What is it about pre-64 Winchesters?

[bushmaster1313]

Every pre-64 Winchester I have handled (except for a Model 24) seemed to have something special about it.

Any explanation for what it is that makes pre-64 Winchesters so appealing and desirable.

Was there a chief designer, tradition or department that focused on the look and feel of the product?

 

[sheepdawg]

They were made by craftsmen that took pride in their work.

 

[Racer X]

And "good enough" never got passed GC.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

A simple question with several simple answers: quality, class, pride in workmanship, perhaps a few others.

 

[Valmet]

A historical explanation is that Winchester cut costs in 1964 to compete with the Remington 700 (introduced in 1962), and it needed to replace some of its aging mfg equipment. Milling, pressed checkering, and hand finishing were the order of the day prior to 1964 and after that there was more casting, stamping, and machine checkering.

As I understand it performance didn’t suffer but boy aesthetics did. Put a pre-64 next to, say a 1965-66 mfg Model 70 and you’ll see the difference.

 

[mauser9]

Yeah those cuts in aesthetics, mauser action, and that pressed checkering cost Winchester dearly. I owned a 1974 made Model 70 which had a lousy trigger and the bluing did not have that polished look at all. Think FN got the rights now for the Model 70 and hear they are pretty decent but expensive.

 

[JayFramer]

It was made by Americans back when Americans were really good at making guns, as when there were skilled craftsmen carefully putting them together from milled steel parts and carefully finished wood. Today, America can still make good guns, but for the most part, the laborers act as assembly people rapidly putting them together after the parts have been shot out of a powdered metal machine or injection molded plastic gadget.

 

[DWalt]

Having once being an owner of a 1967 Model 70 (in .270), I cannot say anything bad about it aside from saying it does not have quite the gracefulness of a pre-64 Model 70. Likewise, the post-1963 Model 1200 pump shotgun does not have the eye appeal of the Model 12, but I can't fault its performance in any way. It is my opinion that the Model 1200 is even better where it counts - lighter in weight, better balanced, and a smoother action. And that is from long experience with both the 1200 and the 12.

 

[Spokes]

I have had four of them. Still have three. 243,30-06, and 264 Win. Mag.
All shooter class and well used. All accurate and reliable, pleasure to use..
Had to sell the 338 magnum. Just too heavy a recoil....

 

[peterGun]

The Golden age of American gun manufacturing came to a close with the inflation of the 60’s, both guns and coinage took a hit in 1964.

FWIW I have two, a 55 md63 and a 58 md50.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jeffrefrig]

I wish I had my dad's Model 94, I think?, 30-30. It's still in the family, so... But, I do have the Marlin 39-A .22, 1947 yr., and the K22 Masterpiece, but I really liked his "deer rifle." It was a nice rifle for the woods in PA. He proved that! It never hurt me when I was a kid when I got to shoot it, and 75 yds. in a 12" target was best I could do, no scope. (Top ejection.) The things I took for granted, learning from Dad...

 

[Drm50]

I forced myself one time to read a book about the Winchester Company.
I got I from library and was dry reading for the most part. It was not keyed on the guns. It was the workings of the company from business decisions to production methods. They had a weird policy of bidding out
contracts of guns to crews in the company. The foremen would assemble
his team and set his tolerances. What this produced was almost a custom
gun. The competition between crews was a matter of honor. This operation was what caused them to go under. They couldn't compete price wise when soon after WW2 the stamped parts guns came out. I've only been disappointed with two Winchesters of pre 64 manufacture. The M70 in 264
mag and M43s in 22 Hornet. They were made well enough but never came
across one yet that shot worth a hoot.

 

[Peak53]

The loss of quality from that hazy period is indeed regrettable. However, I don't think it is fair to pin this on some loss of integrity, lack of skill, or lack of experience of the American Worker. Finely figured walnut and the labor cost of skilled machinists to make and fit the steel just didn't work in the new reality. For the time it took to produce a pre-64 Winchester, or a 1950's S&W revolver for that matter, we couldn't afford it. Your Dad was no longer willing or able to demonstrate a decade or two of hard earned proficiency for a couple bucks/hour. He couldn't feed his kids on that and the general public couldn't afford the real price of a real gun. So sad.

 

[Racer X]

For the record, I have my dad's 70 pre '64 30-'06 that he bought when he came back from Korea. His driving force was to come home and go elk hunting with his dad. Don't have grandpa Ivan's rifle, but I do have his Win Model 12 goose gun, probably depression era. Barrel is almost a football field long. Ivan survived WW I as a cavalry officer. That alone is impressive.

 

[Frank46]

I had three pre '64 match rifles, a 1949 standard and a post '64 match rifle all in 30-06. The post '64 match rifle is the only one I have left. All shot/shoot extremely well. The pre'64 featherweight in 308 was the most painful one as I recall. That monte carlo stock would rise up and whack my jaw every time and that was with a good cheek weld. Also had a model 100 in 308 which was a good shooter and a few pre'64 1894 carbines. From reading period gun magazine articles there were some very loyal Winchester buffs that were really ticked off at the big red W for cheapening their beloved firearms. I got out of the navy in '67 and had my first 'pre 64 match rifle in the same year. As with all my pre'64's held on to them as long as possible. Then someone would wave some good money and one by one over the tears they were all gone. And it's not just Winchesters that have gone by the wayside. The old Redfield company used to make all the Olympic, International and Palma target sights. Even today a good tight Olympic, International or Palma rear target sight will bring some very decent money. Lyman made both their 57 and 49 sights out of steel and no mystery metal. The 48 went the way of the dodo and the 57 is now made of aluminum main body and slide. One might just say I'm living in the past, maybe maybe not. I still like all steel revolvers and pistols but do have a few with the aluminum frames. Sig Saur discontinued my P239 series and FN did the same with the P35 High Power. Fortunately for me I was able to get one of the Israeli surplus MKIII's in 9mm and that nor my P239 or my P6 West German 9mm will not be for sale as long as I'm above ground. Grumpy old guy. Frank

 

[grice]

Aside from the personal touch regarding craftsmanship, I think after 64 they went from control round feed to push feed also. I had a model 70 made in the 70s subsequently stolen that I thought was a pretty good rifle but it came with an epoxy type finish on the wood rather than a nice oil finish that I’ve seen on some of the other pre 64s. Since then I now have two more made by the new company, the Alaskan and featherweight and I’d rate them very nice although if you’re a wood nut like me they still don’t resemble the pre 64 models .

 

[CH4]

Pre 64 Wichesters have a certain je ne sais quoi that those made after 64 just don’t have.

 

[Alk8944]

One word, QUALITY! In 1964 manufacturing methods changed across the full line. Post-1964 guns are perfectly functional, no question, but aesthetically they are far less pleasing.


The basic changes were many parts that had been machined from forgings changed to cast or sintered metal or stamped sheet metal. The result being loss of durability and a general "cheap and tinny" feeling and sound to them when functioned.


Before someone "corrects" me, cast and sintered are different processes. To my knowledge both processes were used for different applications.

 

[revho]

I stumbled in to one for sale a couple years ago and purchased it. Dated to June 1942 and is 4 numbers off a known Canadian PCMR carbine. Closest I will come to having one, so I have hung on to It.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BB57]

…/

/...As I understand it performance didn’t suffer but boy aesthetics did. Put a pre-64 next to, say a 1965-66 mfg Model 70 and you’ll see the difference.

I can't speak for the Model 70, but I've owed three post 63 Model 94 carbines, and three Pre-64 Model 94 carbines and all of the Pre-64s shot 1.5 MOA. The post 63s are all 3-4 MOA carbines. They also have about 2.5x as much lever slop.