Winchester 94

[BeagleDog]

Does the lever action pre-64 have the same "good" qualities that the pre-64 bolt actions have? Curious as I have a chance to possibly purchase a 1953 30-30 that looks in pretty darn good shape. Does anyone have a blue book that they could look at the 1953, say in "good" condition and let me know what they are showing as a price?

Thanks for any help.

 

[ElKabong]

300 rough to 600 excellent is the range I see them in
Assuming a plain Jane 30-30
Most will be in the 350 to 450 range around here

 

[Woodbeef]

Yup,the pre-64 Model 94s are much better than the post ones.

 

[LuckenbachTexas]

They started making them good again. The early Post 64's with stamped parts and the rangers gave the rest a bad rap.

 

[TRanger]

The pre-64 94 is, indeed, a better rifle.

 

[jpdesign]

from what I read once, a while back so don't hold me to it.

in '64 the switched to a sintured(sp?) reciever intead of milled, and serveral of the interior parts switched to stamped, instead of cast or milled. by the mid seventies they were using better made parts again.

Jimmy

 

[Chuckfish]

I have a pre-64 model and after 51 years it just as good as it was when new only alot smoother. Yes they are better.

 

[Floridaoutdoors]

Would not let my 1981 Win 94 Trapper go

 

[mohavesam]

Get Rennenberg's books, or at least one of them.

The "pre-64" 1894 guns were essentially hand-fitted. Not because Winchester set out to build hand-made custom guns, but because quality of parts was so uncontrolled that fitters sat down each day to bins of sears, triggers, pins, levers, bolts, etc and sorted through piles of parts to find "matches". They went from there to filing and stoning and the end result was quite often an essentially hand-fitted assembly. Good for the buyer - not so good for the business. And explains why it was more difficult than it should be to interchange parts from one gun to another in the post-war through 1963.

Lots of manufacturing changes between 1964 and the 1997-98 production, from plated cast iron receivers to carbon and alloy externals to stamped and cast internals. 1984 production changes is a tough read... quite a science!

I find it amazing that over the millions (that is still a lot) made, even the "worst" 94's were quite good machines.

 

[montegomx70]

i would rather have a crap old one than a new japanese one

 

[smitty_bs]

I've got a 1950 version and had a 1967 version. Compared side-to-side the bluing on the '50 version is much better. The '67 version (and I've heard other late '60s versions) used some sort of casting for the receivers and therefore a different bluing which didn't seem as durable. That changed, I believe, in the early 70s and things got better again. The '67 version rifle functioned flawlessly, it just didn't look as good.

 

[FergusonTO35]

Winchester's build quality, as opposed to quality of design or materials, seems to have been what killed them more than anything else. The 94 is a rather complex, late 19th century design which does not adapt well to economical mass production compared to more recent designs. More than anything else the 94 needs close tolerances to work well. This is difficult to carry out without alot of hand fitting. In the interest of getting rifles out the door Winchester whittled the QC target of the Ranger models down to practically nothing. Many of them exhibited yawning gaps between wood and metal, forends that wouldn't stay tight, barrels canted to the left or right, and finger lever floorplates that would unlatch by gravity alone. In 2003 I purchased a brand new 94 that exhibited all of these defects.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

We had tons of '94s around our shop over the years when I ran the range. The boss, his son and some of our smiths were pretty well sold on pre-'64 Winchesters. I kinda missed that bandwagon: by the time I bought my '94, the prices on pre-'64s were getting "up there" and $200 for one made around '76 seemed a good enough deal.

I've read the one I got was built when Winchester had "gone back" for a couple of years to producing a gun that was as close as they could get to the pre-'64. To tell the truth, yes, it's a bit rough, but so were many of those pre-'64s in the shop! It shoots just as well. And I imagine if I ever shoot it as much as SOME of those older ones had been, it'll be as smooth as they are!

As for prices, they took quite a jump right after Winchester shut down the New Haven facility, but I see prices in the $400-$500 range for decent specimens and $100-$200 more for fairly nice pre-'64s around here these days...

Rick C

 

[57springer]

Bought a 94 trapper new in the mid 90s and it was horrible .It was the worst gun I ever had threw bullets all over , traded it back in on a turkey gun , ..... Always wondered what ever became of it .?

 

[single action]

in my opionion the 94 has been periodically a feast and famine when it comes to quality. the low light was immediately after the changes of 64 and due to the outcry by the public became better with the hightlight being the big bore models of the early 80s. Just before USRAC took over and the quality was good till the lawyers got a hold of the safety system and put that crappy cross bolt system, due to that change I do not put much of any value on that group of guns. I believe their value is nominal. In spite of some comments on the Japaneese winchester I purchased serial number 10 of the new Miroku guns and the bluing, fit and finish are extrodinary. As are my Citoris, and other Browning firearms which have been made in both Japan and Belgium. I have 94 from 1912 to now and they each have their own individual qualities and stories. IMHO sa