Cosmoline
Member
I was referring to the USRAC guns made prior to the demise. The special runs made by Mikuru are another matter--and another price category!
"Pre-64" Winchester Model 94 30-30 -- so what?
- Thread starter W.E.G.
- Start date
- Status
Ok....So the Mikoru stuff is a different category.....Thx
Bronx,
The MIROKU 94s (pay attention to the Model numbers) so far are limited to the two commemoratives I mentioned, in .30-30 caliber.
One of the men involved in the transition of the MODEL 94 from the US to the MIROKU plant in Japan told me the Japanese MODEL 94s carry over the tang safety, the angle eject, and the rebounding hammer from the USRAC plant in New Haven.
Pre-'64 MODEL 94s did not have those features, and many of us do not like them. Many of us feel the older MODEL 94s did not need a safety that can accidentally activate itself & cost you either a deer or your life if you need to fire a shot in a hurry. Most of us feel there's no need for the Angle Ejection since it's a relatively small percentage of MODEL 94 owners who mount scopes on them. The rebounding hammer requires additional springing to push the hammer back to its at-rest position after it's dropped, which in turn requires a stronger hammer spring to ensure reliable ignition since on those rifles with that feature the hammer needs more energy & force as it drops to overcome the rebound resistance and transfer that energy to the firing pin. The rebounding hammer design has been known to cause misfires in what used to be an extremely reliable and simple design, and the heavy hammer spring also affects the weight of the trigger pull.
While it's true that the MIROKU-made MODEL 94s (and previous runs of MODEL 86 and MODEL 92 leverguns) use forged receivers and are high-quality guns, they do most certainly not use the same action of the older Pre-'64 Winchester MODEL 94.
MIROKU leverguns are very well made, better than what the USRAC plant was putting out when it closed, but they're relatively limited production, considered to be nostalgic replicas more than working guns, and are priced relatively high.
You are confusing domestic MODEL 94s with MIROKU-made MODEL 92s. Again-the actions are not the same.
The MODEL 94 was the one that went through the manufacturing changes after 1964, with the cheaper parts and non-forged frames. The domestic MODEL 94 returned to forged frames in the 1980s.
The MODEL 92 has not been manufactured in the US since WWII.
MIROKU MODEL 92s have always had forged frames. Earlier MIROKU-made leverguns produced for Browning didn't have the current safety and rebounding hammer setup. Recent MIROKU MODEL 86s, 92s, and now 94s do.
The point in buying a US-made Pre-'64 is that quality was usually better than DOMESTIC MODEL 94s that followed, and they didn't have the unwanted features that were later incorporated into DOMESTIC MODEL 94s and CURRENT MIROKU MODEL 94s.
Denis
The MIROKU 94s (pay attention to the Model numbers) so far are limited to the two commemoratives I mentioned, in .30-30 caliber.
One of the men involved in the transition of the MODEL 94 from the US to the MIROKU plant in Japan told me the Japanese MODEL 94s carry over the tang safety, the angle eject, and the rebounding hammer from the USRAC plant in New Haven.
Pre-'64 MODEL 94s did not have those features, and many of us do not like them. Many of us feel the older MODEL 94s did not need a safety that can accidentally activate itself & cost you either a deer or your life if you need to fire a shot in a hurry. Most of us feel there's no need for the Angle Ejection since it's a relatively small percentage of MODEL 94 owners who mount scopes on them. The rebounding hammer requires additional springing to push the hammer back to its at-rest position after it's dropped, which in turn requires a stronger hammer spring to ensure reliable ignition since on those rifles with that feature the hammer needs more energy & force as it drops to overcome the rebound resistance and transfer that energy to the firing pin. The rebounding hammer design has been known to cause misfires in what used to be an extremely reliable and simple design, and the heavy hammer spring also affects the weight of the trigger pull.
While it's true that the MIROKU-made MODEL 94s (and previous runs of MODEL 86 and MODEL 92 leverguns) use forged receivers and are high-quality guns, they do most certainly not use the same action of the older Pre-'64 Winchester MODEL 94.
MIROKU leverguns are very well made, better than what the USRAC plant was putting out when it closed, but they're relatively limited production, considered to be nostalgic replicas more than working guns, and are priced relatively high.
You are confusing domestic MODEL 94s with MIROKU-made MODEL 92s. Again-the actions are not the same.
The MODEL 94 was the one that went through the manufacturing changes after 1964, with the cheaper parts and non-forged frames. The domestic MODEL 94 returned to forged frames in the 1980s.
The MODEL 92 has not been manufactured in the US since WWII.
MIROKU MODEL 92s have always had forged frames. Earlier MIROKU-made leverguns produced for Browning didn't have the current safety and rebounding hammer setup. Recent MIROKU MODEL 86s, 92s, and now 94s do.
The point in buying a US-made Pre-'64 is that quality was usually better than DOMESTIC MODEL 94s that followed, and they didn't have the unwanted features that were later incorporated into DOMESTIC MODEL 94s and CURRENT MIROKU MODEL 94s.
Denis
Malamute said:
+1. By now, the thread has some hard facts that should show the changes were fairly small and not of a shattering nature. I have examples from both periods. All are equally accurate. The best handling/looking and by FAR the smoothest operating is a 1980 model "XTR" model. Granted this was a slightly "premium" model, but excellent quality could come in a pre- OR post- '64 model.
If a buyer wants a gun to shoot and enjoy, post-64 models will provide the same function and shooting satisfaction.
Well....possibly, for some. 
Another "bonus" of the rebounding hammer system is that since it requires a heavier hammer spring it also affects the amount of energy required to cycle the lever. I have two rebounders and neither is as easy to cycle as my '51 Model 94. The bolt has to cock the hammer as it travels back, which creates resistance, and it has to travel along riding on top of the hammer as it continues to the rear. When you have a stronger hammer spring, the bolt encounters more resistance, and you have to put more energy into the lever.
Other subtle changes include more angular edges on the levers and a squarish receiver bottom on later versions of the 94s.
Neither may be very noticeable to most shooters, but the earlier 94s had more rounded edges inside the finger section of the lever, and a rounded receiver that just feels better in the hand if you actually carry one much.
For the casual user, recreational shooter, and those not familiar with what was incrementally lost in the classic Model 94 .30-30 after 1964, the differences may not be very important.
Later USRAC guns were perfectly serviceable, and the return to forged frames was welcome, but they were just not the same in many areas as the Pre-64 Model 94s.
Good guns, but the Pre-64s were gooder.
Another thing to keep in mind is that by the time the USRAC plant closed, equipment was pretty much worn out, and the quality was slipping.
So, prior to 1964 you could count on consistent quality and performance, after 1964 it was variable depending on which period a given gun was made during.
Denis
Edited to add that later 94s are famous for lever rattle due to loose tolerances in thickness, while my '51 has no lever rattle.
One of my rebounders has a thin washer that fits around the pivot pin hole (from the factory) to act as a bandaid in reducing the rattle. It would seem that the levers could have been punched from slightly thicker stock to address this, but the USRAC plant never did, as far as samples I've seen go.
Another "bonus" of the rebounding hammer system is that since it requires a heavier hammer spring it also affects the amount of energy required to cycle the lever. I have two rebounders and neither is as easy to cycle as my '51 Model 94. The bolt has to cock the hammer as it travels back, which creates resistance, and it has to travel along riding on top of the hammer as it continues to the rear. When you have a stronger hammer spring, the bolt encounters more resistance, and you have to put more energy into the lever.
Other subtle changes include more angular edges on the levers and a squarish receiver bottom on later versions of the 94s.
Neither may be very noticeable to most shooters, but the earlier 94s had more rounded edges inside the finger section of the lever, and a rounded receiver that just feels better in the hand if you actually carry one much.
For the casual user, recreational shooter, and those not familiar with what was incrementally lost in the classic Model 94 .30-30 after 1964, the differences may not be very important.
Later USRAC guns were perfectly serviceable, and the return to forged frames was welcome, but they were just not the same in many areas as the Pre-64 Model 94s.
Good guns, but the Pre-64s were gooder.
Another thing to keep in mind is that by the time the USRAC plant closed, equipment was pretty much worn out, and the quality was slipping.
So, prior to 1964 you could count on consistent quality and performance, after 1964 it was variable depending on which period a given gun was made during.
Denis
Edited to add that later 94s are famous for lever rattle due to loose tolerances in thickness, while my '51 has no lever rattle.
One of my rebounders has a thin washer that fits around the pivot pin hole (from the factory) to act as a bandaid in reducing the rattle. It would seem that the levers could have been punched from slightly thicker stock to address this, but the USRAC plant never did, as far as samples I've seen go.
Last edited:
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
I think that's high for one that has been drilled for a side mount.
That completely ruins any collector value it might have had, and it's just another 94 shooter now.
rc
That completely ruins any collector value it might have had, and it's just another 94 shooter now.
rc
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,341
I missed the part about it being drilled for side mounts. Yep you are in the 3-$400 range. Question though Why did this thing go for two pages before anybody answered his question about price and now everyone is a friggin M-94 value expert!
So if 5-700$$ is "way" to high what would you experts say it's worth?
So if 5-700$$ is "way" to high what would you experts say it's worth?
"....anybody care to hazard a guess on the value of a 1968 Model 94, that has been receiver-drilled for a scope mount, and is in generally good (definitely not very good, or excellent) condition?"
A post 64 gun (1968) should be about a $300-$400 gun tops. In fairly well used condition, a bit less than top value. These are the ones that a few short years ago were $175-$200 guns, until the 94's were dropped (or as was the common saying, "Winchester went out of business"). There have been some optomistic souls that have been pricing them higher, but I think that they havent sold many, and the prices are coming back to more realistic levels. I've still seen many NIB commemoratives from the 60's that were priced at $500-$550 at the summer Winchester shows in Cody. Why a used gun from the same period would be worth more is beyond me. I still see pre-64's in fair condition selling for $450-$600 depending on condition. The higher level of original condition guns go for a bit more, but good shooter grade guns can be had in that range, even a few pre-war carbines.
I'm curious if our gun in question is indeed "drilled and tapped", or if it just happens to have a scope base installed using the original holes, and was assumed it had been D&T'ed? Weaver and others made bases after 64 that used existing holes, so to remove, all that would be needed was 3 scews to replace those taken out for the scope base install. If it has additional holes, value would be less than an unmodified gun, around $200-$275. Unless you really want a side mount scope and don't mind the alteration.
A post 64 gun (1968) should be about a $300-$400 gun tops. In fairly well used condition, a bit less than top value. These are the ones that a few short years ago were $175-$200 guns, until the 94's were dropped (or as was the common saying, "Winchester went out of business"). There have been some optomistic souls that have been pricing them higher, but I think that they havent sold many, and the prices are coming back to more realistic levels. I've still seen many NIB commemoratives from the 60's that were priced at $500-$550 at the summer Winchester shows in Cody. Why a used gun from the same period would be worth more is beyond me. I still see pre-64's in fair condition selling for $450-$600 depending on condition. The higher level of original condition guns go for a bit more, but good shooter grade guns can be had in that range, even a few pre-war carbines.
I'm curious if our gun in question is indeed "drilled and tapped", or if it just happens to have a scope base installed using the original holes, and was assumed it had been D&T'ed? Weaver and others made bases after 64 that used existing holes, so to remove, all that would be needed was 3 scews to replace those taken out for the scope base install. If it has additional holes, value would be less than an unmodified gun, around $200-$275. Unless you really want a side mount scope and don't mind the alteration.
BusMaster007
Member
Pre-'64 is NOTHING...!
The REAL snobs want 'pre-WAR'.
I always ask: "Which ONE...?!"
The REAL snobs want 'pre-WAR'.
I always ask: "Which ONE...?!"
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,341
Before you go and sell that for $275.00...
Take a look.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/C...ester-Rifles-Modern-Lever/Model-94/Pre-64.htm
Take a look.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/C...ester-Rifles-Modern-Lever/Model-94/Pre-64.htm
SwampWolf
Member
You know, I've heard this before (that 94 frames/receivers were not forged after 1963 until 1983 or so) but I have never seen the evidence, even though I've spent some time researching the question. I'm aware that the manufacturing process was cheapened for several years following 1963 (i.e., stamped carriers and followers instead of milled ones, a finish applied that was impossible to reblue, etc.) but the idea that Winchester went to cast or something different than forged frames is a claim that I've yet to see the proof of.
If anyone can substantiate this allegation with empirical evidence (as opposed to anecdotal hearsay like "I heard", "Everybody knows", "I read", etc.), I'd certainly be interested in learning the truth of the question.
The difference I'm aware of in the receiver is a different type of metal that needed to be iron plated before it would accept hot blue. Evidence of this can be seen on gunbroker. 94's of this era (64'-83') are common with bluing coming off in flakes. You will never find the flaking phenomenon on a pre 64.
I don't know if they were forged or not.
I don't know if they were forged or not.
jimmyraythomason
Member
How do you "iron plate" a '94 receiver and why can't an "iron plated" receiver be re-blued(using conventional methods)?
Call the Browning/Winchester Service Department number & ask.
When I was considering doing some frame alterations on one of my 94s several years ago, my gunsmith was not aware of the change from the older frames back to normal forged frames, and refused to do the alterations. The bluing on the Post-64s was based on the iron plating under it. If you mill, file, scrape, polish, or otherwise dig through the plating, you can't reblue the base metal to match the rest of the frame when you're done.
I had to tell him what the Winchester people had told me: By the mid-80s the frames were returned to normal forgings and could be treated like Pre-64s and Post-85s. (The Winchester guy couldn't give me the exact cut-off date off hand.)
I have not asked what the specific steel formulation of the immediate Post-64 Model 94 frame was, all I know is that it would not take regular bluing.
This is not a rumor.
If you need "proof", call the SD & discuss it with them. If you get somebody who doesn't know, ask for somebody who does.
Denis
When I was considering doing some frame alterations on one of my 94s several years ago, my gunsmith was not aware of the change from the older frames back to normal forged frames, and refused to do the alterations. The bluing on the Post-64s was based on the iron plating under it. If you mill, file, scrape, polish, or otherwise dig through the plating, you can't reblue the base metal to match the rest of the frame when you're done.
I had to tell him what the Winchester people had told me: By the mid-80s the frames were returned to normal forgings and could be treated like Pre-64s and Post-85s. (The Winchester guy couldn't give me the exact cut-off date off hand.)
I have not asked what the specific steel formulation of the immediate Post-64 Model 94 frame was, all I know is that it would not take regular bluing.
This is not a rumor.
If you need "proof", call the SD & discuss it with them. If you get somebody who doesn't know, ask for somebody who does.
Denis
SwampWolf
Member
"Normal" forgings and abnormal (?) forgings are still forgings. And the fact that receivers made from 1964 or so to whenever (1983?) could not be reblued has already been recounted and most wouldn't consider it a rumor. I have heard that the receivers during this time era were composed of "coated graphite steel" whatever that means.
jimmyraythomason
Member
I know that 94 receivers made after the '63/64 change could not be blued in the conventional fashion. I have had "fair" success using Brownell's Oxynate 84. A better solution was to blue the barrelled receiver and then use Gun-Kote or similar on the receiver.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Be that as it may (higher actual quality), like I've been telling my buddy, some day the "geezer bubble" is going to pop, for better or worse (slowly deflate is more like it), and he'll be out tons in wealth due to paying inflated prices on old Winchesters. He collects them.
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more. It's starting already. Winny prices have been steady for the last 5 years really. The AR tacticool rage hasn't helped. Eventually most collectors sentimental of the old Winnies will be gone and so will the market. This phenomenon was well documented with the model A's. Within a 5 year period the bubble burst after all the guys buyin em were gone.
This all doesn't change the fact that the older ones are better though.
Swamp,
I've heard the term sintered applied to those receivers, which was an early powdered metal casting technology.
Winchester was experimenting with a handful of DA revolvers in '62/'63 made with sintered frames, but dropped those in about '63. That, among other things, sorta lends credence in my mind to the cast frame idea with the 94s.
When I said normal forging the term was used to set those frames apart from whatever construction materials were used in the '64-'85 period. I'm not certain those frames were forged at all.
Again- if anybody's sufficiently interested in defining the material down to its atomic structure, call Browning/Winchester, and ask for somebody who actually works on the guns, not just a parts technician.
Far as I'm concerned, 94s made during that 20-year period used frames that were not the same as the frames before & after, and while they're functional as noted, I'm one of several people who doesn't want one.
I consider them inferior, which doesn't mean they're junk, it just means to me they're a lesser grade gun.
The fact that the 94 was returned to the forging we see on later guns also tells me that the management of the old USRAC felt the same. That could have come from consumer complaints as well as from repair facility figures on guns returned.
My opinions of the affected 94s are strictly my own & not intended to knock anybody's gun or preference.
My entire participation in this thread has been to try to explain to Bronx & others what the differences are between various eras and makers of Winchester Model 92 & 94 Winchester leverguns.
Denis
I've heard the term sintered applied to those receivers, which was an early powdered metal casting technology.
Winchester was experimenting with a handful of DA revolvers in '62/'63 made with sintered frames, but dropped those in about '63. That, among other things, sorta lends credence in my mind to the cast frame idea with the 94s.
When I said normal forging the term was used to set those frames apart from whatever construction materials were used in the '64-'85 period. I'm not certain those frames were forged at all.
Again- if anybody's sufficiently interested in defining the material down to its atomic structure, call Browning/Winchester, and ask for somebody who actually works on the guns, not just a parts technician.
Far as I'm concerned, 94s made during that 20-year period used frames that were not the same as the frames before & after, and while they're functional as noted, I'm one of several people who doesn't want one.
I consider them inferior, which doesn't mean they're junk, it just means to me they're a lesser grade gun.
The fact that the 94 was returned to the forging we see on later guns also tells me that the management of the old USRAC felt the same. That could have come from consumer complaints as well as from repair facility figures on guns returned.
My opinions of the affected 94s are strictly my own & not intended to knock anybody's gun or preference.
My entire participation in this thread has been to try to explain to Bronx & others what the differences are between various eras and makers of Winchester Model 92 & 94 Winchester leverguns.
Denis
- Status
