WIN `94 CARBINE: 1952 DOM VS 1971 DOM ???

mrmike08075

WINCHESTER EXPERTS

other than the fact that (in my opinion) the PRE-64 WIN `94`S are better made / better fit & finish / higher over all quality than the later guns (up until the angle eject / 1980`s production changes)...

what is the differance between the 1952 DOM WIN `94 & the 1971 DOM WIN `94 standard carbines???

i think there are a few minor differances like extractor and firing pin variants...

are they essentialy the the same gun???
opinions on quality one VS the other???
materials differances, etc...

i have both, and i was curious.
best regards, mike.

What other dungeon is so dark as ones own heart, what jailer so inexorable as ones own mind.
contact me at the shop at waltsgun@aol.com best regards, mike.

Bert H.

Hello Mike...

The barrels on the two guns are identical, but beyond that, nearly everything else on the gun experienced manufacture changes that were not for the good.

On the pre-64 made Model 94s, the entire receiver and assundry parts were milled from solid cold rolled steel. After 1963 (serial number 2,700,000), the frames were made from sintered (cast) steel, and many of the parts were stamped. The alloy of the steel was significantly different, and when Winchester tried to used the old "tried & true" bluing method on the frame, it did not work very well. It took Winchester several years to perfect a different bluing formula, and in the interim, there were a LOT of B.U.T.T. ugly Model 94s manfauctured and sold. When Winchester began stamping the various parts, they eliminated all hand fitting and polishing, and to make everything work after doing that, they opened up the tolerances for the size and fit of many parts. The result was a functional gun, but one that was not nearly as smooth in action, or as nice to look at. I own a LOT of older Winchesters, but steadfastly refuse to own a post-63 made Model 94.

Bert H.

Real Men use a SINGLE-SHOT!

22WRF

I used to have 2 '94's, a 1957 and a 1970.
I still have the 1970. Sold the 1957 which I now regret. I didn't need both and was sold so I could buy something else and kept the '70 because it was my father's
The '70 is a piece of crap compared to '57.
Finish is poor and action sloppy compared to the '57.
Yes there is somthing to pre-68 Win's

mrmike08075

the later gun (1971 DOM) has nice wood, nice bluing, nice fit and finish, and is in about NRA EXCELLANT / 95% condition...

the later gun wieghs nearly a pound less then the early gun. i would attribute this to the differance in manufacture techniques and material in the recievers...

when you draw back the hammer on the PRE-64 there is a very satisfying series of loud / bank vault style clicks. the later gun is almost silent when you cock the hammer, and it "feels" less satisfying in some hard-to-quantify way...

the PRE-64 does seem to balance better, and absolutly looks better, but i would not call the later gun ugly, or poorly finished...

while i LOVE my PRE-64 and feel its superior, i am also hapy with the later piece...

anyone else care to comment, opine, or chime in???

best regards, mike.

What other dungeon is so dark as ones own heart, what jailer so inexorable as ones own mind.
contact me at the shop at waltsgun@aol.com best regards, mike.

win94

Well...the pre-64 is always going to win this argument. I have a special affection for the Winchester M94's. My first '94 was made in 1981. Didn't know about pre-64 and post-64 then. Went to buy a 30-06 but the look of the beautiful walnut and the handling sold me...still have it today. Learned how to shoot at the bench and offhand with that carbine. Lots and lots of rifles since then...30-06's, 270's, 308's, 25-06's, 7mm and 300 mags, etc. 25 years later when I decided to focus on a collection the '94 came back to the top. Except for a couple of commemoratives they are all pre-64's. The variety and availabilty are perfect for the beginning collector or the expert. Both pre and post-64 are great working guns for anyone willing to learn to shoot.

Mr. Heston rocks!