Post 1964 Winchester 94s

[dubious]

Hi, I'm interested in details on which post 1964 Winchesters are especially good rifles. I've heard that they improved significantly since that 1964 low point, but I'm really not sure when things improved.

In particular, I'm waiting for the arrival of a 1982 Winchester 94 in 30-30. I understand that this was the year the factory reopened. Are these rifles in general better or worse than other post 1964 ones? Does the fact that it was made in 1982 mean that its AE?

 

[JNewell]

The only post-64 subcategory I'd really avoid is the ones with the stamped lifter. Somewhere around (and I mean approximately; I don't remember exactly when) they changed several details, including the lifter, which was machined (from a raw casting, IIRC).

I believe that that AE change took place unevenly in the 81/82 range, so your rifle might come either way. The USRAC Model 70s and 94s are generally pretty well made, though some dogs escape from every kennel.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

A good friend bought a new 94 at the px while in the army. He claimed that the receiver was not of steel (or at least "quality steel"). He claimed it was some kind of alum. I don't know about that, but I bought one of the last 94's at walmart for my neighbors kid and tried to touch up the blueing on the receiver and it would not take. Darned if I know.

 

[B. Adams]

I have a 94 made in the late 40's, and one made in the late 70's. The earlier one is significantly better, and the differences are easy to spot. That's not to say the new one is bad, but it's definitely not as good. The parts on the old one are stronger and fit together more nicely, which I'm sure makes them more difficult to build, thus the change in '64. But they started off building them too cheap in '64, and had to beef them up a little bit. IIRC, the ones made after '68 or so are better than the 3 or 4 years prior. I think yours is from the "good" years, but there's really nothing you can do but wait and see.

Either way, I think you'll like it.

 

[DPris]

From '64 till sometime in the mid 80s the 94's receiver was made with a different type of steel, and it wouldn't take regular bluing. It had to be plated first, and the plating was then blued.
Since the late 80s, the receivers have been forged steel & should be blued (and blueable) via a normal process.
Denis

 

[frogomatic]

tried to touch up the blueing on the receiver and it would not take. Darned if I know.

this is becuase newer winchester recievers are made of a steel with a fairly high nickel content, this makes them more difficult to blue.

oh yeah, and 'cold bluing' isn't really bluing. What cold blues do is deposit little bits of copper, and then darken the copper with selenic acids. this WILL NOT protect your gun from further corrosion, as true bluing(hot salt, or rust bluing) does. In fact using a cold blue will trap acid between the copper deposits and the metal of the gun. Now take a guess at what that acid will do to your gun in the long term?