Winchester 94

[gcs]

I keep going back to the idea that I need one, well I don't "need" one but I keep thinking I do...
I was looking on the auction sites for awhile and the prices of a pre 64 was, in my mind, crazy high, for guns in mediocre condition.
Then I looked at the new Winchesters made in Japan, that some reviewers claimed were as good as any pre 64 guns ever made, and while the price is up there, not that much more then somebodies old closet gun they want a mint for.
Then some folks claimed the pre war guns were "better", or the ones built in the 50s were as good.
Only a little confusing...

So,... If you was me, what should I look for, in your opinion?
As always, any thoughts, opinions, or considered guesses are appreciated

[Tycer]

The prewar guns are hand-fitted inside and out. Post war pre64 had less. Post 64 had?
I do like the feel of the early ones.
They all go bang. Never heard of one shot too much except maybe black powder era ones with the softer steel been shot with higher pressure jacketed rounds.
But then I am a neophyte compared to many on this forum.
If I had my choice I’d buy a mid 20s

[fordwannabe]

In my opinion it depends on your situation. If money is a big concern but you want a Winchester 94 the late 1960’s through 1970’s are serviceable firearms and in most people’s case they look like a real old west cowboy gun. If money is not a concern at all well pristine pre-WW1 guns are smoooth like butta. For most people it is a compromise to some degree. Are you willing to overpay to get a mediocre gun or are you a guy that can wait a couple years for the perfect gun. I just buy a lot of them.
If you consider yourself a gun guy.. YOU DO NEED ONE

[Grizz]

I have a miroku browning 1886. it is as fine a rifle as my German built Chilean Mauser. in between those two my other guns don't compare in fit or finish, although they are fine in their own right. just not as fine. if you get a miroku built gun it will be a very fine firearm, you won't wear it out and it will never be a collector item. although it does have an exciting back story.

America conquered the very psychotic Japan and helped them get on their feet. In gratitude they built one of America's finest firearms designer's rifle to the Browning plans, mostly, in homage to their protector and benefactor. I'm not ashamed of mine...

I would like to have an antique original 1892 in a useful caliber, it's my favorite lever gun design, but I am not willing to part with my number one son to get one.

meanwhile, while waiting for an original to adopt you can start the 250 year history of a miroku 1894, which will not wear out in that time. Ciao

[J Miller]

I keep going back to the idea that I need one, well I don't "need" one but I keep thinking I do...
I was looking on the auction sites for awhile and the prices of a pre 64 was, in my mind, crazy high, for guns in mediocre condition.
Then I looked at the new Winchesters made in Japan, that some reviewers claimed were as good as any pre 64 guns ever made, and while the price is up there, not that much more then somebodies old closet gun they want a mint for.
Then some folks claimed the pre war guns were "better", or the ones built in the 50s were as good.
Only a little confusing...

So,... If you was me, what should I look for, in your opinion?
As always, any thoughts, opinions, or considered guesses are appreciated

gcs,


First my disclaimer; I'm not a collector so I dont go after only the top of the line examples. If I see one I like, even if it looks like stuff, and the price is within my reach, I'll buy it. I've had so many of them over the decades I know how to fix what ails them if needed.

I've had pre-WW I, post WW II flat bands, pre64s, post 64s and one AE model; all American made. Something like close to 20 examples of the model. Of these I think only 3 were problematic. One pre-64 had a short chamber throat that made it picky of which bullets I could load in it. One pre-64 (the one I have now) has a defective chamber and splits cases. One post 64 seemed to gall around where the hammer and underside of the bolt made contact.
Other than these things they were all accurate and reliable.

As for appearance, pre war guns tend to be either mint (big collector bucks) or devoid of finish (sometimes still big bucks) so I look at them and walk away. The post war guns the 50s to the early 60s seem to have chamber problems.
The early post 64s have the crappy plated finish and stamped carrier. Neither is a deal breaker to me.
The ones that look the nicest to me is the late 70s early 80s top eject models. My 1980 trapper is still a good looking example after a lot carrying and shooting.

It you can stand it, the early AE models with the rebounding hammer action are OK as well. It's easy to retro fit the rebounding hammer action to the old half cock action i you want.
The later versions with the cross bolt and tang safety went down hill badly. I won't touch one.

As for the imported 94 replicas I've no experience with them so I can't comment.

So if I had to nail down a vintage to recommend, I would recommend the late 70s, early 80s top eject models. They are good shooters and parts are still readily available should you need something.


Joe

[Old Savage]

My 89 manufacture AE is as good as any need to be in my opinion. With scope .75" with two loads at 100 yd. 600 rds through it, no problems. I have a pre 64 but it is not getting a scope and without that I certainly will not equal the accuracy of the other. Some people seem skewed to retain periods. I am a user.

[J Miller]

My 89 manufacture AE is as good as any need to be in my opinion. With scope .75" with two loads at 100 yd. 600 rds through it, no problems. I have a pre 64 but it is not getting a scope and without that I certainly will not equal the accuracy of the other. Some people seem skewed to retain periods. I am a user.

Hey Fred, can you elaborate on the line I hi-lighted? I feel dumb, but I don't get it.

Joe

[wm]

My thoughts is you're just buying a gun, not getting married. Buy a 70's, 80s or 90s gun and if it does not scratch the itch & then sell it buy a pre 64, and if that still isn't quite right …… keep repeating. With a little luck each time you turn one over you come out ahead with a few dollars and some added wisdom.

Its the experiences and the journey that is rewarding.

I will say I've seen some guys get some real bargains as user rifles (as opposed to collectible safe queens) amongst the rifles that regularly get passed over by collectors like some of the un popular commeratives, Ted Williams/Sears marked rifles, or family heirlooms that have seen some significant use.

Just some examples.

A little scratched up (I stop short of calling that engraving myself but maybe I'm being a snob)
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/806551173

IAM Special …… the snickering continues
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/807027572

As vanilla and plain jane and ho hum as they come.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/800924795

WM.

P.S.
I include one more not because I think it really fits what you are looking for but it has one of the best descriptions I've ever read on Gunbroker.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/807195455

[Old Savage]

J Miller, people generally tend to like what they grew up with. In this case the pre 64 system. It seems the same with the Colt Single Actions or Ruger Three Screws.

[J Miller]

OK, I got it now. Basically I've done what wm described in his post above. That's how I came to know as much about them as I do.

I never grew up with any type or brand of lever gun (divorced parents, mom not a gun owner). Just saw one I liked when I was 14 and went from there.

Joe

[gcs]

OK, full disclosure...
I'm not a collector, just recently gave most of my guns to my son that just moved to the Republic of Texas....he was going to get them anyway.
I have a 71 Marlin 336 30-30, that gets 98% on the use, and every once in a while I think I should have the other classic, I could have bought a new 94 at that time except it sounded like a box of broken rocks.
I handled a 50s model a few years ago that was pretty nice, which resumed my thought process of acquiring one, but figured if I was going to go for it, I'd want one that didn't make you grit your teeth while cycling it.
That's why I thought of the pre 64s, which folks claim are slick and hand fitted, which seems to be a good way to make a gun...
Doesn't need to be real pretty, and well worn is fine, I'm well worn and not very pretty either. So thats it, no ulterior motives, no collecting value, just another tool to be used.
Thanks for understanding, lol.

[Old Savage]

Joe, the first one I bought was a 1989 manufacture plain 20".30-30. It is a great rifle, accurate, very dependable. I shot it for a few years as it came, 1 1/2" - 2 1/2" groups. Then astigmatism set in and the groups got big. I put and old style Weaver 4x on it and found out it would shoot as small as 3/4" @.100 yds with either Win Power Point or Fed 170s. I have over 600 rds through it and it has never skipped a beat. I have had a couple pre 64s ... like them too. I prefer the AE for the scope capability and accuracy increase. Nothing about it bothers me but I see some others don't care for them. I also have a Big Bore 444, no scope and quite accurate that way. It has the cross bolt safety which is OK with me. Then I got one of the last in 25-35, really like that one, Leopold 4x, very accurate and has the shotgun thumb safety which I like. Finally got a 61 vintage carbine like the first I saw in a Win catalog. Hit the 400 yd steel plate right of the bat. It only has open sights.

[Tycer]

WM.

P.S.
I include one more not because I think it really fits what you are looking for but it has one of the best descriptions I've ever read on Gunbroker.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/807195455

Thanks. Great description!

[Griff]

I have mdl 94s from nearly every decade they were produced in til the introduction of the AE. My 2 favorites are from 1979 and 1967. But, both are customized to meet my demands. Neither is a collector piece, unless the collector likes something that wasn't available! The best description I've ever heard regarding the mdl 94 reads: a great rifle that pukes its guts out to cycle. And stuffs 'em back in to complete that!

IMO, if you don't like the noise that makes, get something else! Myself, the mdl 94 Winchester is just about the sexiest long gun ever produced. And when you find an accurate one, nothing else matters. Not its looks, or other yahoo's opinion of it!

[J Miller]

I have mdl 94s from nearly every decade they were produced in til the introduction of the AE. My 2 favorites are from 1979 and 1967. But, both are customized to meet my demands. Neither is a collector piece, unless the collector likes something that wasn't available! The best description I've ever heard regarding the mdl 94 reads: a great rifle that pukes its guts out to cycle. And stuffs 'em back in to complete that!

IMO, if you don't like the noise that makes, get something else! Myself, the mdl 94 Winchester is just about the sexiest long gun ever produced. And when you find an accurate one, nothing else matters. Not its looks, or other yahoo's opinion of it!

Yep, that about sums up my feelings too.

Joe

[gak]

The ones that look the nicest to me is the late 70s early 80s top eject models. My 1980 trapper is still a good looking example after a lot carrying and shooting.

It you can stand it, the early AE models with the rebounding hammer action are OK as well. It's easy to retro fit the rebounding hammer action to the old half cock action i you want.
The later versions with the cross bolt and tang safety went down hill badly. I won't touch one.

As for the imported 94 replicas I've no experience with them so I can't comment.

So if I had to nail down a vintage to recommend, I would recommend the late 70s, early 80s top eject models. They are good shooters and parts are still readily available should you need something.

Joe

I'll second Joe's comments on the very late 70s thru early 80s top ejects, in my view the closest thing you can get to the vaunted Pre 64s in a more wallet-friendly Post 64 pre AE/pre safety gun. By the late 70s, more examples started to consistently show up with the better metal finishes and parts, including what appears to be a properly cast if not machined lifter instead of the earlier stamped piece. It is not unusual to find pride-worthy, including pristine, examples of this period, which represented the last days of "Winchester" but also includes the first few pre AE years of USRAC ownership,...and then under USRAC the poor pitting/flaking finishes were virtually gone.

These are the largely unknown gems of the Post 64 94s. Since my two (20+ year ownership) examples of this period, a "Winchester" ca 79 Trapper and 80 carbine, the latter as new, have not seen so much use--the trapper more use under close inspection with very mild (typical any non wiped down 94, including Pre 64) receiver pitting some oil will likely deal with--I cannot vouche entirely how they would hold up under consistently heavier field duty, sweaty hands on the receiver etc, but the initial impression is that they would handle such use much better than the 64 thru mid 70s period guns.

Later edit: I should add that the pre and post AE/pre safety XTR 94s are some real beauties. I have long coveted a friend's Big Bore .375 carbine and pair of 24" 7-30 Waters (the ones with the "carbine" fore-wood). Re my 79 Trapper I've had plans for some time to convert it into a "tribute" (I guess you'd call it) to the Pre War trapper/carbines, adding the correct carbine buttstock and longer forearm as well as ladder sight found on most original SRCs, including trappers. The requisite correct (enough) front post sight and saddle ring are already there. The intrigue here is that, perhaps aside from some Post 64 commemorative types, no such "properly" configured trappers appeared after 1941 (and likely much earlier than that) to present. And...if you have seen prices on the genuine Pre War article, those trappers (94s and 92s) are made of true unobtanium and are among the most collectible, precious of all factory/line produced Winchesters.

[Pisgah]

The 94's built post-'64 weren't bad rifles, just not as finely made as the earlier ones. They went to a sintered-metal receiver, changed some screws to pins and some solid pins to hollow, and used some stamped internal parts that had previously been machined. The stamped cartridge carrier in particular caused some folks problems, and the sintered metal receivers became cosmetically worn fairly easily and, depending on which version of the sintered alloy they used (there were 2 or 3 through time) they were difficult if not impossible to re-blue. Most of this changed again in 1982 when modern machining had brought costs down and they went back to most of the forged/machined parts they had used in the past.

I like the 1964-'82 guns because they can usually be had cheap, and the 1982-onward ones because they are just a bit smoother and nicer-looking.

[Griff]

The post '74 mdl 94s have a cast carrier, and after '75 the receivers were steel clad, giving a richer blue, and eliminating the flaking of the early post '64 mdl 94s. You want a real bargain, find a commemorative 94. They usually have better wood, many remain in pristine condition as many thought they'd increase in value. Only the "John Wayne" actually has. In or about 1975 Winchester changed from a flat main spring to a coil spring. IMO, these have the very best feel to the action. Far less likely to fail than the flat spring, consistent spring rates from one to another.

[Grizz]

my 357 winchester carbine is side ejecting, has rebounding hammer, everything people hate about those changes, but it puts bullets on a steel target out to 100 yards, which makes it a viable hunting arm, in spite of the indignities inflicted on it. it's just not my caliber and I should have bought the 45 Colt model when I had the chance. if wishes were fishes . . ,

[Old Savage]

Grizz,, had one in . 45 Colt 30 years ago. Only time I shot it at 100 yds it was good for 3" from a sitting position with Winchester 225 Silvertips. I see it as a trade-off due to the disparity in velocity against the 357.

[Grizz]

Grizz,, had one in . 45 Colt 30 years ago. Only time I shot it at 100 yds it was good for 3" from a sitting position with Winchester 225 Silvertips. I see it as a trade-off due to the disparity in velocity against the 357.

It's a good point. I have a 357 180gr cast load running around 1700+fps, I forget the actual number. So this is in 30-30 territory at that bullet weight. But I don't favor medium loads or calibers because I am biased and prejudiced

225gr should be good out to some distance. It's a heavy bullet in a 30-06. Only deer I've ever taken with 30 cal is .308 from a Remington carbine. It's a hammer on sitka deer. Don't remember what ammo I was using.