Winchester 94 Question Semi Urgent!

[OMCHamlin]

Guys I need some help here, I found a very clean Winchecter Model 94 in 32 Special at a local shop for $225 this afternoon. It has a serial # of 3315xxx which makes it around a '69-'70 production gun. Were there any glaring problems with this vintage? Is that price reasonable? I mostly want it for a hunting gun (to spare wear and tear on my Remington 660). What say you, should I go for it?
Chris

 

[Dave T]

I didn't know they were making the 32 Special in the '69-'70 era but none-the-less that is post-64. They were noted for the pore quality of metal and finish in the receiver. Seen dozens of them in the used gun racks that were rusted, pitted and ugly. I've been told they can not readly be refinished.

I've seen Pre-64 Model 94s in 30-30 going for that price. Not in like new condition of course but still perfectly servicable. I'd keep looking if it was me. YMMV.

 

[Mal H]

I agree with Dave T. That price isn't a standout for a used '94 in any caliber. Availability of ammo makes the .32 Win Special less desirable than a 30-30. Those two cartridges have very similar characteristics, but not the rifles chambered for them. The 30-30 has a good reputation for accuracy even in a worn barrel, but the .32 WS will lose accuracy fast with a worn barrel due to the different twist rates.

Look around for a 30-30 '94.

 

[W.Va.Glassman]

I'v got a pre-64 32,bought it for 115.00 last year about 2 months after I bought mine one of the range attendants bought one for 300.00,his has better finish than mine.Both guns will shoot 3in. or less.Both of us bought them because they were pre 64.Look for a 30-30,cheaper to shoot.I'v got a 660 in 6mm,whats yours?

 

[Dan Morris]

Hold out for thr pre 64!JMO
Dan

 

[BusMaster007]

I think that isn't too bad of a price and if you really want it...get it!
The .32 Special is harder/more expensive to get ammo for, but if you are mostly going to hunt with it, what the heck.
Lotsa guys want a .32. You found one! If it is clean and OK, well?
I'm guessing it's a top eject model with no safety. If you're not going to try and put a scope on it, it'll be real handy and unique, too.
My best friend has a Marlin 336 in .32 Special and treasures it.

Regarding the finish on the post - '64:
Winchester painted the receivers with something like an epoxy black paint to get a uniform look to it because, as mentioned in another post, the metal took to bluing differently and came out in different colors!
So, they CAN be refinished, with varying and sometimes unusual results.

The gunsmith that refinished my rifle (see below) was amused/amazed and somewhat pleased with the fact that this one came out in what he described as a dark olive drab...perfect for the matte blue on the rest of the gun and considering I had a black synthetic stock put on. He said it looks like a military finish lever-action. COOL.
I haven't seen it yet. I'll get it later this week.

I'm rooting for you to get the .32 Special.
_________________________________
Some info on '94's for you, which I am new to finding out about, but, might be helpful:

I recently acquired two .30-30 Winchester 94's; a 1951 and a 1969.
(...by strange coincidence, these were my LATE StepDad and Dad's rifles, respectively, and both rifles just made it into my hands in the same week, even though my Dads have been gone since 2000 and 1975, also respectively...)

The '51 (StepDad's) is totally original except for the new sight hood, and I just had it cleaned and lubed for $37.00
This gun was in very good condition with some minor scratches on the wood and a couple of spots of rust.

The '69 (Dad's) is now being reassembled with a new finish; RamLine synthetic stock; large loop lever; bbl. band swivel; and Lyman tang sight.
This gun was in poor condition with scuzzy wood and lots of rust and would not cock.
The cost of refinishing and drilling the extra hole for the Lyman tang sight came to $165.00

 

[Tom B]

The 32WS was manufactured in the Model 94 from 1903 - 1973. Check the lifter and other parts to see if they are stamped metal. Winchesters quality was iffey during this time period and received the handle of "Jap Winchesters". My book shows that rifle being made in 1970. That is a good price if it is in decent condition.

 

[OMCHamlin]

Thanks for the advice guys! Glassman, my 660 is a .308 in 99% condition w/ an older Burris 1 3/4 to 5X scope on it, picked it up in CT at a gunshop where I used to work part time for 369$ IIRC. I see that the general opinion is to hold off, but I'm going to look at it again this afternoon (checking the internals and such) and I may go ahead and spring for it anyway. The ones I see around here (eastern shore of VA) are usually kinda ragged out 70-80% guns going for mid 300's and such. This one is really clean, has no &^%$% crossbolt safety, steel butt plate, and is just begging for a Williams 5D peep sight to be installed. Does anyone know the kind of wood used for stocks on this era of Mod 94?
Chris

 

[Ed]

I wanna know where in the world ya'll are finding pre 64 winchesters for so cheap! Heck they try to charge over $200 for a 70's beat up one here.

 

[W.Va.Glassman]

Just have to be looking all the time.I find post 64/94s all the time 100.00-175.00.Bought a first year Marlin 336 last year for 115.00.

 

[Carla]

I'd rather have a pre-54 Mod 94 or a Marlin 336 than any 3 post 64 Mod 94's. I've fired both the pre and post and own a very old pre-64. IMHO, the post 64's suck in both quality and accuracy.

Carla

 

[Mike Irwin]

I'm pretty certain that Winchester also cataloged the .32 Spl. in the 1990s for awhile.

 

[Johnny Guest]

Re: Post -64 Winchesters - - -

Just a general observation - - -

right around 1964, the ENTIRE Winchester product line went down hill BADLY! By the early 1970s, though, someone was getting his priorities back, and there was a tremendous increase in quality, especially in the 1894 guns. I've seen a number of 94s made in the late 70s and 80s I would not be ashamed to own. Of course, the advent of the cross bolt safety was an indicator of something-or-other - - - Mainly that I was no longer interested.

Best,
Johnny