Best Winchester 94 production?

[Old Savage]

When were the best Model 94s made from the traditionalist point of view?

[Bogie35]

I have no idea, but I can't wait to see the answers.
Great question!

bogie

[iceman]

I don't know either, but I like my circa 1942. I am going to make some popcorn and be right back to see what the others have to say.

[kaschi]

The pre 64's without a doubt for me anyway. There's just something solid sounding about the "clickety clack" when cycling those actions that make the post 64 ones sound like a tin can. When I heard that the 94 was being resurrected, I was hoping(but fortunately not betting!) that it would be a pre 64 style. Sure enough, they made it an angle eject WITH rebounding hammer and WITH tang safety!!! Those dunces will never learn!!! It would have been nice to have seen an original styled 94 in all of the chamberings for at least those of us who appreciate them.

[Old Savage]

When I say traditionalist, that is really code for pre 64 But, which of that long period is thought to be the best?

[rangerider7]

Pre-WWII after 1900. That's my two cents.

[RIHMFIRE]

pre 64.......the older the better

[J Miller]

When were the best Model 94s made from the traditionalist point of view?

From my point of view, generally speaking any pre-64, narrowing it down the pre wars. (WW II)

Joe

[KSRtrd]

I like my 1941, the thing plain ole shoots. The early one I have is wonkier and that butt plate ouch I'd let it go and wouldn't bother me terribly. The post wars are just not has accurate for me least wise the ones I have shot. Love my 80's trapper cause it fits in tight places; its a ok shooter.

[Sixgun]

I'm mostly with RR-7. The best time and the most collectable 1894's are from the time of inception to WW1, with pre-1898 guns bringing the most bucks, not for the superior quality but because the Feds don't consider them firearms. Quality dropped off a bit after WW1, but not much. An advanced collector can tell the difference without looking at the serial number.

Quality was still there to around the late twenties and s-l-o-w-l-y went downhill to WW2. The richness of the blue was not there--wood to metal fit was still good, but not great. The handfitting of metal parts was no longer "smooth as glass" as were the pre WW1 guns. Density of the wood got more grainie (if thats a word ) and the solid feel was just about a thing of the past.

After the WW2, it went downhill fast. More parts were stamped, less handfitting and the true age of "interchangable parts without handfitting" was entering the picture. Hammer design changed, along with "attention to detail".

The year 1952 ushered in another era where the pace picked up in the "quickness of manufacture".

By 1964, corporate greed was in high gear and you all know the rest of the story.

As just a regular guy, I really don't know if Winchester needed to do this to survive, but what I do know is that guns made after 64 are still great shooters, will last, but they sound like a clothes dryer with 2,000 marbles in it. Considering the economic climate, quality did improve a bit in the eighties, but......too little-too late.

Take a real close look at a pre-war Model 71 and a post war 71. Even though only a few years separate them, the post war 71's lost that "tightness of the action". For that matter, look at Model 70's, 61's, 63's, or any of 'em. Only the Model 21 double gun kept it's quality.

Now you know why pre WW2 guns bring a lot more money ----------------Sixgun

[Griff]

I really don't have an opinion on this subject... but of my 29 Winchester .30WCFs, the post '64s number one more than the number produced between the 1st WW and the Depression (1921-1929), 8. Not every year is represented, but they are 5 rifles and 3 carbines. Although they really have no differences from the earlier production (at least in the .30WCF chambering, as .32-40 & .38-55 didn't all have nickel steel barrels). It may be that it's just my examples, but they are finished nicer, with more of said finish remaining. I think they may have been more bought as gifts, or replaced in someone's armory by bolt guns, earlier in their life... so they really saw less wear & tear. The carbines have more wear than the rifles... and that probably sez something also.

The ones produced during the Depression are good, but the workmanship isn't quite as good... maybe Winchester needed to replace machinery and couldn't afford to... or? I just find the tolerances are tighter and wood-to-metal fit is great. Again, only my 2¢.

[JerryB]

I can tell a little difference in my 1939 and the 1951 other than the obvious changes. I think the 1939 is a little nicer done but neither shoot any better than the ragged looking 1974 I bought for Jerry3 a few years ago.

[pokey]

as has been said, the cream was between the start of nickel steel barrels 1895/96

until the start of WWI 1914/15. that's not to say the others are bad just not as well fitted.

[Old Savage]

The one I am looking at is a 1939.

[pokey]

The one I am looking at is a 1939.

what, no pics?

[Old Savage]

No it is not here. Saw it Sat and have to go back to take a better look - no time then.

[Big Bore 94]

Having had quite a few there is a tie for 1st place a 30 WCF and 38-55 nickel steel barrels both from 1895. 2nd place goes to the best trigger 2,700,1xx. If it letters and is pre 1898 buy them!

[Borregos]

I've got six of them and the one I would keep if forced to sell five would be the 30-30 SRC manufactured in 1914.

[Modoc ED]

I find the perceived difference in quality of Winchester rifles from pre-WWII years to after WWII years interesting. The reason is that it was mostly the same workers who made Winchester's rifles during those years as very few Winchester employees went to war. They were declared necessary to the war effort and needed special waivers to leave Winchester and join the armed forces during WWII.

I have two pre-64 Winchester Model 94s -- one made in 1952 and one made in 1953. Literally no difference between the two. Both function flawlessly and both have good fit and finish.

I also have a Winchester Model 94 AE with the infamous tang-safety made around 2005 that initially had the "light strike" bug-a-boo but has been cured with juditious stoning, filing, and lubrication.

[thornblom]

I currently own 3 pre-64 model 94 Winchesters, all in .30-30. In the past I have owned representatives from every decade of production. The ones I have now are from 1897, 1947 and 1962. The 1947 and 1962 guns are good, better than post 64 guns, but the 1897 gun is exceptional. It is a rifle with 26" octagon barrel, full length mag tube, straight grip, crescent butt plate, express sights, rifle for end. The metal froe end cap, lever, hammer and crescent butt plate are case colored. It is in about 85% condition. Action is as tight as the day it left the factory. I am thinking this rifle was not from the custom shop but from the special order shop. It is very accurate. I had a 1929 short rifle that was almost as accurate. It had a 22" octagon barrel (factory) not cut down, so it also came from the special order shop. That one got away. Those were tight actions and hardly ever got loose.

So, I would say the best 94's are from the beginning of production to the late 20's. Stay with the octagon barrels and you will have a great rifle.

Sincerely,
Dave (Bubba) Thornblom

[RIHMFIRE]

The one I am looking at is a 1939.

My 41 carbine is a solid shooter with honest wear and handling marks...
and so far....with factory ammo...is pretty darn accurate

[Hillbilly]

I have 7 of em...spread between 1912 to the 50's.

None of mine are custom ordered ...no bells whistles or geegaws. Just Blue collar working class rifles and carbines. A couple exhibit honest wear and were obviously used often... a couple were typical Michigan deer rifles (out of the closet for a week a year) and the rest are in-between.

Totally subjective observation. I prefer the pre WW2 versions... they seemed to be fitted a lot better, in general, than the post war production

[Idiot]

I own both pre-64 and post-64 94's chambered in 30-30 Winchester. My post-64's are made under the U.S. Repeating Arms name and were produced long after the cheap post-64 uglies were rejected, then improved, and a few years before they came with rebounding hammers and safeties. When I compare these improved and refined post-64 94's to my pre-64 94 there is very little difference. The fit of wood to metal is comparable and the exposed metal work is also comparable. I've shot them both and they are equally accurate, and the actions seem to be of similar quality. And if I had to pick which were smoother, which is subjective of course, I'd have to say my U.S. Repeating Arms get the nod.

So, I would agree with most of the posters that the pre-64 94's tend to be of higher quality in general, but I'd also say that some of the post-64 94's (pre major modifications) were pretty well made and are of considerable quality as well.

[Hillbilly]

Edited to add: I did not buy a 7-30 Waters a few years ago... but I drooled over it often in the couple of years it resided in a local shop. For a later era rifle... that was about a slick and pretty as you could get.

The knurled hammers are so much nicer than the square ones with the serrations on em.

[Old Time Hunter]

Pre-WWII, the last of which were shipped in '42. Personnally I think they have enough modern metallurgy to have a little more safety built into them than the pre-WWI's ( I have a 1902, nice but...). Then again from a pure shooting perspective, I have one of those XTR's that I purchased for $100 with the sintered receivers that lays 'em in there right on top of each other all day long. I also have a top eject .375 BB 94 that is so, so slick you can breathe on the lever to open it and eject, while a single finger'll close it. It takes all of 1.67# of touch to set off the trigger too! 'Course it didn't come from the factory that way, I believe it is '78. The newer Timber Carbine's are pretty fine also.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Pre-WWII after 1900. That's my two cents.

I agree. The more rounded bottom receiver even feels better in the hand.

[tman]

i have a 1915 ? src that's built like a tank. the presafety BIG BORES were high quality also

[gak]

I've got a 1917 SRC that's great, and a covey of 1954s, plus two late post 64s (as noted, when they'd finally started to improve) ca 1979--a standard carbine and .30-30 trapper that are right up there as well, but without the better Pre-64 wood ("ok" but...). I'll echo that the Pre AE BBs are primo, and the AE 7-30 Waters 24 (?) inch "carbine," (longer round barrel but full tube/twin band)--a stellar piece "even" with the AE feature. Note: not an add-on safety or rebounding hammer among 'em.


Back to the OP's original intent, virtually any Pre WWII's--for me because of the features that most think of when they say "pre war," but also the great fit others have noted,...followed closely by most of the post-war thru mid 50s (at least) production. I've handled many fine late Pre-64s as well, however.

[missionary5155]

Good morning
I am sure Winchester kept up with metal blending advances so probably the 1930 models are possibly the best.
I have a 1907 38-55 that was well hunted and probably cycled the thousands of times it takes to really make an action slick. Came out of Minnesota and it is by far my favorite 94.

[jlchucker]

There've been millions made-plain and fancy, standard and custom, and the crappy commemoratives that came out every time a day was discovered to be the anniversary of some historical person's most recent visit to the outhouse. In my opinion, the Winchester 94 that was the best made is the one I reach in the cabinet for most often and feels like it belongs in my hands. For many, it's the gun that their dad or grand-dad gave them. For others, it's the one that they got their first deer with. In short, the answer to this question is most likely that it's a choice of the individual owner for lots of reasons that have little to do with year of manufacture or the blueprints used by the factory in manufacture.

[Lawyer Daggit]

Mine is a carbine made in 1963 in excellent condition. I think with on going production changes that would off occurred with the marque, mine represents probably the high point. being the last of the pre 64's.

[Cimarron Red]

Many Winchester collectors consider the collectible period of the 1894/94 to range from initial production to circa serial number 1,850,000 (1952.) This marked the end of the 'long wood' period, so called because forearms of the carbine (rifle production ended in the early 1930's) were 9 1/8 inches long, and the wood extended nearly two inches (1 7/8") beyond the rear barrel band. Forearms following this period were 7 7/8 inches long and the wood extended about 1 1/4" beyond the barrel band.

Other collectors prefer the period where 1894's were marked 'Model 1894' on barrels and top tangs. Circa 1924 the markings were changed to read 'Model 94.'

Still others, as Sixgun points out, like pre-WWI guns best.

I like all pre-64 guns, but my favorite period runs from start of production until the end of rifle production in the early '30's. But some rifles were assembled from parts on hand as late as 1936.

[winchester1886]

I've always heard that the late 30's was the best, that you can tell the difference in quality of late 30's 71 and a mid 50's one.