Winchester 94 Post 64 restoration complete.

[doorgunner]

Well as described in a previous thread, I was restoring a badly used/abused 1971 model 94. This old carbine obviously has the "mystery metal" Winchester receiver, so bluing was pretty much out of the question. The remainder of the metal, minus the loading gate and finger lever, I reblued with Brownells Oxpho Blue prior to my receiver work. I ended up using Brownells Aluma Hyde II, which was baked a very low heat for a long time, on the stripped receiver. I used a semi gloss black, in an attempt to replicate the weird glossy black finish that Winchester used on that bizarre steel receiver. The internal parts were in excellent condition, with no stamped parts, except the loading gate. The wood was stripped down to its bare form, and the dents steamed, and scratches lightly sanded out. I then stained it and 72 hours later sprayed it with a satin polyurethane. The metal buttplate was badly rusted, but now looks like new. This was a fun project which resulted a nice little 39 year old carbine, that I don't have much money in. It looks very much like it did when the original buyer pulled it from the box when new. Just thought I'd share, as I'm kind of proud of the end result.

[Old Savage]

Nice work!

[Hobie]

[pokey]

WOW

[Chuck 100 yd]

Very nice ! It`s going to make a fine shooter.

[Barcelona Rick]

Looks great...enjoy...

jumbeaux

[J Miller]

doorgunner,

That looks pretty darn good. Keep us posted on how the Aluma Hyde II holds up. I've heard various reports on it over on The Ruger Forum. Lots of guys have tried it on the aluminum grip frames and things.

Joe

[doorgunner]

doorgunner,

That looks pretty darn good. Keep us posted on how the Aluma Hyde II holds up. I've heard various reports on it over on The Ruger Forum. Lots of guys have tried it on the aluminum grip frames and things.

Joe

Joe: I coated a scrap piece of metal at the same time that I coated the receiver. I cured the scrap at the same time as I did the receiver.

I used the scrap piece to help me determine when my receiver was fully "cured". I've subjected that scrap piece to several scrapes with a screwdriver, as well as tested some of the gun care chemical products that are on my shop bench. I'm happy to say that the Aluma Hyde II is tough as he**! Reassembly of the gun caused no finish issues whatsoever. I fully expect that this stuff will be the best non-bake finish that one could use to coat a lever receiver, without a lot of specialized equipment. I was told, prior to this project, and am sold on the fact that metal preparation is key to the success of this stuff, especially degreasing.

As you can see on the receiver, there is quite a bit of orange peel to my finish. That's a novice mistake, caused by spraying way too close to the receiver. I'm on a quest to find another abused 94 carbine, for my hunting buddy. The next one won't have that textured look to the receiver. Live and learn!

Thank you for the positive comments.

[Old Savage]

I would like to see one hard chromed some time.

[Bridger]

Looks like an excellent job to me.

[kimwcook]

Looks like you did an excellent job, doorgunner. Should make you feel good carrying that in the woods.

[LeverBob]

Pard...you did a fine job! That Winchester is actually 2-times stronger than the pre-64's. Who says? Bill Miller wrote an article in The American Rifleman-Jan. 89. He was an engineer for Winchester during the transition in 60's I believe.

Here's the repro:
"Late in 1961 the model 94 became the first Wiinchester product to go through a reengineering program utilizing the latest in engineering techniques and state-of-the-art technology. As a result, 27 different changes were accepted that, along with improvements in the manufacturing process, cut the cost of making a Model 94 by 54%.
For example, ductile iron castings replaced the forged receivers. Since this change made up a large percentage of the cost reduction, it had to be thoroughly tested before the program was implemented. Several receivers were put through 15,000-round endurance tests with no difficulties. A 94' with the standard forged receiver was run through the same test as a control sample out of current production. At the end of the test, the forged receiver had lost twice as much headspace as the ductile iron casting.
The endurance testing was supplemented by firing a series of high intensity rounds in 5,000-lb. increments in groups of five shots through both 94's. The results showed that the cast ductile iron receiver sustained approximately twice the pressure than did the forged model before safe headspace was lost. The change to a ductile iron receiver would not only make the product cheaper, but stronger and safer."

From a man that was there & who knew what he was talking about!

Your rifle is a beauty...you did a wonderful job pard bringing back an unsung & unappreciated Bear of a rifle. Maybe when more rifleman find out the truth, they'll be more appreciative of the efforts of a pretty cagey group of engineers & riflemen. Miller was a man to ride the river with and I would have liked to have met him.

Best to you pard...you have excellent taste in riflery.

LB
Anyone have an old Sears 54 in 30 WCF they want to part with? I'm going to make it into a 38-55 Win.

[doorgunner]

LB: Wow! I never would have known that, had you not taken the time to post that information. I am sincerely grateful to you for sharing that with me.

Winchester did not coat/plate the interior of these receivers. After stripping it down, the interior of the receiver was bare metal. What I found interesting was the lack of any detectable metal wear anywhere on any of the interior bearing surfaces. I'm not sure what exactly "ductile iron castings" are composed of, but they sure seem to be very hard. The forged and mim parts all display normal wear, as you would see with any firearm part that has seen use. It's unfortunate that Winchester/FN wouldn't explore using this again, so as to manufacture the new 94 stateside. I'm quite sure by now there is a more effective commercial method to blue or color the receiver, than the method that they used back in the 70's.

Thanks again for the information, and the kind remarks.

Brian

[TedH]

Looks great!

[LeverBob]

LB: Wow! I never would have known that, had you not taken the time to post that information. I am sincerely grateful to you for sharing that with me.

Winchester did not coat/plate the interior of these receivers. After stripping it down, the interior of the receiver was bare metal. What I found interesting was the lack of any detectable metal wear anywhere on any of the interior bearing surfaces. I'm not sure what exactly "ductile iron castings" are composed of, but they sure seem to be very hard. The forged and mim parts all display normal wear, as you would see with any firearm part that has seen use. It's unfortunate that Winchester/FN wouldn't explore using this again, so as to manufacture the new 94 stateside. I'm quite sure by now there is a more effective commercial method to blue or color the receiver, than the method that they used back in the 70's.

Thanks again for the information, and the kind remarks.

Brian

DG...actually later in the article Miller said that they tried to blue them & it didn't work. Then they tried black chrome plating & couldn't get the color right either. So, they plated the entire receiver with soft iron. (I believe inside as well as out). They were able to blue them after that. They turned out to be more blackened than blue. I liked my Sears 54 a whole bunch, it was a tack driver with issue iron sights, slick & handy. That's why I'm looking for another one. Hell for stout strong. When I do find one, I'll send it to J.E.S. to be rebored, then I'll have the thing deplated. It'll get a modern matte black chrome finish inside & out.

Most of the old engine blocks made up into the 90's were made of that material. They were an extremely tough block. They made 5,000 horse Hemi's using nitro-methane in those old engines in AA/FD & funny cars. They held up pretty well.

New Stainless & Chromemoly steels made today are far superior to the old stuff. The best guns are being made today, not yesterday. 440 stainless made today outclasses the old 440 made even ten yrs. ago.

I do believe you have an heirloom on your hands pard...use it well & hand it down.

LB

[gak]

The OP indeed did an excellent job. All I can say about the effort and results is "wow!"--I've got a few bits I'd like to send him! His excellence in bringing back a sickly patient from doom does not change the fact that--regardless of the referenced engineer's analysis--Winchester turned out a comparatively c*** product in the 5-7 or 8 years (especially) following 1963: the gawdawful "metal" and its toy gun paint finish and c***** internals, not to mention inferior furniture--in terms of something to behold and (originally) be proud of...and darned near ruined Winchester's rep for fine rifles for good. In some ways this sounds like an "inside" paper I once read about the stellar engineering thinking (and market justification) behind the "development" of the Chevy Vega, which proved once and for all that anything designed by committee--which the early post 64 era for Winchester surely smacked of--almost never yields good things. My rant doesn't mean these don't make fine shooters, hunters or truck guns. I've had a few of them as such. But--other than this kind of effort--something to behold?-No.


Somewhere in the mid-to-late 70s--not sure precisely when--Winchester started to "right" its '94s. I've got a '79 carbine and '80 trapper that look for all the world like blueing that approaches the Pre 64s'--don't know if that's true and they returned to real steel or not--but it looks and feels the part; good fakery if it isn't the real article...and the internals at least look like an attempted return to glory,...the obvious pieces no longer appearing to be cheap stampings. Even the wood seemed more consistently "better." I like these two so much (for rescuing me from having to always take my nice Pre 64s out 'n about "too much" if no other reason), when a local shop somehow happened upon five or six nearly identical and pristine '79-'81 vintage carbines--all arrayed them so enticingly in line on a sale rack, I wanted to take every one of them home. That's how much Winchester at least seemed to have redeemed itself and resurrected the '94 to near former glory.

[gamekeeper]

I reckon you did a real nice job!

[winchester1886]

You did well, a really top job.

[ab4ka]

Great work!