Every one wants the winchester 94 made before 64.
Now I own one 30/30 made in '59 and two 94 AE in 357and 44Mag.Like them all.
With the 30/30 and top ejection the odd case does land on your person and you can get a burn.So if you are used to Marlins or the angle eject models a hot case is sometime going to get you.

I do not really understand what Winchester did in 64 to cut corners. When did they improve? Are the rifle's of the 80's any better than from the 70's? Should I buy an 1980's model in 30/30 or stay with the pre 64 models?
What are the BB like? .

I know the 94AE are fine rifles and after firing 5000 rds of lead through the 94AE trapper it is as smooth as my old 336/35.

I recently aquired two M94's, a 30/30 made in 1951 and a .32 Special from 1939. I had never owned one before. Always thought they were too old fashioned. The changes made in 1964 were apparently for increased profit. The methods were faster and required less machine work. Some of the newer 94's seem to be well made and finished. I'm looking forward to trying some loads in the .30/30 with 180 grain jacketed bullets that I made up. I also plan to build some 190 grain flat points as well. They should be able to give similar performance to the .303 Savage.

Harry,

Jungli pretty much covered it, all cost saving steps. Post-64s were cast receivers, less milled parts and more stampings, less care taken with fit and finish. In 1978 Winchester went with the first of their variations of the coil-mainspring trigger group. On July 1, 1981 USRAC took over control of Winchester Western - Olin and in 1983 returned the Model 94 to a forge steel receiver. Personally, I think the 94s of the 80s & 90s are much better than those of the 70s.
FWIW, there has not been a Winchester Repeating Arms Company since 1938.



Jungli Bains,

Congrats on a couple nice Winchesters, one of my '94s is a '39, 32WS also, does yours have the Model 55 buttcap?

The M94 Win went to cast frames after 64 as well as other cheaply made parts.
When the AE frame was introduced it was as a forged frame. Some don't like the AE's, but who cares. They are better then the version replaced.

;)

Dan,
The butt plate on my .32 WS has horizontal grooves. I'm not sure if its original or not. The rear sight was off of a Utica made Savage so who knows if the butt plate is original. Old rifles, that are found here in Maine, can have all sorts of variations.

Jungli,

Sounds like the correct '55 buttcap, looks like nickel and the horizontal serration's are between the mounting screws?

When the AE frame was introduced it was as a forged frame. Some don't like the AE's, but who cares. They are better then the version replaced.

Nice attitude. I care, others care. Personally I couldn't care less about the AE feature, but the rebounding hammers and idiotic safetys just turn me off. But you don't care.

As for them being better, well that is a relative comment. Better than what? I have never had a Post 64 rifle fail for any reason. Normal wear sometimes, but never a failure.

To be better than something, the something has to be bad or defective. I've had a bunch of post 64's and never had a defective one.

You won't agree..................but who cares.


Joe

Well, I don't have any post-64 Winchesters, but currently want one of those Trappers in 30/30. Though I could live very well without a rebounding hammer and a safety switch, I can also live with them.

It is my understanding that the cast receivers between 1964 and 1994 worked pretty well, but would not accept blueing if scratched. Therefore, I appreciate the forged receivers they now have.

One thing though - the new "safetys" are on the tang. It sounds like Marbles makes a tang sight that can be installed in spite of them. Does this cover up the safety, or is there some provision to operate the safety with the sight installed?

Cliff,

Cast receivers ran from 1964 to late 1983.
IIRC, you can still operate the safety with the tang sight installed.

cliff355,

I have two Win Trappers. A 1980 vintage 30-30, and an 85 vintage AE in .45 Colt.

The reciever finish of the 1980 was more like real blueing than the previous "post-64's" I've had. And it has held up well over the last 24 years. I have quite a few rounds through it, it's been carried around the AZ desert, ridden many miles in my truck and, the actual blueing on the regular steel has worn more than the finish on the reciever.
It has had exactly one mechanical failure, and that was human caused. Who ever assembled the gun at the factory cut the end of the lever to bolt pin retaining screw real short. As I would cylce the action the pin would move left and totally jam up the action. It took me and a friend of me a couple hours of diagnosing it before we got frustrated and tore it totally apart. Then the shiny silver end of the screw became obvious. Since that screw was replaced, I have had ZERO problems with it.

My AE trapper is the same. Some finish wear from being carried a lot, but mechanically no problems.

From the late 70's to the early 80's I remember the finish on the recievers seemed to be better. Less like plating and more like real bluing. I think Winchester was trying to improve them. I'd not hesitate to buy one if it presented itself to me.

Joe

J. Miller & DLS:

Thanks for the info gents. I'll be keeping an eye out for one new or used, since the .30 WCF I currently have is my Dad's of many years and I am a little reluctant to take it out in the woods. I've looked at a few Trappers locally but they were all .44 Mags. A .30 will turn up sooner or later though.

I have a '65 Model 94 in .32 WS - nice! I can see that the cartridge lifting arm(?) is stamped, and there must be more "cost saving" parts inside. It fits nice, feels nice, and although I don't think there is more than 50 rounds through it, It sure does not seem to be falling apart. It is stiff, just like "not yet broken in". As for the straight up eject - I find that unless you are firing as fast as you can crank that lever, and not taking the carbine form your shoulder, you aren't going to get hot brass on you. I don't know about anyone else, but at the range, I usually try to shoot as I would in woods, and that is not rapid fire.

Just my two cents, though.

Dan,
The serrations are between the screw holes of the 1939 vintage M94. I'm not very up to speed on the 94's, what significace is there to having an M55 butt plate?
John

John,

No real significance, just curiosity on my part ;)
Winchester was notorious for using up parts they had on hand and used the M-55 buttcap on some prewar/post-transitional carbines before they introduced the flat checkered buttcap of the pre-64s. If it's not being too nosey, mine's #118071X, is your anywhere close to that?

I am new to this forum but it looks as if you guys have some great info here. I have an old winchester '94 from 1911 in a 38-55 that my dad bought off a native trapper in the Northwest territories along time ago for $10. Still shoots good.

I have a model 94AE in the Trapper version chambered for the .44 magnum. It's stamped 1894-1994 so I'm sure it was made in or after 1994. I'm not particularly crazy about the cross bolt safety, but, since I mostly shoot it at the range I don't pay much attention to it. I would have prefered the old hammer half postion in stead but it still shoots just fine.

I have a post that was made in 64 so it was one of the first ones still has the stamped lifter never been changed on this gun and it works fine. I bought this gun used 2 years ago after not having a lever gun for years. Paid 180 bucks for it and it was in great shape except for the normal receiver wear. Now I wish I would have that 94 years ago it is just plain fun to shoot. It came with a williams peep aready installed so that was great as I like peeps on lever guns. Installed a fiberoptic front sight and it is great expecially in low light conditions. yea the receiver is like all the cast ones showing some age but that does not bother me heck most of the pre 64 lever guns I have seen with honest wear were worn silver. I had so much fun with the 94 when I started looking for a lever gun in 22 mag I bought a Henry and that gun is a dandy also very accurate. The first couple of deer I shot were with a 94 then I graduated to other guns and traded off the levers along the way. Now I am back full circle and wish I never had left. Jim

Thanks for the info guys. I am looking at three 94's two pre 64's and one from the 80's. I am told it has an aluminum lever .the fit seems great, but I wanted to know a bit more before I took it over the older models
Happy

Harry,

Winchester never used aluminum levers nor aluminum receivers, if you haven't heard that myth yet, you will. ;)
If you have a choice, go for the pre-64s.

Thanks for the info guys. I am looking at three 94's two pre 64's and one from the 80's. I am told it has an aluminum lever .the fit seems great, but I wanted to know a bit more before I took it over the older models
Happy
I think it also depends on your cash flow. You can buy a nice post 94 like I did for anywhere from a 150 to 200 bucks I have heard of less even some times. A nice speciman of a earlier pre gun will set you back 600 bucks or more. Ones that were after built after WWII still command decent prices compared to the post guns. I would love a pre gun but am satisfied the way my post gun shoots and handles. It gets the job done just as well but one thing about the pre guns they will hold their value while the post guns are pretty much just shooters. SO I suppose it depends on what you want and what your pocket book can handle. Jim

You can find them at much better prices than $600, within the last year I picked up a prewar 1939 for $325. Several fella's on Leverguns have bought pre-64s recently under $300.

You can find them at much better prices than $600, within the last year I picked up a prewar 1939 for $325. Several fella's on Leverguns have bought pre-64s recently under $300.
Dan I suppose it is where you live ect. I have seen average 94's selling at the Local Gander Mountain for 600+ and they move them also. Have seen the same prices at gun shows also but then we know they run high. :( I did see a 32 special rifle octagon barrel that I could have gotten for 300 last year but it was no shooter the bore was a sewer pipe common on a lot of older 32 specials. Why I am not exactly sure but I did read something about using black powder loaded shells in them in the early days where the 30/30 only used smokeless. Not sure about that but that is what I read anyway. Maybe some one can verify that here? I suppose it all depends on if you buy them from a store or a private party some folks do not know what some guns are worth when they sell them. I know when I bought my post for 180 bucks if I could have found a pre for a 100 bucks more I would have grabbed it but none were for sale at the 300 dollar range at the time. Jim

I bought mine from a gunshop, IIRC, Joe Miller got his from a gunshop and at least two others bought theirs on-line. Gander Mountain pretty much says it all, the two stores I've been to, have absolutely been out of their minds on all their gun prices. The pre-64s (circa 1949 thru 1964) can still be found at reasonable prices if you look around.
The owner may have reloaded the 32WS with black, but it was a smokeless cartridge, now the 32/40 was originally blackpowder. Rough bores are no more common on the 32WS than any of other caliber's offered in the 94s, they all used corrosive ammo at one time.

Dan, Your comment about most of the early guns shooting corrosive shells brought up the following thought since the 30/30 only was smokeless powder I am guessing you are talking about corrosive priming something that most of us associate with the milsurps but forget about the the guns that shot ammo with corrosive primers until the non corrosive came out. Good point I had forgotten about that even though I figure most milsurps shot the same type of ammo. We tend to forget the sporting guns did also. Thanks for the reminder. Jim

Wow, great thread. I have a 94AE in 45 Colt that I got as a Christmas bonus (we were getting cash bonuses from the asst. manager proportional to our sales until one week when I busted the curve, said asst manager decided to turn bonuses into in-store credit and the rifle just happened to become available....), it has the rebounding hammer but no safety, unless you count the little trigger block that only allows you to pull the trigger while you squeeze the lever. It has a 16" barrel and a ring on the side of the reciever. Can anyone tell me anything interesting about this one? I believe that it is fairly new but am uncertain as to how new. It goes great with my Blackhawks and looks fine next to my 45-70 Ruger No 3.

45LCshooter,

Well, your trapper was made in, or after 1985 but before 1992. Winchester introduced the .45 Colt chambering in 1985 and the Cross Bolt Safety in 1992, the trigger stop (trigger block as you called it) has been on the Model '94 since 1894. Does it have the drilled & tapped hammer for the extension? If not, it might be an '85 (is the receiver blue or color case hardened)? D&T hammers introduced in 1986. The ring on the side of the receiver is known as a Saddle Ring, you may have heard the term saddle ring carbine AKA SRC, this is what they are referring to.

Congrats, the trappers are sweet little guns, I have three of 'em. ;)

45LCshooter,

Well, your trapper was made in, or after 1985 but before 1992. Winchester introduced the .45 Colt chambering in 1985 and the Cross Bolt Safety in 1992, the trigger stop (trigger block as you called it) has been on the Model '94 since 1894. Does it have the drilled & tapped hammer for the extension? If not, it might be an '85 (is the receiver blue or color case hardened)? D&T hammers introduced in 1986. The ring on the side of the receiver is known as a Saddle Ring, you may have heard the term saddle ring carbine AKA SRC, this is what they are referring to.

Congrats, the trappers are sweet little guns, I have three of 'em. ;)
We have two trappers , one in 357 the other 44Mag. The 44 Mag was the first , and once wore in, became a smooth little gem , that we now use on CB shootin'
The a sweet thing about these little rifles, is that they fit into the box on the rear of the ATT. They are also grand for dogpunching.

I have seen one in 45 Colt that a fellow member atthe range bought . It two was tight from the factory, but run 500 rounds or so of mild lead target loads throught these little guns and good things start to happen . For one , the barrels become polished and the action slick.
Now my wife can unload a trapper in eight seconds. That is 10 rds that are aimed.She did not see a deer this year but watch out for next year.
Happy :D

I do not see what the big deal about the pre/post 64 deal is all about. Ruger has the same thing going with the 3 screws versus the 3 pins. I've seen collectors turn their noses at them at gunshows. The same goes for the pre/post ban assualt rifles. Colt has the series 70/80 debate. They all shoot just the same. It is a matter of taste or who has the most expensive toy.

I bought a Winchester 94 "Antique" with those evil parts. I simply replaced the stamped parts. Not rocket science.

I'm no different. I still have a problem when I see made in Japan on a lever action. I hope I can get over it.

Well, Yanqui

The post-1978s don't shoot like the pre-64s, Flatbands, or prewars and neither do the post-1981s they have completely different hammer-trigger groups. Please, "the most expensive toy" don't try and turn this into a class thing. If you cannot tell the difference in pre and post 94s, I don't know what to tell ya. Everything Winchester did in post 1964s was to reduce costs or liability, not to improve the product. As to the Japanese manufactured guns, how are they any worse than French Winchesters, just because they're made over seas? The quality of the Jap Winchesters is outstanding, personally I put quality a head of what name or country maybe stamped on it.

There has not been a 100% produced Winchester since 1938.

Volcanic Arms Company
1855

New Haven Arms Company
April 25th, 1857

Henry Repeating Arms
1865

Winchester Repeating Arms Company
1866

Winchester Repeating Arms Co./Division Of Western Cartridge Co. in December 1938.

Then to Winchester Repeating Arms Co./Division Of Olin Industries Inc.
December 1944.

To Winchester - Western Division - Olin Industries Inc.
January 1952

To Winchester - Western Division - Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp.
September 1954

To Winchester Western - Olin
September 1969

To U.S. Repeating Arms Co.
July 1, 1981

To F. N. Corporation
December 1990

They were taken over a few years ago by the French Conglomerate, GIAT (sp?)

John,

No real significance, just curiosity on my part ;)
Winchester was notorious for using up parts they had on hand and used the M-55 buttcap on some prewar/post-transitional carbines before they introduced the flat checkered buttcap of the pre-64s. If it's not being too nosey, mine's #118071X, is your anywhere close to that?
Dan,
My '94's serial number is 1,175,3xx. I hadn't realized that the factory used up parts this way. Makes sense.
John

Okay folks, that's enough. We can have civilized discussions and even disagree here without all this.