered graphitic steel.

Interesting. I had thought that they went to castings.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 06:28 AM   #17
giaquir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2006
Location: Deerfield,New Hampshire
Posts: 416
I'd be proud to own that rifle.
It looks great.
ron
giaquir is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 11:01 AM   #18
hammie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 570
@MIKEIRWIN: Like you, I always thought it was a casting. Powdered metal technology was still in its infancy in 1964, and I've been skeptical that a receiver could be made with the necessary tensile and shear strength for that application. However, I'm not a metallurgist.

I've never found an authoritative source for the casting versus sintered metal question in the post '64 receivers. Apparently you did. Thanks for setting the matter to rest.
hammie is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 11:07 AM   #19
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,000
Hammie,

Let's make certain that we're talking correct terms...

The receivers are NOT metal injection molded, in which powdered metal is put into a form and then subjected to extreme pressure.


In the sintering process apparently used by Winchester, powdered metal is put into a form, which is then heated to melt the metal. At least I think that's the process that Winchester used.

That kind of sintering process allows very precise control of additives to the metal powder, giving the finished product the exact properties that they want.

Apparently the process is faster, and cheaper, than the traditional method of milling from a billet of steel.

It's SORT of like casting in that both use forms.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 12:01 PM   #20
hammie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 570
@MI: I appreciate the clarification.
hammie is offline  
Old July 10, 2013, 06:07 PM   #21
DPris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 4,609
Sintered metal was adopted solely because it was cheaper than complex milling on a forged frame.
Quicker was a good part of it.
Denis
DPris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11210 seconds with 10 queries