I've been looking to buy a 94, have wanted to add one to my collection for a long time.

problem is, I don't know very much about them.

I've heard comments like "be sure to get a pre 64, the ones after were junk".

really? I'd like to hear some informed opinions from you guys.

probably can't afford a pre 64 model as nice ones are $$$.

any models or particular years to avoid of the later ones?

thanks.

Do you insist on a Winchester Model 1894 ,or do you just want a good, Winchester-type (design) lever-action rifle?

yeah, just a plain jane walnut stocked top eject Winchester.

not interested in saddle rings, commemoratives or centennial style rifles.

I have never handled a pre-64. I have owned multiple 1894's made in the 70's, 80's and 90's. None have ever had issues.


Take that for what free advice is worth

What caliber?

If you said, I missed it.

I'm no 94 Winchester guy but I was pretty sure the pre/post 64 thing only applied to the model 70's  going from a controlled round feed to a push feed.  I didn't think they changed anything on the lever gun line around 1964.

In the 80's I believe the made the angle eject for scoping 94's. and later they added the ugly safety buttons.


I'd avoid the safety button one for personal taste reasons only.

sorry, skipped the obvious -

.30-.30

Pre/ Post 64 has to do with manufacturing and manufacturing costs.Milled vs.stamped .Model 94s have lots of parts and they suffered. They still work pretty well but they aren't milled steel. The butt plate became plastic. Not a popular move on Winchesters part. They killed the Model 94 to save it.

Yeah, milled versus stamped parts. The finish of the receiver suffered in some of the 94's to the metallurgy of the receiver. It is my understanding that the 94's from the early 1970's and onward had an up-tick in quality.

I have two pre-64, 30-30 and .32 Winchester Special

Three post 64, two .357 Mag AE, and one .44 mag that was converted to a take down.


I bought the .357 mags years ago, and in the past 3 years traded for the others.

I don't believe there is a difference in a 94 ( pre-64/post 64) for the standard Top Eject models-
that was only the Model 70 variants.

the only changes have been angle eject and the godforsaken safety.

my 94 is a 1969 model from OTASCO and it has no difference to a 1960 model that is also in the family. ( even the steel butt plate)

winchesters went to streamlined mgf, some screws went to pins, not assmbled by a gunsmith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1894#1964

yup, post 64, the bluing always comes off and freckles.  Sintered metal cast receiver and they had to iron plate it to get it to take bluing. I havent seen one that was used that didn't have finish issues and Ive seen a few that werent used that did have issues with the bluing.

The current Miroku made 94s have safeties thanks to the lawyers.  I won't stand for lawyer engineering.  Yes, guns are dangerous.  You have to be careful with them and know what you are doing; but don't go fixing things that aren't broke.

that is interesting.

My 94 built in '78 is freckled and it's led a fairly easy life.

Yes, post 64 Winchester 94's are easy to spot. Their receivers are always a different color than the barrel.

Some are grey, some are purple, some are gold.  Super hard cast metal that wont take a finish to save its life!

mine is freckled and my dad kept 3 in1 oil on it all the time.

Agree, pre-64 for Model 70's. I don't like the look of the safety buttons either, but might be a good idea for someone who isn't used to lever action rifles.

The model 94 didn't undergo any major design changers between 1963, and 1964. It was the quality of the materials that changed. Forged receivers became cast sintered steel. Solid pins and screws were replaced with roll pins. The machined loading lever was replaced with a stamped piece. Steel buttplate became plastic. Standards of fit and finish were lowered as well. All of the changes were cost cutting measures to keep Winchester rifles at a price point within their targeted market.


Functionally, the model 94 didn't really change. The same can be argued for the model 70. I think the real problem shooters had was the erosion of quality, and standards that resulted.





I would pay a small premium for pre 64 Winchester model 94's and model 70's, but only because I'm nostalgic for the old guns my dad, grandfather and uncles owned. I like hunting with old, American made guns from a time when American made meant top quality. I have a 1955 model 94 in .30-30. The quality of that rifle (fit, finish, attention to detail) is so far above the 70's, 80's and 90's versions that it's difficult to consider them the same design. It as if Winchester of the post 63 era was making cheap copies of classic arms. Functionally solid, but cheap feeling and looking. Just my opinion.





 

Not to talk you out of getting a fine old Winchester but you can get a new Henry in 357/38, 44 mag/spl, 45 Colt, 30-30, or 45-70 high quality and slicker than the 94 ever was.  It's more of a Marlin 336 copy but without the safety or any other undesirable "lawyer engineering".

Oh yeah, and it's made in America.

are you sure about that?


http://shootingwithhobie.blogspot.com/2010/08/differentiating-between-pre-64-and-post.html

I have a 55 model 94, and for a while I had a 64 model 94. At first glance, they look identical, including the checkered steel buttplate. At closer glance, it's obvious that the wood fit is poor on the 64, and the bluing isn't as nice as on the 55 as well. Open it up and the roll pins and stamped lifter are obvious.



 

I to have now a 1948 model 94 in 32 Winchester special and the wood fits Excellant and the bluing is outstanding even still. Rifle shoots unbelievable. I have had several of these made after 1964 and they shoot and perform the same but when you lever the action you can tell. To me the action fells smoother on the pre 64's other than that not a lot of difference. All the model 94's were lots of fun to carry in the woods and shoot. Enjoy life's to short.

This thread is useless without pictures.



I recently picked up this model 94 in 30-30 manufactured in 1966.

As other have stated after 1964 there were some changes to the design and quality of metal used.   But you know what - I don't care.  
This is my first lever gun and I picked it up as a part of a 3 gun deal, honestly the only thing that attracted me was that it was made the year I was born.   (I know, I am old.)

Since then I have taken it to the range twice (this pic was just after I finished my first detailed strip and clean after the second trip).  You know what - I love this gun.   It is a blast to shoot, was dead accurate and I think the patina on the metal and the wear on the wood look great and adds character.

My only problem is that it has got me thinking I could use another lever gun; maybe one of those new Rossi's in .44 or .357......

I recently found a 63 model that had a few rust spots.  How big of a screw up would it be to have it refinished?  I don't ever plan on selling it and would love for it to look new again.