Pre 64 Winchester Rifles

[Werewolf]

Besides the only real Winchester 70s worth having are the pre 64 ones anyway.

OKAY...

I've seen the above said about the Model 70 over and over again and seen the same written about the M94 as well. I don't get it.

I bought my 1st M94 about 5 years ago and it is a fine rifle. Chambered for 45LC. With my 1500 FPS LRN loads it shoots 3" to 4" groups out to 100+ yards with iron sights from a sandbag. Easy to clean, always goes boom and feeds without fail. In addition I owned a M94 in 30-30 built in the late 70's and it too was a fine rifle.

So what's the deal. What makes a rifle that was made 43 years ago so much better than the same model made 5 years ago????

 

[rcmodel]

Not near as many roll pins and stamped sheet metal parts.
And some of the real walnut back then is near exhibition grade now.


rcmodel

 

[ArmedBear]

It's not really the same model. It just has the same name.

That said, while some versions of the 94 did sink to near-junk quality before Winchester closed the factory, many guns were great.

The early post-64 Model 70s were completely different guns from the pre-64's. However, more recently, Winchester introduced "classic" models, etc. So it's a mixed bag.

Still, the rifle world hasn't stood still since 1964, and there are lots of guns out there besides the Winchester and Remington bolties. And some some truck guys are still sitting around arguing "Ford vs. Chevy" while the Dodges and Toyotas drive by, their drivers wondering what the hell the hubbub is about.

That said, AFAIK old man Olin died in the early '60s. He'd long subsidized money-losing Winchester Guns with the profits of Winchester Ammo. He liked nice guns personally, and he believed in what's called "branding" now: people who associated Winchester with their top-quality guns would buy more Winchester ammo. The younger generation was of the "college boy bean-counter" school, and figured that they could make Winchester Guns profitable, to hell with nice guns. The big shift happened in 1964, and affected the wood, the designs, the parts, everything.

Ultimately, they unloaded Winchester Guns altogether. They make money by letting others use the name Winchester, which they still own. Same goes for those cheap knives at Wal Mart, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK it went something like that.

 

[luckytexan]

It is usually the fit and finish that people are referring to when they say the Pre-64's are better. There was still a lot of hand finishing done on Winchester rifles at that time, and that changed in 1964, along with the introduction of some stamped parts that were previously milled or forged. I have a M94 that was made in '57, and the quality of the steel, fit, and finish does seem to be better than those manufactured after '64, especially the rifles made in the 70's. There are major differences in fit and function on the Pre-64 Model 70s and the early post-64 Model 70s.

Also, the Pre-64's are a bit closer to the original design, i.e.; no angle eject, button or tang safety on the M94s, or the M70s having a controlled-feed action (which was eventually re-introduced) and more graceful rendering of the bolt handle and stock. But personally, I think the real reason people think the Pre-64s are better is that they have more character due to age and handling. Some people (me included) prefer that.

But if the firearm does what you need it to do, its ergonomics fit your build, and its looks please you, then I wouldn't let a date of manufacture stop you from owning and using it.

 

[10X]

As other posters said, Winchesters after 1964 had a lower quality standard.

It is like a lot of other guns. When the model or version goes out of production that gun becomes a collector's item. S&W pinned and recessed, S&W pre lock, Colt pre series 70, Colt WWII or pre WWII.

Winchester also has the magic name of Winchester. The pre-64s, the real ones, aren't being made any more, so are collector's items.

 

[dakotasin]

i don't know anything about the m94's - not really ever being a fan of lever guns. but the m70's... there is a definite difference. however, i would prefer a modern production 70 classic over a pre-64 70 (i have examples of both).

but, to answer the question, i think a lot of it is just nostalgia - not much more than that, unless we are talking about the post-64 push feeds - they seemed to leave a lot to be desired.

 

[kentucky_smith]

Winchester/FN/USRAC has always made fine rifles. I like them. Pre/Post/Push/Claw/CRPF all good.

 

[Horsemany]

Pre 64 quality

In my opinion the reason the pre-64's are so highly regarded is these guns were basically hand built. They only had the tooling and technology to build them one way. The best way. Even the tiniest parts were milled from steel billet, not cast from pot metal. The front sights on several models were actually machined with the barrel. A lot of irons sighted guns today are cast pot metal, poorly fitted, and screwed on. I have a 700 BDL I bought last year that doesn't even match the profile of the barrel. I have a brochure from the early 50's that shows a man hand lapping the barrel on a Model 70. This is a time consuming task and now that is only done by high end custom barrel makers. The triggers were light and crisp and as already stated the fit and finish was on par with that of custom guns of today. All of the pre-64 guns I have ever shot were as accurate or more accurate than most modern guns. If you look at every stage of the manufacture of those guns and compare it to todays guns, you will find we have found a cheaper way to do the same thing. If you handle a pre 64 and then a modern equivelent, all of those cheaper techniques added together, become apparent. That's my .02

 

[jacobhh]

I own a bunch of Winchester levers made from 1887 to an AE in .307
and the only POS is a '94 30-30 I bought new in 1970. The lever flops
around like a dead fish when the action is open, the buttstock to
receiver fit is atrocious and I'm not sure they even tried to polish the
metal before they blued it. Maybe it's an oddball and I was a sucker
to buy that one. Otherwise they're all nice rifles. The .307, new in the
90's is a great piece. It rivals my '73 as the best and it's certainly a
post '64. I don't have a pre'64 model 70, wanted to get one but the
prices have outstripped their value as shooters IMO and this
re-introduction of late has put a crimp in their collector value. I
think except for nostalgia their not worth it. The 2005's were
priced at barely 3x what they were in '63 while the average Ford auto
has increased at least 10x so money savings in labor was poured into
price reduction. There's little argument with the contention that the
newer ones are more accurate and the stock is better. They were a
bargain but so was the competition and they fell out of vogue. No doubt
the pre-64 mystique had a lot to do with that.