Why Are "Pre 64" Winchesters Desirable?

[ridewv]

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?

 

[TOM BECKWITH]

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.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

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!

 

[ridewv]

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

 

[redlevel]

The change to more modren materials/construction methods resulted in a better firearm

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.

 

[gunlovingirl]

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!

 

[tops]

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

 

[Farmer17]

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.

 

[SWID]

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.

 

[n4zov]

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.

 

[johngalt]

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.

 

[feralmerril]

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.

 

[Onomea]

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.

 

[Marksman]

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.

 

[rburg]

Here is a 1st year (1937) model 70 that WAS in .22 hornet.

Can I ask what the approximate serial # is?

 

[feralmerril]

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.

 

[feralmerril]

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.

 

[Beemer-mark]

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.

 

[canoeguy]

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.

 

[gizamo]

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

giz

ps.... thanks Misty