A strange frankinstine 1894/ model 64 winchester

[Booger Bill]

On another gun form (S&W), a guy showed a winchester that is marked "model 64" on the barrel, yet on the STRAIGHT tang it is marked "1894". I am going to attempt to import some of his pictures and posts. What do you think we have here?
My ol man and many others his generation would put a knotch on the bottom of their gun butt stocks. It had to be a big buck, not some small spike or a two point. Not sure just how big it had to be but my dad hunted with this Winchester Model 64-30 W.C.F for a lot of years and killed a lot of vension. Yet there are just a few knotchs. The last one is from my buck, it was a Large 2 point. You southern boys count points different then us yankees. A two point to us is a 4 point to you. Kind of like a cord of wood here is a ric which is half the size of a cord. a cord here is 4 x 4 x8.
(I couldnt transport his pictures, but they show a straight stock and 64 barrel and magazine)
Me:Hate to nit pick, but thats a straight stock like the 94, not a pistol grip like the 64 is?
JOERM:I think you are correct, thanks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by feralmerril
Hate to nit pick, but thats a straight stock like the 94, not a pistol grip like the 64 is?

You obviously know your guns or at least Winchesters. I searched the model 64-30 and you are correct, it does have a pistol grip. But, the barrel on the gun clearly states Model 64-30 so my guess is that Dad changed the stock for what ever reason or had someone re-work the orig. Here's a photo of one with the pistol grip.

Now that I looked at what I just posted I noticed that the lever must have been changed too. I don't know what to tell you now. All I know is that the barrel is a 64 and so is the front stock and lower tube that the bullets are loaded into. Maybe he put just the barrel of a 64 onto the 94. When I get home from work I'll take a photo of it and post it for you to look over and let me know what you think.
Attached Thumbnails
ME:
I have some of both. Here is a model 64 that I own. Is there a chance the rifle you have is a 94 takedown? If so, they also made a 64 takedown and your dad or someone else could have added it. That or someone either altered the gun. Also there is some chance it could be a factory mistake or even hopefully where someone ordered a model 64 because they wanted a longer barrel and the shorter mag tube, but also wanted a straight stock. This is getting more interesting the more I think about it, it well could be a special order! It would be nice if you took more pictures and post it over at lever gunner. Those guys are into it over there. I am Booger Bill over there.
Paco Kelly's Leverguns.com • Index page
JOERM:
Feralmerril, here ya go, figure it out please!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feralmerril, I got the M64 and took some pictures for you to evaluate, I don't really want to join another forum, one or two is all I can handle. If you don't mind putting it on the other website and finding out some stuff and sending me a PM I'd really appreciate that but its up to you.

I never noticed before that the main body frame where the stock fastens to says Model 1894 yet the barrel says 64. I know my dad bought this new and maybe custom but I also know it is one straight shooter. I had a 94 that would not hit the broad side of a barn.

Look the pics over and let me know what you think happened here. It means a lot to me, thanks. Oh yea, thanks for "Nit Picken". Joe
Attached Thumbnails
ME:
That most definetly is a real oddball! I will attempt to post this thread on levergunners and see what they say. You can lurk and read on that site without joining.
Guys, sorry I couldnt import jorms pictures, but if you go to the thread: Big Buck Knotchs on the Bottom of the Butt Stock at the s&w site,:http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/186 ... stock.html
You can view his pictures of jorms oddball. Thanks, I think it is worth checking out!

[geobru]

I haven't seen very many unmessed with 64s around here, but I have seen two guns that had a 94 butt end and a 64 barrel screwed into the receiver. It looked to me like they liked the 64 barrel and modified the 94 to accomodate the 64 front end. Was it as simple as screwing a barrel into the receiver?

[Booger Bill]

From the pictures jorm put over at the s&w site, 1. The barrel is marked model 64 .30. 2. It doesnt have the fat forearm but has the narrower straight thin forearm of the older 1894 rifles. 3. The tang is marked 1894. 4. Oddley, it had the old curved carbine stock. The stock, tang and lever are straight, not pistol grip.
I also belive it likely the rifle latter had a model 64 barrel put on it, yet they kept the older straight 1894 forearm. But the 1894 rifle has the shorter carbine stock with curved butt plate? I dont think it had a saddle ring, but am not sure. None of it makes much sense, I belive there is some chance of it being a custom order of unusual parts blended together?
Unusual: A: carbine stock. Long thinner 1894 forearm combination.
B: Marked 64 barrel and magazine on a straight tang rifle marked 1894 on tang.
If a private person done this they would have to had started with a straight 1894 rifle, then install the 64 barrel and magazine, swap the stock for a short carbine stock and buttplate? I also find it unusual they would use the 1894 rifle forearm if they were going to switch out the barrel and not also use the 64 forearm while they were at it.
Whatcha all think?

[Griff]

Parts gun. For any number of reasons. The tang marking had been dropped from and the model designation changed to mdl 94 by the time the mdl 64 came out. IIRC.

Remember, the mdl 64 and 55 were introduced as standardized variants with features that were popular for special order mdl 94s; but the factory was trying to cut down the number of special orders at that time.

I'd venture to say the gun started it's life as a mdl 1894, probably a carbine... and at some point someone replaced the forend, mag and barrel with available parts. If it started out as a rifle, someone changed the buttstock also.

Any number of reasons why one would want to change the original configuration.

[Wind]

Hey there BB -- I have a feeling those sorts of modifications happened a lot in the old days. Here is my 1894 rifle dating to 1896 with a Model 64 front end hanging on it. Someone did a very sanitary installation and I have continued modifying this rifle as well. It is an excellent long range rifle. Here is a video by Whit Spurzon showing it working http://www.youtube.com/user/WhitSpurzon ... iQGPmo3hmM and a picture for your dining and dancing pleasure. Best regards. Wind

[Booger Bill]

Yeah, but what happened to those guns they took the parts off of?

[Wind]

Hey again BB -- It could be the original parts were worn out or damaged. Here is an example of an 1892 receiver dating to 1914 and a Model 65 barrel dating to 1949. Notice the double proof mark which appears to be the Winchester "mail order" mark. Then as now people were building what they wanted. In the case of my Model 94/64, the magazine tube parts are sitting on a shelf gathering dust. They are in good company however as there are other 1892 barrels and Marlin parts there as well. I wished I knew the history of both rifles and a few others, but they're not talking!! Best regards. Wind

[Dave B]

Here is one from Gunbroker.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =222635122

Model 64 94.jpg

I really like the way it looks, but I am waiting for a nice 64 Deluxe.

Dave B

[Booger Bill]

Well, this aint the delux model, but it will do. It`s made in 1952. If I recall I paid $200s for it back around 1975. I really dont think it was fired untill I tried it out finaly a year or two ago.

[buckeyeshooter]

thats a beauty! I would love one like that!