I saw a pre-64 model 94, 30-30, excellent condition, in the paper for $550. I've often noticed "pre-64" mentioned in ads. I have little knowledge on long guns and just wonder....what did Winchester do in 1965 that made the previous ones more sought after?

In 1964 Winchester "streamlined" the production process resulting in a low quality product both in design and workmanship. To many, the pre-64 was the last of the true Winchesters. Since then quality and workmanship has varied from period to period and owner to owner.

__________________
TOMBECK

Im no expert on the Win 94's but a generality about a lot of gun people is that they dont like change. The old Win 94's had an iron frame I think and really old tooling and such to make em, that was getting cost prohibitive for Winchester to keep makeing them. The change to more modren materials/construction methods resulted in a better firearm but one that did not please the leave it alone we would rather see it discontinued crowd. There is some merret to this kind of thinking when a design change is simply to keep production cost's down, but the driveing element in all this is sales. If sales on a model dwindels due to increased cost of the product one of two things happen, the before mentioned economy measure's or the product is dropped from production.

Sorry for the long winded explanation (as I see it), check out the newly introduced Winchester 94 and the price!

__________________
Stay safe people!

Thanks Tom and Bob.
BTW I went to their site Products -- Winchester Repeating Arms but didn't see a newly introduced 94?

I am not an expert on Winchester either, but I hunted with pre-64 Model 94s and post-64 guns. The pre-64 guns were uniformly well constructed. Some of the guns that came along in the early 70s were absolute junk, from poor fitting, jamming, terrible finish, and wood that would be rejected at a pallet factory. I owned a couple of these guns, and had friends who owned them, so I am speaking from firsthand experience.

I understand that Winchester corrected a lot of this in some later guns, but I don't have any experience with anything after about 1976.

I won't buy a Smith & Wesson manufactured after about 1979, either.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

Why Are "Pre 64" Winchesters Desirable?

Because gizamo has most of them, making them hard to find and higher priced when you do find them!

__________________
Misty

Pre 64 Winchesters are desireable because they are the best rifles ever been built. Larry

The pre-64 M-70 bolt actions based on the Mauser actions were very fine rifles and the favorites of sportsmen all over the world for many decades. The next generation M-70 was not near as well made or as desireable, but I don't think there was anything drastic done that year on the other rifles and shotguns. In other words, if you have a 1965 M94 or a 1967 Winchester shotgun don't get a big frown on your face because there's a good chance its just as good as the pre-64 guns.

The original Winchester Model 70 was a direct copy of Paul Mauser's design, very strong and very expensive to make. But it had a reputation of never failing to do anything, like feed, extract etc. I guess it's most notable feature was the full length extractor, and I guess the three position safety . It has what is called controlled feed, you can chamber it with the rifle upside down. You CANNOT chamber a round by hand and then close the bolt. Jack O'Conner among others loved them and couldn't say enough about them. The Ruger 77 is sort of the same thing, as are others.

Anyway sometime in the fifties they started changing things to get their costs down. But in 1964 the bottom fell out. They did away with cut checkering and went to impressed, with a lousy finish. The whole Mauser thing was gone. As far as I know the major change to the 94 was the stock. I have only a rifle made in 1955 so I can't tell you.

What is now called the Model 70 "classic" is a good copy of the pre 64, minus a few things that some say make it better and others miss.

There are those that like the post 64 Model 70 action, finding controlled feed a pain. Put nice peice of wood on it and you have a nice rifle they say. I don't own one and have no idea.

What Winchester did is comparable with the changes S&W made over a decade or so to make their products cheaper to produce. MIM parts, two piece barrels, eased inspection standards, cheaper finishes, and the list goes on. Today we see knowledgeable S&W fans looking for older models produced before the "improvements," and Winchester fans look for pre-64 models for the same reasons.

I have a mid-80's M70 XTR in .223. Accurate, smooth action, beautiful rifle. Very nicely polished and blued, very good wood stock. I'll never sell it or trade it away.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

I have 8 or 9 desireable old winchesters. None are newer than the late 1950s. For long guns, I dont think winchester missed any area of guns needed for whatever job, they were all good. Untill 1964 they never built a cheap undesireable gun. Always fine blue and wood, always worked, never a ugly gun and they always had the best reputations.
Here is a 1st year (1937) model 70 that WAS in .22 hornet. I bought it, took it to the range to find someone had chambered it to .22 K hornet. Oh well, shoots fine and I think I bought it for $140s close to 40 years ago.


This model 70 made in 1953 is in 300 H&H.


This model 64 is from 1952.


This 63 was made in 1958. I found it unfired with the hanging tags in the early 1970s.

Speaking of the M94s, I believe the metal frame and parts differ after '64 as well. Some say all you need to do is pick a post 64 up and shake it. The loose fitting rattle will give it away. I think post 64 parts are stamped, not machined.

I also think the pre-64 frame is machined from a block of steel, and the post is cast, tho I am not positive. (I do know that is true for a 1940s M71 I have, compared to a a late '80s Browning/Miroku 1886 I also own.)

Apparently the steel difference makes the post 64 '94s impossible to reblue nicely.

Seeing the fine looking pre-64 M/70 .300 H&H brings back memories. In the late '70's I was working at Browning's St. Louis Gunsmithing Shop, once a month there was a small gunshow in Illinois. As I was leaving the show once I spied a lone M/70 on a dealer's table that contained mostly handguns. I inquired about the M/70 and was told that it was a .300 H&H and that there was no market for high powered rifles in the are particularly a big magnum like that. The dealer must not have been having a good show because he seemed motivated to sell since I expressed an interest. Long story short the .300 H&H cmae home with me for the grand total of $400.00 OTD. Today you're lucky to find a .300 H&H for less than $1K mor than I paid, one of my best M/70 deals ever.

Can I ask what the approximate serial # is?

__________________
Dick Burg

Dick, the serial # is 8039. I and a old friend once took the stock off and if I recall right the barrel was dated stamped 1935. My buddy, a big student of firearms kind of thought the barrel might have been a blank off a model 54?, as the rifle probley is one of the 1st made in hornet. I wrote winchester and got a generic letter saying the gun was built in 1937. It also was tapped for scope before I bought it.
I have dies for K-hornet, have loaded for it and shot it, but not a lot.

While I am at it, here is a winchester 88 in 308. It also is a 1st year, 1957. I ran across it about 3 years ago and have put a new leopold scope since the picture. Gun is in great shape.

Post-64 lever actions no longer were blued. I'm not sure what they were. I have one (bought in the early '70's) and it shoots well but when the finish wears off, it's ugly and you can't re-blue it. Almost like aluminum but it isn't aluminum.

I have both, a 1949 vintage Model 94 in 30/30, and a 1980's vintage "Ranger" (their cheapest version). The 1949 vintage rifle shoots better, has a higher rear sight elevator for longer ranges, a hooded front sight, better quality wood (real walnut), seems like a smoother action, trigger is nicer, too. It is a "Top Eject", where the emptys land on the bill of your hat, while the later rifles had an "Angle Eject", kicked them out to the side so you could mount a scope easier. I have seen many Pre-64, top eject rifles ruined in my opinion by people drilling holes in the side of the reciever for a side mounted scope.

Here's some pics of mine:

Pre-64 Model 94:





1980's vintage "Ranger" with SKS sling and butt stock ammo carrier, my truck, canoeing, survival and utility rifle:



The Ranger I got for $250, it shoots good out to 100 yards, haven't tried it any further.


Both rifles, side by side:



I did find a good cast lead hand load that works good in the older rifle, a 165 grain lead flat point bullet with 9.5 grains Unique pistol powder, good for around 1200 FPS. Accurate, no recoil, fun to shoot, quiet enough you can shoot them without hearing protection. I have to raise the rear sight to the highest level, this gives me point of impact = point of aim at 50 yards, and groups around 1.5 inches. I can't use these loads in the Ranger as I can't raise the rear sight high enough to hit point of aim, they hit about 6" low in that rifle. These loads are good for small game, general plinking fun, and introducing new shooters to center fire rifles.

Because....prior to '64 they made guns like these.




giz

ps.... thanks Misty

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

I looked at a couple of '68 model '94s and the finish (I'm not shure if it was real bluing)sucked.The receivers looked like they were made from cast something,I'm not sure.Not like the old ones.They lost some finish around the contact places by the wood and looked more like corrosion than rust.(kinda white)Speeking of wood,not so good.One was even called a "Clasic" and looked like garbage to me.I'll take the pre64 or another brand.Just my opinion.

Merry Christmas,D.G.

if you read "the riflemans rifle" by roger rule in will get the full story, at least on the pre 64 model 70's. in a nutshell they were produced on outdated equipment that required hundreds of hand operations resulting in a gun that was basically hand made. if you own one you know what i mean. winchester claims they lost money producing them.

That's my understanding, too. The M54 was also a great bolt gun. No poor quality parts on either one. The M70 was an upgrade in engineering, but they both were great guns, built during the heyday of the bolt guns.

__________________
Dick Burg

Didn't Winchester also switch from a controlled feed to a push feed with the post '64 Model 70's?

__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member

In 1964, Winchester went from building Ferraris to building Yugos.

I've seen a few M70 22Hornet rifles were you could still see very faint remnants of the original M54 barrel roll die address in the steel. Polished, re-roll marked for the M70 Hornet and reblued by the factory. I can't recall if they were early production rifles or not.

I had one gent tell me that 'all' M70 .22 Hornet rifles were barreled with M54 hornet tubes.
I'll leave that and all the rest of the collectors info for others to sort out!

They certainly are beautiful rifles,,no doubt about it.

Thanks guys. My old friend will be glad to know others agree with his theory. Its been a long time, but I am pretty sure it was date stamped 1935 under the barrel. Since they claim the rifle wasnt made until 1937, I think its kind of obvious.

As to the bluing on pre-64 M-94s - you are right - they will not take standard bluing. However, I believe the newer ones (like sn-4,000,000+) can be reblued.

There is no comparison of the "feel" of a pre-64 M-70 to a later one. But, I have tried a couple of post-64s and they shot surprisingly well.

IMO the best piece of work Winchester ever did was the M-1886 and the later M-71.

__________________
6/23/2022

good OP; used to buy Guns & Ammo from time to time and they would go on about the pre-64 model 70, but would never actually say why it was better than those that came after it. Then again, found out some not too flattering things about G&A afterwards...

Seeing the picture of the M/88 brings back memories, that was my first deer rifle and the rifle with which I harvested the biggest buck of my hunting career. I've owned several .308 M/88's and one .358, foolishly I've traded all the M/88's away over the years. My deer rifles now are both M/70's, a pre-war .257 Roberts and a 50's vintage standard grade that I've had rebored to .35 Whelen. When I was younger a .338 Magnum was my Colorado elk rifle. I have two M/63's also, a pre-war that is my shooter and an ultra rare Deluxe Model Carbine circa 1937. Most collectors have never seen a M/63 Deluxe as Winchester never cataloged them. I cherish all of these old guns, they're fine examples of the golden age of American firearm manufacturing. A time when craftsmen took pride in their work, well shaped and finished American walnut and deeply blued, expertly polished steel. An American tradition from another time and place. Just holding a finely crafted Winchester in your hands it is easy to wax nostalgic, nothing beats spending a crisp fall day afield with one of my Winchesters. Squirrel hunting with my M/52 Sporter with Lyman Alaskan in G&H Mount is about as good as it gets.

Here is another winchester 1890 that is a somewhat mistry to me. I bought it close to 30 years ago. It was in .22WRF. You cant see it well, but the stock has very fine wood, checkering and a cheek piece.
I assumed the gun was refitted with custom wood and from a straight grip to the pistol grip. That was because the main tang screw goes right through the numbers on the bottom tang. It probley was customised but I wouldnt bet my life on it. It was a very fine job. This rifle also has a longer stock than others and fits me and balances better than any I have ever owned.
Thinking that, I had the rifle rechambered to .22 WMRF. The gun dates 1920. I still have the receipt for $206.70.

Another class of Winchesters is pre war which generally bring bigger money than pre 64.

Yes, the post 64 Model 70s are push feed. I own a Featherweight in .270 and it is a fine rifle and very accurate. I don't plan on chambering a round upside down though.

If you ever have handled a Model 94 from the later years it just rattles and seems so loosey goosey compared to pre 64 94s.

The quality of the pre-'64 Winchesters is unequalled today. The Model 70 was almost completely hand-fitted and tuned. Even the .22s cannot be made today the same way because of the cost of hand labor.

Here are two of the finest rifles Winchester ever made. At the top, a .22 LR Model 75 sporter, made in 1956. This little lightweight rifle is a target rifle in disguise. It uses the action, chambering and rifling of the Model 75 Target Model. The trigger pull is crisp and light. It's an absolute tackdriver; anything within 100 yards can be nailed without question.

At the bottom is my pride and joy - I looked a long time for this one. It's a Model 70 chambered in .30-06, made in 1949. Just handling this work of art is enough to give you goosebumps. As I mentioned, it's hand-fitted, and everything works smoothly and purposefully. It will give you 1" groups at 100 yards and is absolutely reliable. It's been known as the "Rifleman's rifle." You could not ask for a better hunting rifle, and our famed sniper in Vietnam, Carlos Hathcock, used one for many of his exploits.

They don't make them like this any more.

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Classic Winchesters are a separate affliction I bear apart from my love for classic Smith & Wesson revolvers. Love pre-64 Winchesters and love to use them regularly. With attentive care and feeding they make great lifetime companions.

My favorite hunting rifle is a 1953 vintage Model 70 in .30-06. My favorite .22 is a 1924 vintage Model 90 in .22 Long Rifle. My favorite shotgun is a 1941 vintage Model 12 Skeet Grade.

There's other Model 70s and lever guns around here and all exhibit excellent design and careful workmanship. In use they still give deeper satisfaction than do more modern arms.

Well...



The Handgunners Revolver and The Riflemans Rifle...Two old friends, .357 Magnum from the '50s and a '63 M70 chambered in .300 Win. Magnum. ( The rifle shot well enough to get a new 'stick of wood' back in the early '80s )

Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

i have a pre 64 30-06 that si really nice and i got for a good deal. i also have a 2000's "classic" super grade in 25-06. the classic is very very nice but the trigger is gritty.

the pre 64 is a base for many a nice custom rifle.

Dave, that stock is some of the prettiest wood I have seen in a long time.

I don't know, guys, my 1976 Win. 94 looks and shoots pretty darned good for me. I've never really looked close at a "pre 64" M-94....they're too expensive for me. Though not super accurate, it'll group about 2" for me at 100 yds., which is pretty typical for an iron sighted rifle, and any
M-94. So, it can't be that much different. (Except in the minds of collecters.....that is.)

Sure, my Sears-Roebuck Mauser .30-06 will shoot clover leafs at 100 yds., but it also has a 2.5X scope on it. That alone, better sights, makes any rifle more accurate. It was built in 1950, on a Mauser '98 action, with a Hi-Standard barrel. The "pre 64" M-70 was based, pretty much, on a copied '98 Mauser action, but Winchester probably made the barrel and the furniture (stock). They look real pretty....but that don't bring home the venison any better than the old Mauser. Again, the collecters shower praise about how great they were.......just like S&W enthusiasts swear by the old guns.

Let's face it....we all like to think that all of the old guns were great, and we resist any change. But, without change........we'd still be hauling around rifles and shotguns weighing 10 lbs.! We'd still be driving cars with 100 hp max, weighing 2 tons, getting 10 mpg, and with engines that were worn out at 50K miles. Think about it. The old ideas and craftmanship were better, but, I like my 6 or 8 lb. shotguns and rifles. If they were still handmade.......they'd cost about 4 times more, and you'd be getting an "old school" rifle or shotgun. (Sorry Giz.....but you're a collecter of fine old arms.....that the rest of us can't afford. Plus, you got that 18th century thing goin' on!)

I like old guns too. My "newest" Smith is my 1986 M-17 that wears a Bushnell Trophy Red Dot. The better sights allow me to hit the side of a barn! So, I guess, I'm a little bit country.......and a little bit rock & roll!!!! Bob (can't remember who said that......some red neck comedian!!!)

"The "pre 64" M-70 was based, pretty much, on a copied '98 Mauser action, but Winchester probably made the barrel and the furniture (stock)."

"Probably" did, along with the rest of the rifle.

I still think the old guns are great. I even like heavy rifles best. Of course I'd rather drive old cars with 400 HP, weighing 2 tons, getting 8 MPG, while paying 28.9 for ethyl.

I hate change.

I know where you're comin' from!!!! Never thought I'd own a 4 cylinder truck (125 hp) that couldn't get out of it's own way........but, there you go!!!! My latest Ranger has the 150 hp V6, which is a little better......
Got to go with the flow....my friend! Been swimmin' up stream for too long. In my older age, I've changed directions. Ha ha..... Bob

I'm a little bit country.......and a little bit rock & roll!!!! Bob (can't remember who said that......some red neck comedian!!!)[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking Donny and Marie Osmand.Real comedy.Maybe not "redneck".

Merry Christmas,D.G.

I just am not into synthetic stocks, stainless steel, fiber optic sights, anything "tactical" looking, baked on finishs, ray gun looking futuristic lines, or pine, brich or whatever they are trying to use for stocks lately.
Now most of this stuff works, or I suppose they wouldnt sell it.
I just am into fine blue, nice real walnut wood, conventional old lines, and close tolerances. What killed critters 50 years farther and back still works today. I dont need new super calibers, I dont belive any critters has through eveloution gotten tougher.
Far as cars go, now they use all plastic and tin can metal and try to tell me its to make them more survivable in a crash, when we all know the real reason is it costs less to make. Also they use all computer stuff so you cant work on them yourself. They have you by the short hair at the garage!
I will concede tires, brakes and engines last longer. However, buying a new car today is almost as much fun as buying a new refridgerator!

My pre 64 .257 Roberts

Attached Images

70-10.jpg (245.6 KB, 50 views)

The trouble with all the new firearms technology that is now on the market is that I'm not through playing with the old stuff yet.

Some of the firearms I purchased new in the 1970s are now somewhat collectible though semi-obsolete (in the minds of current shooters) and the ones that were just used guns, 20-100 years old, are now high-dollar and only fit for safe queen duty.

Very nice .257 Roberts minuteman! What year was it manufactured?


Here's a 1947 Model 70 in .257 Roberts that I enjoy using on Texas whitetails. It's decent though not as nice as yours.

My Dad gave me his Pre 64 Winchester Model 70 in 270 Win made in 1953 in the early 90's. My son while Elk hunting took a nasty fall with it in a rock slide while hunting pretty much destroying the stock and making a large gouge in the barrel. I ended up taking it to the Colorado school of trades in Denver and having the barrel fixed and reblued in a matt plus and I had them install a custom stock on it. It's not a collector gun but it's a tacking driving hunting gun that will stay in the family long after I'm taking the dirt nap. You probably guessed that the son that took the fall with it will be the caretaker of this fine rifle after I'm gone. He was so upset when he did that to my Dad's rifle that he didn't want to come back to hunting camp that day and I told him that sometomes things happen and not to worry.

bmcgilvraym, it's a 54 model, pretty nice rifle. Hate to say it but I've had it a couple years and never fired it.

Both of those .257 roberts M/70's are great rifles, I lucked into my current one several years ago at a small gun show. It's a pre-war, I got it for a little more than $500.00 OTD.

I can't put my finger on just exactly when, but it seems all new consumer products (with the exception of electronics) aren't as good and cost more. Maybe it was in the late '60's or early '70's when the wife had to go to work just to maintain the same standard of living, and taxes started to skyrocket. Winchester wasn't the only company that went for cheapening their product. Browning went to Japan for its production(some say their salt wood problem forced them to). Turkey and Russia now come to mind for cheaply produced guns. Pressed checkering and maple/birch stocks became the norm for a lot of manufacturers. And now the plastic guns abound. You can still get the old quality at a cost. Note that the S&W "Classics" go for over a thousand dollars. A Belgian Superposed is over $10,000. I don't like what's happened, but it has. I'll keep on seeking the "old stuff" that is in great condition for my collection.

A wiki entry:

1964 through 1991 Model 70

Competing as it did with the Remington Model 700, it was decided that changes needed to be made in the face of rising labour costs. Accordingly, in 1964 Winchester made a number of design changes to the Model 70. Few to none of these changes were popular with the rifle-buying public, or with the US Military. The changes included dropping the controlled round feed feature, a change to the basic stock shape and the use of impressed chequering rather than cut chequering.

Jack O'Connor, long a proponent of the Model 70, wrote about the post-'64 version that ". . .I was informed by Winchester brass that the Model 70 was being redesigned. I told them that I was glad to get the information so I could lay in four or five more before they loused the rifle up. Then I saw the pilot model of 'New Model 70.' At the first glimpse I like to fell into a swoon. The action was simplified, the trigger guard and floor plate made of a flimsy looking one-piece stamping." Despite this initial reaction, O'Connor grudgingly went on to say, "Actually the post-1964 Model 70 is not a bad rifle in spite of the fact that rifle aficionados have never taken it to their bosoms the way they did its predecessor. It is a stronger action than the pre-1964. The head of the bolt encloses the head of the case. It has a small, neat hook extractor, which is adequate. With this extractor the cartridge is not as surely controlled as it is with the Mauser-type extractor. However, the new model seldom gives feeding problems."[5]
[edit] Post '64 Model 70 Action (Push Feed)

In order to reduce manufacturing costs in the face of higher labour rates, rifles manufactured from 1964 to 1992 differed from early Model 70s in the following ways:

* The bolt was changed significantly. The bolt face was enclosed so that it fully surrounded the cartridge rim, in a similar way to the Remington 700 bolt. While cheaper to manufacture than the undercut bolt face needed for controlled feed actions, it is also stronger, providing more support to the cartridge case head, and better contains escaping gases in the event of a case rupture. The new bolt also differed from the old in that (also like the Remington 700) it was manufactured in 3 pieces (the bolt head, body and handle) and brazed together. The brazing is so well done it is very difficult to see the joints. There is no compromise in strength due to the 3-piece construction.

* The Mauser-type non-rotating claw type extractor (incompatible with a fully-enclosed bolt head) was replaced with a small wedge type extractor that does not engage the cartridge rim as it rises from the magazine to the chamber but rather pushes the cartridge into the chamber. As the bolt handle is turned down into the locked position, the new extractor clips over the cartridge rim. The new extractor is perfectly reliable, although it grips less of the case rim and is not as elegant as the Mauser-type claw extractor.

* Hammer-forged barrels were introduced.

* The machined steel trigger guard and floor plate were replaced with parts made from an aluminium alloy to reduce weight using the assembly from the pre-1964 Featherweight version.

* Some models featured walnut stocks with chequering that was impressed onto the wood rather than cut into it as on the early Model 70's, further reducing manufacturing costs.

The new action was severely criticized by riflemen for its lesser amount of control and its supposed unreliability, making the original action even more prized. In reality, many of the changes could be considered improvements, making the action stronger [6]. Any post-'64 Model 70 rifle that is not designated as a "Classic" is most likely to have the post-'64 action. For normal use, the action through its design is no less reliable, although the simplified construction is less elegant. This action has been further improved over the years, and is now generally on par with the CRF action. Because the bolt does not actively grip the cartridge until the bolt handle is turned down into the locked position, the post-'64 system is supposedly more vulnerable to jamming or being inadvertently closed on an empty breech (i.e. failing to load a new round) if operated under duress, especially if the rifle is held upside down or on its side. In design terms (enclosed bolt face, plunger ejector, 3-piece brazed bolt construction) it is fairly similar to the Remington Model 700 which has a worldwide following and is considered to be very reliable. All things considered, in normal situations there is not much to choose between them, apart from personal preference.