I have a 94 that was made in 1964. It has the "different" material used for the reciever that does not take blueing well. Is there a strength difference with this particular type reciever? I am considering rebarreling to 38/55 for use with heavy hunting loads, or perhaps 444 Marlin cal if it can be done on standard (non big bore) recievers. Anyone have any definative information on the subject?

I have a 94 that was made in 1964. It has the "different" material used for the reciever that does not take blueing well. Is there a strength difference with this particular type reciever? I am considering rebarreling to 38/55 for use with heavy hunting loads, or perhaps 444 Marlin cal if it can be done on standard (non big bore) recievers. Anyone have any definative information on the subject?

It is the nickel content in the medal of the reciever. To convert any rifle I would have a Gunsmith look at any gun, first. :D

The gun is almost new condition, it has likely had less than 200 rounds through it since new. The condition of the individual gun is not in question, just the type of receiver material, and if the standard 94 action is OK with the 444 caliber. I have no doubt about 38/55 being OK, I'm just trying to decide which way to go with this gun.

Keep the 94 org. and purchase a 444 , would cost about the same if convered by a good gunsmith
talen

malamute,

Post-64 (after #2,600,011) were cast receivers until late 1983 when Winchester returned to 100% forged receivers. Harry was referring to "Winchester Mystery Metal" as known to collectors, nickel content had nothing to do with them (1964-1983) not taking a "blue," they will take a blue, but will turnout purple, copper or dark red, depending. High nickel content was the cause of "Winchester flaking" the turning brown and actual disappearance of blue over time from the receiver (an uncommon occurrence after W.W.II). There were three 38/55 models built on cast receivers; 1979 Legendary Frontiersmen, 1980 Oliver F. Winchester and the 1983 Chief Crazy Horse. You should be safe building a 38/55 on your Winchester but personally, I would not try to build a .444 on the cast receivers, Winchester never did.

Blued "Winchester Mystery Metal"
http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Rifles/Lever_Actions/1965Trapper.jpg

"Winchester Flaking"
http://www.gunpix.com/gallery/Rifles/Lever_Actions/193932WS.jpg

Nunf ! said.
I personally would go for the real thing.I have seen a few at Gun shows.

Nice pics, Dan - very helpful!

So it has a cast receiver eh? I would like to do something useful (to me) with this gun. It has some sentimental value, but it has an oversize bore and has never shot well with anything I've tried in it. 12" groups at 100 yards have been about it. I have a couple of older 94's, so figured this one would be the first candidate to do a caliber change on. I don't have any burning desire to own a 444, since I am a hardcore 1886 45/70 and larger caliber fan, but for a caliber that the 94 can be converted to it was an interesting option. I'm still wondering if a standard 94 action will hold up as a 444 though.

Why were the 94 's beefed up to handle the big bores?
I take it , yours a 30/30.
Then there are some wild cats based on the 30/30 case.
Why not retube it and make a shooter?

Thanks, Mike.

With 12 inch groups, I'd say you couldn't hurt it by rebarreling to something else. Not like you're sacrificing a real tack-driver :)

I just saw where you had a 38/55 barrel for a model 94 for sale in the trading post .
Was this a take off from another winchester ?
Tell us more

It's a brand new never installed barrel that I bought to put on this gun. It's from a "Saskatchewan Diamond Jubilee" commemorative model and so marked on the right side of the barrel over the chamber area. It has standard Winchester model 94 markings on the left side in the normal place. It's a 20"standard carbine barrel with dovetail cuts for front and rear sights. I bought it from a dealer that specializes in commemmorative parts. It has a .379-.380 groove diameter, fine for cast bullets, but I wanted to use the barnes .375 or .377 diameter jacketed bullets with heavy hunting handloads in this gun, so this barrel isn't exactly what I need for that. I know there are some bullet makers that make larger diameter jacketed bullets for this caliber, but I want to be able to buy my components over the counter

It's a brand new never installed barrel that I bought to put on this gun. It's from a "Saskatchewan Diamond Jubilee" commemorative model and so marked on the right side of the barrel over the chamber area. It has standard Winchester model 94 markings on the left side in the normal place. It's a 20"standard carbine barrel with dovetail cuts for front and rear sights. I bought it from a dealer that specializes in commemmorative parts. It has a .379-.380 groove diameter, fine for cast bullets, but I wanted to use the barnes .375 or .377 diameter jacketed bullets with heavy hunting handloads in this gun, so this barrel isn't exactly what I need for that. I know there are some bullet makers that make larger diameter jacketed bullets for this caliber, but I want to be able to buy my components over the counter

I think I would want to put the 3855 together as the standard 94. Or convert it to the 32 Spl
Then I would keep my eyes open for the 375W BB
My .oo2 cts.

Yes Harry, I was going to do this gun up as standard early style carbine, with the small stud front sight and the barrel band set out close to the muzzle. I have a 94 carbine made in 1927 and I had some front sights made to duplicate it. I set up my 1960 carbine and this 1964 gun the same way, also using the long wood forends on them, and I'm slowly switching (have 4 of them on my guns so far) to Lyman #56 receiver sights that first came out in the 1930's. As far as the 375 big bore, I just have not ever been impressed by anything that Winchester has made since 1964 came around. The only caliber I'm really interested in for a 94 other than the 30 WCF is the 38/55. I guess I'm a bit out of date.

Yes Harry, I was going to do this gun up as standard early style carbine, with the small stud front sight and the barrel band set out close to the muzzle. I have a 94 carbine made in 1927 and I had some front sights made to duplicate it. I set up my 1960 carbine and this 1964 gun the same way, also using the long wood forends on them, and I'm slowly switching (have 4 of them on my guns so far) to Lyman #56 receiver sights that first came out in the 1930's. As far as the 375 big bore, I just have not ever been impressed by anything that Winchester has made since 1964 came around. The only caliber I'm really interested in for a 94 other than the 30 WCF is the 38/55. I guess I'm a bit out of date.

Well to me your spending a lot of time and money to make something "look" like some ting you have not got. I see many old guns at the Gun Shows from the twenties and post war Winchesters and most have a helfy price tag if they are in good to very good condition.
Then you see one or two with perfect bluing , stocks etc , but there might be some detail missing that the average "Joe" might not quicky pick up , and lay down the big buck for something that was put together .
In your case I can see putting a barrel on an old gun to make a shooter out of it.
But to go and convert some thing to what it never was, is against very thing I stand for .

To me you are trying to decieve the public .
Good Day Sir and Good bye. :(

Well Harry, I'm not sure I follow you. Or more to the point I'm not sure you're following me. It sounds like you are accusing me of trying to cheat someione. I take extreme exception to being called a liar or cheat sir. I do what I LIKE to MY guns. I'm not trying to sell them or do anything with them other than enjoy them and shoot them. Anyone can imediatley tell if a Winchester is correct by looking at the serial number. It does not take an advanced collector to know general configuration of a Winchester carbine by date of manufacture. I spend my money and time on things I like, I assume you do the same. I do not critisize or insult you for your choices. I HAVE a decent old SRC that I like, I also have a nice 1960 vintage gun that shoots under an inch groups at 100 yards when I do my part. I changed the look of this gun because I like older guns, but cannot see spending 2 or 3 times the money as I have in my 1960 gun because I don't care for ramp sights and short wood forends. If you do not like that I change the stock and sights on MY gun to suite my tastes and interests, fine, that is your right, but to accuse somene you do not know of being a liar and cheat over it is over the top sir

Well Harry, I'm not sure I follow you. Or more to the point I'm not sure you're following me. It sounds like you are accusing me of trying to cheat someione. I take extreme exception to being called a liar or cheat sir. I do what I LIKE to MY guns. I'm not trying to sell them or do anything with them other than enjoy them and shoot them. Anyone can imediatley tell if a Winchester is correct by looking at the serial number. It does not take an advanced collector to know general configuration of a Winchester carbine by date of manufacture. I spend my money and time on things I like, I assume you do the same. I do not critisize or insult you for your choices. I HAVE a decent old SRC that I like, I also have a nice 1960 vintage gun that shoots under an inch groups at 100 yards when I do my part. I changed the look of this gun because I like older guns, but cannot see spending 2 or 3 times the money as I have in my 1960 gun because I don't care for ramp sights and short wood forends. If you do not like that I change the stock and sights on MY gun to suite my tastes and interests, fine, that is your right, but to accuse somene you do not know of being a liar and cheat over it is over the top sir

Never said a lair or cheat .You did not read what I said . I said your making the gun into something that it is not. then afterward it is or presented as something that it is not .
You may so do as you please sir.

Harry,

I don't believe malamute is out to cheat anyone. I've done the same thing with two Winchester's. A 1965 cut to a trapper length, which they never made and a "short octagon barreled rifle" which I could never afford as an original.

I know I'm **** sure not out to cheat anyone, if someone is uninformed enough to purchase collectable Winchester's without doing their research, it a hard lesson earned then.

Harry, I felt you were implying that someone (me) was trying to sell something as old when it was not. I express my sincere appologies if I put words in your mouth, but I feel unfairly accuse by you of trying to decieve someone. Am I trying to "make it into something it is not"? I suppose that depends on your perspective. Is Navy Arms, Cimmaron, Uberti, Dixie, Ruger, Colt, Beretta, Browning, and who knows else trying to make something "into something it's not" by offering affordable (relatively speaking) versions of old Winchesters and Colts? I don't feel so. I LIKE older Winchesters, I make my newer versions LOOK like the older ones because I can afford that easier than buying old originals. I haven't ever presented my guns as anything other than newer guns altered to suit my personal taste. I have NEVER sold anything I've modified in this manner, and even if I had I'm sure there are other people that would appreciate the style without the cost for a shooter grade gun. Doug Turnbull makes a living doing restoration work on Winchesters, He does fantastic work by all accounts, if someone tried to pass off a restored gun as original condition that would be wrong, but that doesn't mean Doug Turnbull is wrong for making old beater guns look like new again. Whenever anyone buys a higher cost gun they should be aware of the possibility of the condition being restored instead of original, but nothing I'm doing could remotely be construed as trying to decieve. In my case the serial number will always tell the tale as to when a gun was made, and therefore what original style or type is. Anyone would be able to tell that what I have done to my guns is not original. I like old style log cabins, I build old style log cabins. I'm flattered when someone isn't sure how old they are at first glance, but I've never tried to present them as historical or anything of the sort. Would it be wrong to build an original STYLE Springfield Sporter (1903 model)as was built in the 20's and 30's from my 1940's vintage Springfield 1903 because I liked the style? Anyone that checked the serial number would know right off that it was a later gun built in that STYLE. I am a tinkerer, almost every gun I have has been altered or modified in some way. I enjoy the work. People look at my "New Model" Ruger Blackhawk 45 with it's flat top frame and scratch their heads for a minute, but everone that has ever seen it and knew what a flat top Ruger is also knew that all original flat tops were old models. I'm not trying to pass it off as anything other than a (to me)interesting alteration of a new model to make it look nicer or perform better. It also has had about every other part modified in some way or replaced. Just reflecting my interests and taste. I'm sorry if you don't think it appropriate to modify a gun, I think it's Ok

Harry, I felt you were implying that someone (me) was trying to sell something as old when it was not. I express my sincere appologies if I put words in your mouth, but I feel unfairly accuse by you of trying to decieve someone. Am I trying to "make it into something it is not"? I suppose that depends on your perspective. Is Navy Arms, Cimmaron, Uberti, Dixie, Ruger, Colt, Beretta, Browning, and who knows else trying to make something "into something it's not" by offering affordable (relatively speaking) versions of old Winchesters and Colts? I don't feel so. I LIKE older Winchesters, I make my newer versions LOOK like the older ones because I can afford that easier than buying old originals. I haven't ever presented my guns as anything other than newer guns altered to suit my personal taste. I have NEVER sold anything I've modified in this manner, and even if I had I'm sure there are other people that would appreciate the style without the cost for a shooter grade gun. Doug Turnbull makes a living doing restoration work on Winchesters, He does fantastic work by all accounts, if someone tried to pass off a restored gun as original condition that would be wrong, but that doesn't mean Doug Turnbull is wrong for making old beater guns look like new again. Whenever anyone buys a higher cost gun they should be aware of the possibility of the condition being restored instead of original, but nothing I'm doing could remotely be construed as trying to decieve. In my case the serial number will always tell the tale as to when a gun was made, and therefore what original style or type is. Anyone would be able to tell that what I have done to my guns is not original. I like old style log cabins, I build old style log cabins. I'm flattered when someone isn't sure how old they are at first glance, but I've never tried to present them as historical or anything of the sort. Would it be wrong to build an original STYLE Springfield Sporter (1903 model)as was built in the 20's and 30's from my 1940's vintage Springfield 1903 because I liked the style? Anyone that checked the serial number would know right off that it was a later gun built in that STYLE. I am a tinkerer, almost every gun I have has been altered or modified in some way. I enjoy the work. People look at my "New Model" Ruger Blackhawk 45 with it's flat top frame and scratch their heads for a minute, but everone that has ever seen it and knew what a flat top Ruger is also knew that all original flat tops were old models. I'm not trying to pass it off as anything other than a (to me)interesting alteration of a new model to make it look nicer or perform better. It also has had about every other part modified in some way or replaced. Just reflecting my interests and taste. I'm sorry if you don't think it appropriate to modify a gun, I think it's Ok
I understand what you are saying . And I never had a problem with you personally. I do see people remaking fire arms and other items to appear to be something that it is not, and am every much against this sort of thing personally.

Navy arms , uberti , stamp the barrels and you can see that it is a reproduction. .Changing the barrel of a gun in the way of lengh or calipier for one's pleasure I have also no problem. If you changed the firearm to look like a special edition or a rare firearm and presented it as being the real thing , that is what I really have a problem with , and the statement , buyer beware , reinforces my personal stand.
Now put your name on the firearm some where, even if it were two letters or a stamp of the person whom modified the firearm , and I think you would have every ones blessing . That means the unaware buyer and the expert with all the serial numbers with him. :D

The "beefed up" receivers on many 94s was a way to increase safety and strength. Seems to me the first one was chambered for 375 Winchester in late 1970's. Of course all the gun writing snobs made unkind comments about this rifle but North American hunters continued to buy 'em.

Many 94 fans assume the post 1964 carbines are worthless junk. This is not true. One of my best friends carries a mid 1970's-ish carbine in his saddle scabbard nearly everyday. After almost 30 years of use it still shoots straight.
TR

TR,

You're correct, the Big Bore receiver and the 375 Winchester were introduced in 1978. The 307 Win. & 356 Win, introduction of the Angle Eject feature and the discontinuance of the 375 Win in 1983.

TR,

You're correct, the Big Bore receiver and the 375 Winchester were introduced in 1978. The 307 Win. & 356 Win, introduction of the Angle Eject feature and the discontinuance of the 375 Win in 1983.


Hey Dan, Didn't I remember seeing Big Bore 94's in 375 Win. until the early 90's? I am probably wrong, but I think they were made longer werent they? Thanks for all the information you've put out on Winchesters....always interesteresting to read your posts. Chris

Thanks for the kind words, Chris.

I believe you are correct that the .307 & .356 were produced into the early '90s, but the .375 was discontinued in '83 with a small amount of them being made on the Angle Eject receiver, which was introduced in '83 also (some may have been made up later on left over stock).

Dan, are the 444 cal 94's made with the extra metal in the rear of the reciever like the earlier 'big bore" models?

malamute,

Well sir, the picture the on Winchester web site shows a standard 94 receiver, not the Big Bore receiver.
I don't have a clue how those would hold up to heavy usage?

http://www.winchester-guns.com/prodinfo/catalog/images/534105l.jpg

I wonder if the make, or have made, the 444 without the ported barrel? It doesn't look like the barrel is long enough to cut it back far enough to remove the ports.

Dan:

I see the new Model 94 Timber .450 Marlins don't have the old hump-shouldered receiver of the Big Bores. Do you know what they've done differently to accomodate the .450 Marlin cartridge and allow straight receiver walls?

RSY

Malamute,
Sorry sir, I don't recall ever handling the 444 timber Carbine, I can't say.

RSY,
Good question, I have no idea, I'd love to know what if anything they have done to the receiver though?

Geez Malamute, I miss read your early earlier post, yes sir the .444s were on the Big Bore receiver.

Sorry.

Malamute,

It's you money and your prerogative. You know the best thing to do is not to acknowledge the negative posts. Just ignore their posts.

It's to bad you can't share an idea or new information. There is always someone lurking in the shadows waiting to throw a wrench in the whole deal. It makes you want to not even bring it up.

Been there, hombre.

Complete your project and enjoy. I like the idea of going with the 38-55 Winchester caliber. After you complete that project how about one in 32-40 Winchester? There were a couple of commemoratives made in that caliber (the John Wayne Commemorative and the Oklahoma Diamond Jubilee) that will fit that model.

Malamute,

It's you money and your prerogative. You know the best thing to do is not to acknowledge the negative posts. Just ignore their posts.

It's to bad you can't share an idea or new information. There is always someone lurking in the shadows waiting to throw a wrench in the whole deal. It makes you want to not even bring it up.

Been there, hombre.

Complete your project and enjoy. I like the idea of going with the 38-55 Winchester caliber. After you complete that project how about one in 32-40 Winchester? There were a couple of commemoratives made in that caliber (the John Wayne Commemorative and the Oklahoma Diamond Jubilee) that will fit that model.

:p
There is freedom of speech and thinking in the free world. Every one should be able to express what they want . Through this freedom many of us speak and ask questions , then have a new and better understanding of our neighbor.
Malamute, the good man that he is , took the time to repond and has my respect , and in return understood what I was trying to say.I wish him well , and support him in his hobby.
I hope he will share with us how he is making out , to those
Lurkin' :D
Happy Harry

Harry Snippe

Definition of snipe;
[v] attack verbally, in speech or writing

Synonyms: assail, assault, attack, lash out, round, sharpshoot

See Also: abuse, barrage, blackguard, blister, clapperclaw, claw, common snipe, criticise, criticize, dowitcher, fowl, Gallinago gallinago, Gallinago gallinago delicata, Gallinago media, great snipe, half snipe, hunt, hunt down, jacksnipe, limicoline bird, Limnocryptes minima, pick apart, rip, rubbish, run, shoot, shore bird, shorebird, shout, track down, vitriol, whang, whip, whole snipe, Wilson's snipe, wisp, woodcock snipe

The name fits.

Yanqui,

Personal attacks are not welcome here. Thread locked.