Winchester .32 special Model 94

Weiand

Model 94 Winchester .32 Special

Serial number 2557xxx makes me believe it was made 1962. "DK" is stamped behind the trigger.
I THINK I read that the ones made before 1964 had stronger "parts" inside, but I could be off on that date.

The stock & butt show a lot of wear, but no cracking or breaks. Was really clean. Very smooth operation. I haven't fired it yet though.

Any corrections on info or extra info.... thanks in advance.
And, thanks for looking.

Elk creek

Kinda reads like a gunbroker post doesn't it? A pre 64 doesn't use stronger parts per se, just better quality fit and finish. Nice rifle, what are you going to do with it?

Linefinder

The pre-64 Winchesters used machined parts, whereas after 64, they used a lot of stamped parts. I can't say, from a purely technical standpoint, that one was functionally better than the other. But, staring into a pre-64 Win levergun is more pleasing than glancing into the other.

Mike

Weiand

It'll be another display as the others I've got. Made sure they were all clean, seeing what info I can find on them, have an older rack that will be refinished an that will be its new home.
I was under the impression that the pre '64 didn't break / jam as easy because of machined parts instead of pressed parts. But again, I could be wrong.
Just trying to get all the info I can on each piece.

snake284

If anything a post 63 might even be stronger than a Pre 64, but I don't know for sure. But I agree that the pre 64s have better fit and finish than those made from 64 up into the early 70s. The fit seemed to improve through the 70s and when USRAC was founded and bought the rights to make Winchester fire arms they improved even more. I have 94 Angle Eject I bought new in 1982 or 1983 I think that has excellent fit and finish.

Linefinder

Weiand wrote: »

I was under the impression that the pre '64 didn't break / jam as easy because of machined parts instead of pressed parts. But again, I could be wrong.

My first deer rifle was a pre-64 Win 94 in .32 Win Spl. It never broke, and I can't recall it jamming. OTOH, I've been around more than a handful of post-64 Win 94s in .30-30 Win, and I don't recall them jamming or breaking either.

But, production manufacturing being what it is, companies are always looking for ways to increase efficiency and cut costs. Stamping parts is much cheaper than machining parts. But.....(especially with something as loose-toleranced as a lever rifle action), what precision you loose by using some stamped parts, you make up for by revising and tightening the tolerance spec of the machined parts they fit into. The end result is pretty much the same, when speaking of a lever gun.

Would I rather have a pre-64 Win than a post-64 Win? You betcha. I like machined parts. That's pretty much the only reason. It'd take a pretty sophisticated statistical study, though, to prove one "better" than the other from a mechanical standpoint.

Mike

Varmintmist

Looks like 62-62 mod year http://www.winchesterguns.com/support/files/images/wfa/2012-All/2012-Articles/Winchester-Manufacture-Dates-by-Year----2012-Scanned-Documents.pdf

shush

Elk creek wrote: »

Kinda reads like a gunbroker post doesn't it?........

They all do. :angel2:

snake284

Varmintmist wrote: »

Looks like 62-62 mod year http://www.winchesterguns.com/support/files/images/wfa/2012-All/2012-Articles/Winchester-Manufacture-Dates-by-Year----2012-Scanned-Documents.pdf

My Model 70 I bought new in 1966, but checking the serial number out on this sight it was built in 1965. After the new models came out in 64, sales must have been much slower than the heads at Winchester had anticipated and mine was probably a left over. But whatever, I'm glad I bought it. It's accurate and strong and has killed a lot of deer. What's not to love? Well other than the cartridge it's chambered in, on this forum anyway. :jester:

snake284

Linefinder wrote: »

My first deer rifle was a pre-64 Win 94 in .32 Win Spl. It never broke, and I can't recall it jamming. OTOH, I've been around more than a handful of post-64 Win 94s in .30-30 Win, and I don't recall them jamming or breaking either.

But, production manufacturing being what it is, companies are always looking for ways to increase efficiency and cut costs. Stamping parts is much cheaper than machining parts. But.....(especially with something as loose-toleranced as a lever rifle action), what precision you loose by using some stamped parts, you make up for by revising and tightening the tolerance spec of the machined parts they fit into. The end result is pretty much the same, when speaking of a lever gun.

Would I rather have a pre-64 Win than a post-64 Win? You betcha. I like machined parts. That's pretty much the only reason. It'd take a pretty sophisticated statistical study, though, to prove one "better" than the other from a mechanical standpoint.

Mike

They just didn't screw the 94s up as bad in 64 as they did the Model 70s. They just changed the Model 70 too radically for the OLD HEADS to stomach.

jaywapti

My first CF rifle was also a M-94 in .32 Win. made in the 30s. I have a new M-94 commeritive I won in a raffle in 97, its still NIB, worked the action a few times and its nice and smooth.

JAY

Linefinder

snake284 wrote: »

They just didn't screw the 94s up as bad in 64 as they did the Model 70s. They just changed the Model 70 too radically for the OLD HEADS to stomach.

Apples and oranges. There's a world of difference between the tolerances of a lever gun and a bolt gun.

Stamped parts in a lever gun? Probably okay.

Stamped parts in a bolt gun? Not in mine.

Keep tolerances in the prospective of their intended use. In the case of a lever gun, I'd much prefer "loose". In a bolt gun.....just shy of beating the bolt home with a hammer is fine with me.

Apples/Oranges.

Mike