difference between pre 64 and post 64 Model 94

[SkyHawk]

What is the difference between pre 64 and post 64 Winchester model 94?

I know one was made in the USA and the other in Japan.

Post 64 does not mean Made in Japan. They were still making them in the USA up to 2006. They didn't start making them in Japan until 2010.

Here's mine, 1950

[highpower]

I have owned several different M94 Winchesters from pre '64 up through the late seventies versions. Being realistic, they all performed the same and if you didn't have the "experts" telling you what a POS the post 64's were, you would never know the difference.

Cosmetically, the pre '64's are IMO, more attractive than the later versions and I personally don't like the angle eject or those with the lawyer safeties. That doesn't make then bad rifles, I just like the traditional Model 1894 the way JMB designed it.

If you look around and you don't mind a bit of finish wear, you can still find a pre '64 for a decent price. I recently bought a 1955 94 for $500. Like nearly all of those I have seen, it has a bit of carry wear, but mechanically it is perfect.


I saw another post war pre '64 for sale in a local gun store recently that they were asking $550 for. But quite honestly, if I wanted one to use purely a shooter and I found a post '64 for under $400, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

[Sandspider500]

Lots of information in this. Too bad it ain't all true. 92's "stronger" than a 94??? If you designed a 92 to handle the pressures and length of a smokless 30WCF you would have an ....86?

Umm, a 92 is a scaled down 86. 92 action comes in a 454 casull. The action of a 94 chambered in 454 casull may last about 4 or 5 rounds before getting too bent out of shape.

[kendog4570]

Umm, a 92 is a scaled down 86. 92 action comes in a 454 casull. The action of a 94 chambered in 454 casull may last about 4 or 5 rounds before getting too bent out of shape.

My point is the guy is a little mixed up. I dont think he was born before they were no longer made by USRA.

92 in 44-40 operates around 22000. 94/30-30 at 42000. 454 at 60000. MODERN clone 92's are made of tougher stuff than originals and may handle Casull pressures, for a while. 94's were never designed to operate at higher pressures, and the 30 WCF was never intended for the 92. People also stick the 454 into 94's but they are just as crappy as any other pistol length round in that action.

[slamfire1]

Been there and done that. Wrote a whole bunch of material on how good IMR 3031 was, and the OP was asking about IMR 4831.

Let he who has not trainwrecked, lay upon the rails.

[Sandspider500]

My point is the guy is a little mixed up. I dont think he was born before they were no longer made by USRA.

92 in 44-40 operates around 22000. 94/30-30 at 42000. 454 at 60000. MODERN clone 92's are made of tougher stuff than originals and may handle Casull pressures, for a while. 94's were never designed to operate at higher pressures, and the 30 WCF was never intended for the 92. People also stick the 454 into 94's but they are just as crappy as any other pistol length round in that action.

An 86 in 45-70 full of black powder operates around 20,000 psi, so using your logic a model 94 winchester's action is stronger than an 1886. Or is it capable of much more due to the design of the action? Also I am unaware of anyone converting a 94 to safely fire 454 casull, the action is not up to the task unless it has been heavily modified. You can't run a 30wcf in a 92 because it's too freaking long.

[SkyHawk]

A "Pre 64 Winchester" is a control feed Model 70. After 1964, they changed the design of the model 70 to a push-feed design. Pre-64 doesn't apply to Winchester Lever action rifle. Never did. And, it has nothing to do with where the lever action was made or what type of steel was used, etc.

Wrong as usual, but thanks for playing

[kendog4570]

An 86 in 45-70 full of black powder operates around 20,000 psi, so using your logic a model 94 winchester's action is stronger than an 1886. Or is it capable of much more due to the design of the action? Also I am unaware of anyone converting a 94 to safely fire 454 casull, the action is not up to the task unless it has been heavily modified. You can't run a 30wcf in a 92 because it's too freaking long.

Sounds like a 94 is stronger. Probably due to design and better materials, heat treat, etc. A more modern steel 71 in 348 (Which is a product improved 86) operates around 40000, about the same as 30-30. The 95 is stronger yet, able to handle 30-06. It's design is similar to a 94 Big Bore .375 win., a 94 with beefed up locking block area, and a forged receiver.

Some nuts put the Casull in lever guns. Doesn't sound safe to me given its operating pressure.
Towards the end of the video just before he shoots (misses) he states something to the effect that the 30WCF was intended for the 92.
Again, my point was the guy was talking some sh*t.

[Sandspider500]

I'll agree the kid is full of Schiff, but he's also correct that the 92 action is stronger.

A word from Buck Elliot, some nut that chambered and tested lever actions for 454 casull, I believe he used to work for freedom arms.

In my own .454 levergun tests, back in the late '80s, we did manage to ruin a few Winchester '94s, and one Marlin 336. The Marlin failed after the fewest rounds of factory-equivalent ammo, digesting only a handful of rounds (somewhere short of 20, if memory serves...) before the action would no longer lock up safely or securely.

Next to fall was a brand-new Winchester '94 Big-Bore AE, which stretched and flowed like taffy, as the bolt tried to climb up the locking lug and out of the top of the receiver, peening the lug recesses in the receiver terribly, and noticeably stretching the right side wall of the receiver. In their infinite wisdom, Winchester (USRAC) beefed up the receiver in the wrong place, while cutting ALL the strength out of the right receiver wall, to allow for their ill-conceived "angle ejection" modification. The '94 that performed best in my testing was a well-used carbine, made in the 1920s. It was still tight and crisp when we screwed the .454 barrel into it, but even it became dangerous and unserviceable in fewer than 50 rounds.

The whole point of the testing was to prove to various and sundry doubters that the 1894 Winchester was NOT a suitable platform for the powerful .454 Casull round - and WHY. The guns used (and used up...) in the tests were donated to the cause by those very Doubting Thomases...! It doesn't get much better than that.

BTW, the same Sharon barrel was used in all the tests, and it emerged unscathed. It was finally rethreaded and rechambered to .45 Colt and installed in a Browning '92, where it still resides -- a 24", octagon beauty.

The 1894 and 1895 Winchesters are NOT particularly strong actions, having llooooooonnnnngg receiver walls and angled, rear locking bolts. In short, physics and geometry are against them from the outset. As mentioned above, the '94 AE suffers the further indignity of having the only strengthening metal available to it REMOVED to make way for the abominable ejection system.

The '86/M-71 and '92 Winchesters are by far the strongest of the "traditional" lever actions, with the nod going to the '86/71, with its square-to-bore vertical lockup, which situates the lugs about 2/3 the distance back from the breech-face as compared to a '94 or '95. The '86's receiver walls are robust and not chopped up or hollowed out as are those on the '94, in particular.

[kendog4570]

I read a lot of similar stuff. P.O. Ackley was able to blow many actions up as well. Get enough powder (especially the wong kind) in the case and they all come apart. I know for a fact that 23.7 grains of Accurate No 7 will absolutely, catastrophically wreck a Zastava Mini Mauser in 7.62X39. It's barrel was quite salvageable, while every other major component of the action was split, cracked, bulged, and bent and the stock was split lengthwise into 3 pieces.

Materials have a lot to do with the integrity of any design. I'll bet a B92 Miroku will withstand a lot more abuse than an original Winchester. While the 92 design might be "stronger", I have seen plenty loosey goosey old guns that would be questionable. 60000 psi would surely do those no good either.

In their testing they managed to trash 94's and 336's, did they run a 92 as hard?

[kendog4570]

Getting off topic. Early 94's are sexy and later ones not so much.

[1859sharps]

You're right about the lifter & internal parts. Please note that the meaning of the phrase "Pre 64 Winchester" has changed over the years. With the model 70, you can see the design change. It obvious, because they went from controlled feed to push feed. The phrase pre 64 always applied to the bolt action model 70.

With the Winchester 94, the design didn't change in 1964. There were changes, but not design changes. The last Model 94 built in 1963 was serial number: 2600011. In 1964, the model 94 started with serial number: 2700000. If it's important to you, check the serial number.

While I can see your point, there still is enough changes post 1964 in the M94 to have a legitimate distinctions between rifles of "original" manufacture methods and those made with the cost cutting methods, then later the addition of angle eject and changes to where the safety is located.

Initially it was "just" manufacture methods that was the change, not something as fundamental as push vs controlled feed. But adding safeties and angle eject down the road are in fact design changes. minor no doubt, but design changes none the less.

While I agree most discussion regarding to pre 64 Winchesters focus on the Model 70 as it was the most "drastic" change. However, I have always understood pre 64/post 64 to be a general reference to the "line in the sand" when Winchester made unpopular cost cutting changes to their line in general. Some significant such as what happened to the m70, others more "behind the scenes", such as initially with the m94.

[Sandspider500]

They did but I cannot find the tests on the 92 action, it also ended up shooting loose but after many, many more rounds. He ended up designing the rifle based on a cross hybrid of an 86 and 92 a lot like the big horn armory lever actions, which are chambered in 45 colt, 454, 460s&w, and 500s&w.

I also have some 44-40 load data for use in post 1920 92's that you'd probably call crazy.

I only have 1 m94 a pre 64 32 special carbine made in 58, I got some 22 years ago for $200 at a show in costa mesa. It's seen better days it was well used before I got it, most of the bluing on the receiver is fading, the bore is excellent though and it shoots well.

[mike.h]

The post 64 lever action had a number of changes, including sheet metal pressings for some internal parts instead of cast / forged & machined parts.
For example, the post-64 has a stamped shell lifter.

This

My 30-30 was a great shooter, when I returned from overseas, I had my gunsmith installs a peep site on it. I don't remember ever having any problems with it.

[1859sharps]

They did but I cannot find the tests on the 92 action, it also ended up shooting loose but after many, many more rounds. He ended up designing the rifle based on a cross hybrid of an 86 and 92 a lot like the big horn armory lever actions, which are chambered in 45 colt, 454, 460s&w, and 500s&w.

I know this is a big thread drift, but it's interesting stuff you share.

I looked up the big horn armory rifles and a return on my search was for Rossie 92s in 454.

https://rossiusa.com/firearms/lever-action-rifles/49-r92-454-casull-20-9-rounds-stainless-steel-brazilian-hardwood

any experience or thought how they pulled that off?