Quality of 70s-era Winchester 94s ??

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

I have owned a couple 1970 models. I liked mine as I knew they can handle the abuse I put them thru back in the woods without so much as a single misfire experienced from either. Would I treat my a pre-64 94 models the same. Absolutely not. Although better made in many ways. They do garner more respectful useage you know.
Recently I gave one of my 70s made away to my son with the understanding not to baby it. Son has a nib early factory peep sighted Ruger 44 carbine. His safe queen. And a early Ruger model 77 Flat bolt 243 twin to mine. Never thought the 70s 30-30 would become his favorite shooter when told. Dented dinged loose as a goose rattling >he loves it. I suspect a littl part of that loving is due too. When I had it. It was a spot on bench rested bullseye 100 yard shooter with my hand-loads chambered. Frankly: I was a skeptic at first whether he would like. Now.~~ I'm tickled he's enjoying that so often moniker-ed hung on> one of Winchesters worst. ~~~I wish I had a few more of em to give away.

[bobn]

I have a perfect solution for anybody that doesn't like the made in new haven 1970s Winchesters.

first complain about the quality.
second complain about the high price of union labor.
third and finally buy one made in japan, pay five times what they cost back then and now brag about how good it is.

bobn

ps glad to have my made in new haven Winchesters.

[stubbicatt]

Over the years I have owned a few 94's. Initially, they were all the carbine versions. Some pre 64, some post. My father bought one in the 70's, and it was new in the box when I sold it after he passed. There was nothing wrong with the 70's version that I could tell.

My main complaint is for the round fired (30WCF) the recoil seemed more stout than it needs to be.

Then here recently I bought a 1904 rifle with 26" barrel. Sorry gents, this one is pretty ugly due to wear and some neglect, but it is coming back slowly. However the fit and quality of this one is much better than any of the others I have. (I would say fit and finish, but it pretty much lacks finish except the triggers and barrel). It also lacks the "lever safety" that many have. I have installed a tang sight and globe and post for lever action silhouette shooting. Thing shoots great too.

My sole complaint is the crescent or rifle style buttplate, or recoil magnifier.

[thibaultfelix40]

I am a retired research engineer and a dedicated even fanatically obsessed lever action nut. I got hung up on the corroding receivers of post 64 Winchester 94's and started researching. Here is what I found. The receiver is a "casting" of powdered metal. The blend actually produces a steel with stainless characteristics. Now in 1964 guns weren't susposed to be stainless they were supposed to be blued. Somebody came up with the idea to plate the receivers with iron and blue that. So they did. But plating often does not stick to well to stainless. And iron rusts. So a 70's model 94 has a wonderful finish on its receiver under whatever crap it was coated with. I like to sand them and engine turn them. Then they look great. People will stop in their tracks at the gunshow to look at them. Another thing I hear caterwaling about is they rattle. They're susposed to. As far as I am concerned if they don't rattle, they're broken. People complain that they are hard to take appart and reassemble. This complaint fell off the south end of a north headed bull. Besides which you just don't need to take them apart to clean them. Get some spray on cleaning stuff, flip the lever so the guts fall out and have at it. A bore snake will help. The last 94 I bought was $249 + tax. A couple of hours work could make it into a $500 or more gun. The post 64 guns have a coil mainspring which may be an advantage. Many have pretty walnut stocks. I have never had a pre64 and I don't see why I should. I surely love my 70's model.

[Targa]

I am pretty fond of my 78' 94 as well.

[Gunplummer]

"No zinc alloys used in real firearms". You might want to check out some of the older Ithaca guns. I still have a .22 and have seen shotguns made by them also made with "Potmetal" receivers.

[jhgreasemonkey]

Mine is from the early 70's. The black chrome finish on the receiver still looks nice. The rifle has always functioned fine and is accurate. I wouldn't sell or trade it for anything.

[rightside]

You get your feelings hurt by what you read on the internet? Really?
Come on, Nancy!!

[Clark]

Mine is made in 1978.
I got it for $180 in 2003.
It has always worked perfectly and is accurate.

Someone on the internet sent me a scope mount. I removed the rear sight.
I put a scope on it and it shoot at 100 yards with cast bullets. Best gun I have for cast bullets.

[dgludwig]

Though all Model 94s ever made were/are reliable, durable rifles, there are significant differences between post and pre-1964 Model 94s in terms of the quality of the parts and finish; mostly rectified by Winchester/ The Winchester Repeating Arms Company (USRAC) by 1983, around serial numbers after 5,300,000 with the advent of the "Sixth Model" (6A Angle-Eject, 6B Angle-Eject with Button Safety and 6C Angle Eject with Tang Safety).

Though I've referenced author Robert C. Renneberg's description of the deficiencies in terms of the quality of parts and finishes of Model 94s made from 1964 through 1983 in his excellent book "Winchester Model 94, A Century of Craftsmanship" before in this forum, some of which he reported might bear repeating here again.

Starting with the "Third Model" (serial numbers beginning with 2,700,000 to about 4,600,000; from 1964 to 1978), which delineates the "infamous" pre-64/post 64 changeover, Mr. Renneberg advised that the "new" models "...rattled when you shook it. The action was an abomination with a flimsy sheet steel stamping serving as the carrier, and the receiver itself didn't take kindly to the bluing process. Even the fit and finish of the wood was terrible-on a par with the rest of the gun...

"The receiver itself was now a casting, an investment casting. The material from which it was cast was an alloy of some kind of 'mystery metal' that not only resisted polishing but also refused to adequately react to the bluing solution. This alloy proved to be so inhospitable to finishing that it finally had to be plated with iron just to provide a consistent medium upon which the bluing solution could react...

"The final solution was to use a black oxide finish, that while in reality was hardly more durable, but at least had a smoother, higher quality finish.

The machining of this receiver could only be called adequate. Visible machine marks on the interior surfaces show little or no attempt at elimination, and this condition was unfortunately carried over externally to the sides of the lever and hammer as well...

"The lifter/carrier assembly became a simple stamping of blued steel and had a particularly loose and sloppy fit (hence the rattle)....

"In concert, these changes in design and lapses in quality were publicly criticized, harshly denigrated, and deemed far less than satisfactory for an arm that carried the name Winchester..."

[tahoe2]

I have a 1974 Model 94 "top eject" in 30-30 Winchester that barely shoots under 2" @ 100, and I can hit a clay pigeon at 150-160 yds
on the bank every time, with my Williams peep sight and Gold bead up front, it has maybe 500-600 rounds through it.
Never had a jam or FTE (fail to eject), it seems to like Speer, Hornady, and Sierra flat points about the same,
albeit a different powder with each bullet to achieve the same results. It has really nice wood for a cheaper version.
I don't hunt with it due to my other selections in the safe , but I would never feel like it's not capable of being a suitable "brush gun",
it's light and handy, comes to shoulder quickly, and if I was a farmer or rancher it would probably always be by my side.
But I live in the suburbs, so it goes plinking on occasions and is a great teaching tool for new shooters,
a 150 cast boolit @ 2000 fps is a lot of fun to shoot with just enough recoil to feel like something!!

Who cares what some BOZO says on youtube anyway?

[eastbank]

with the new winchester 94,s costing 800-1000 dollars a good used per-64 94 looks good. round here a decent pre-64 94 carbine goes for 500-600, i have half a dozen i bought for that and some less at yard sales and flea markets. i bought a real nice pre-64 round barreled 94 rifle in 32-40 with a ex bore for 725.00 last year at a flea market. i would sooner have a good used pre-64 win 94 than any newer 94. i do agree the prices for pre-64 win 94,s seem to be regional, here they are not to bad. i also bought a realy nice model 70 in 270 with a older 4x weaver made in 1951 for 620.00 dollars. with that being said,i own a win AE 94 timber carbine in 444 marlin and a win AE 94 legacy rifle in 44 mag. both have super wood and metal finish and are good shooters. eastbank.

[KAOS THE CAT]

Hello, I realize this is an old (but relevant thread). I recently inherited what appears to be a rather nice condition Winchester 94 .30-.30

Upon checking the Serial number, I learned this Rifle was made in 1971.

Most everything about this Rifles looks nearly new. The Barrel's bore is PRISTINE and I dear say this Rifle hasn't fired but a few rounds. The Action works nicely/smooth. All this being said, the Cartridge Carrier of the 1971 Carbine has a "Stamped" Carrier and as such, I can't help but shake the feeling I now own an "inferior" Rifle. Perhaps I'm (disheartened) influenced too much by Internet reviews. At any rate, should I consider having the Carrier changed out or leave well enough alone ? Also (and I'm rather surprised) I THOUGHT by 1970's, the complaints of the Post 64 Winchester 94 have been addressed. So, if this (new to me) Rifle has a "Stamped Carrier" might there be other "inferior" parts/issues I need to address ? Thank you.

KAOS THE CAT

[ThomasT]

Kaos the best thing you can do is turn off the computer and just go shoot your gun. Everybody has an opinion on these guns but the real proof is in the shooting. And IIRC Winnchester made over 7 million of these guns. So if you happen to break a part you should be able to find a spare.

[Blindstitch]

As he said use the rifle and make your own opinion.

I have a scope on mine (1971 or 2) but I pull it out ever deer season as a backup and it shot two bullseyes in a row at 25 yards the last time I used it.

It may be my backup but it isn't junk.

[KAOS THE CAT]

Wise words Gentleman. Thank You.

KAOS THE CAT

[Guv]

USRAC 94's took a big step towards improving the quality of the 94.

[Jack O'Conner]

My best friend bought a new Winchester 94 in 1970 for around $85.00 as I recall. He attached a 4X Bushnell scope with a side mount and has proceeded to topple scores of Pennsylvania whitetails with this accurate carbine. The original blueing upon the receiver is long gone but does not affect functionality or accuracy at all.

Jack

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

I own a 70s model 94 turdy-turdy. I'm disappointed that something like mine was allowed to be marketed. >I do consider mine junk!

Loose as a goose/ hollow pins/ pealing bluing/ a joke for a carrier (cartridge lifter) a main spring that makes its hammer feel like a rebounding one. I see no benefit in smoozing interested others into believing such Post 1964 94s were acceptable.

Thank goodness I do own another 30 wcf model 94s made prior to 1964. I can say without hesitation and in all honesty. "There most certainly is a world of difference between materials ,build and function a Pre 1964 has when compared to a Post 1964 model 94 that doesn't."

[KAOS THE CAT]

Hello SS,

Wow! Sorry to hear your 1970's Winchester 94 is such a disappointment.
Perhaps I got lucky as my circa 1971 (while it does have a "stamped" carrier) everything else appears to be righteous. That is the say, the Bluing is DARK Blue and looks fantastic, the Action is smooth and works without problem. The barrels bore is in PRISTINE condition. Perhaps this is due to (I suspect) this Rifle seeing very little use. I can only hope at least SOME of the issues you noted on your Rifle were beginning to be addressed by the time my Rifle was made in 1971.
At this point, the only modification I plan on doing to this Rifle is installing a Williams FP Peep sight as my 60 plus year old Eyes need help. I'm not sure if I should go with the TK (Target Knob) version (more expensive) or the more simple FP 94/36 (less expensive). I look forward to shooting this Rifle when time allows. Best of luck.

KAOS THE CAT

[dgludwig]

KAOS THE CAT, if you don't plan on changing the sight much once the gun is sighted-in, there's no reason that I can see to have bush-snagging Target Knobs on a hunting rifle. I have Williams "Fool Proof" receiver sights mounted on several of my hunting rifles, sans the target knobs, and have never missed them.
Receiver sights being used for target competition, when the sights are being adjusted often to address different distances to the target, accommodating varying wind conditions, using a diversity of ammunition/bullet weights, etc., is, of course, a different matter altogether.

[KAOS THE CAT]

Hi dg,

Thanks for your input on the Williams sight. I think I have to agree with you.....the less expensive (and I suspect slightly smaller) Williams FP sights make great sense. I do believe I WILL go this route. I'd like to sight it in and leave it alone! Thanks again.

KAOS THE CAT

[thibaultfelix40]

KAOS, you can go even cheaper and simpler with the Williams 5D sight. Mine held zero for years on a Marlin 39 D. It provides just as good hole to look through.

[ThomasT]

I put a williams 5D on my Winchester and the bead front sight works without needing a taller front. I really need to replace the bead with a blade front but for the ranges I am using the gun the bead will work. And I already had the 5D sight on hand. And once its set it doesn't move. Only if you change ammo brands or bullet weights will you need to re-zero.

[KAOS THE CAT]

Hi guys,

Oooh yes, I completely forgot about the 5D. Thanks for the reminder.
Well then, I guess it's going to be between either the Williams 5D or FP.


KAOS THE CAT