Here are some quotes from members on this forum a while back on the topic of pre vs. post 64 m94s. Hope they don't mind me quoting them. I was starting to write an answer to this pre-64 question but remembered these thoughtful answers from before.
_________________________________
There ia always the question concerning "modern" metals used in todays gun manufactering.In my opinion there is nothing weak about any of the 1894s made after 1910 when improved steel came into common use. One distinct advantage that the earlier guns have is superior fit anf finish. These guns were basically hand finished and assembled. Do a side by side comparison of a new and old 94 and this will be obvious. There are no stamped parts on the real Winchester, either. The action is also very much smoother. I call the new 94s "clunker junkers", but, that is only my opinion of them. A lot of folks like them; I much prefer the guns made before 1964. Excepting 71s I don't buy any Winchester made after 1935. Call me crazy, that's where my preference.
Best regards, Mike
____________________________________
I have several pre-64 94's, and a new "Angle eject" Trails end in 44 mag. I've also owned a couple of other "post 64" 94's over the years. When Olin bought Winchester, they were run by bean counters, who tried to squeeze every nickle out of the company. Olin changed the material of the receivers, and used stamped steel parts instead of forged. If you ever see a Plum colored receiver, that is a post 64 that has been attempted to be reblued. The fit and finish was poor. If you get a chance try the actions of the two different rifles and notice the smoothness of the pre 64.
Saying that. I noticed when USRA obtained manufacturing rights to Winchester, the quality has improved greatly. I believe that they have gone back to a forged receiver, they stopped using stamped parts, and returned to forgings. I recently obtained a "Trails End" SRC in 44 mag. I got a Williams FP receiver sight from Brownells, and installed it. When I took it to the range I was pleasently suprised. With my Hand gun load of 20.5grs of 2400 with a Hornady 240 XTP it shot less than an inch at 100 yds. I don't like the Lawyer mandated cross bolt safety, a item that is not needed, but the fit and finish is very good. I think that I'll probably hunt with this rifle this fall.
______________________________________________
the M-64 Win., which is just a M-94 with a close-set and fairly pronounced pistol grip, half mag and 24" "fast tapered" barrel. Great gun. I've got one that was made in '39, and it REALLY made me understand the difference not only between the pre-64's and post-64's, but also between the pre-WWII Winchesters. A pre-war M-94 is one of the finest firearms ever made - MUCH different from what Win. is making today.
Many don't realize it, but up to 1964, about ALL Winchester guns were essentially "semi-custom, production guns." There was a lot of hand work that went into them, and contrary to the image of "little old men with files," many of the production line workers were women. It has been said that women, on average, had a softer touch and more deft "feel" for many operations. The factory was run with long, wide leather belts that powered much of their equipment. They'd have a "pattern" action on a table where the workers could take the machined forgings, and fit them. They'd go to that one pattern action, and take measurements, and try to duplicate them as closely as possible. We'll not see the pre-64's, and in particular, the pre-war guns ever again. The pre-64, and most particularly the pre-war Winchesters, want only that you pick them up and work them, and listen to the sounds, and notice the feel, to separate them from the rest of the pack.
A good condition pre-war M-94 is one FINE RIFLE.
Current production? I'll take Marlin every time. A buddy who's seen a Marlin blow, and a couple of Winchesters, swears the Marlins are MUCH stronger, and if they blow, they're more likely to protect the shooter than the Winchesters. He didn't elaborate much, and I didn't press it, so can't report just how they fared, but he's one fellow whose word I'll always take on such things. He shot about 300 days a year for most of his life, and he's 53 now. All I can say for sure is that of all the leverguns made for the .30/30, I'll take a pre-war Win. every time, or failing that, a newer Marlin with the Ludwig safety fix that eliminates the @#$%^& crossbolt "safety" that the lawyers mandated. If you've got a Marlin, and don't feel the cross bolt safety is necessary, as I do, then check out the Ludwig mod. It's a good one, IMO.
_______________________________________
It's definitely not that Winchester has chosen to use "bad steel." It's just that along with all the improvements in our technology has come another, and NOT-so-good aspect of modern production, and THAT is the simple fact that accountants have come to play much bigger roles in gun production than was previously the case.
Yes, we certainly DO have greater precision and repeatability in our production methods, but the ever present question when it comes to gun production is the question of WHO is going to make the decisions about HOW the guns are going to be produced.
In other words, before WWII, the leadership of Winchester understood guns, and demanded a certain level of quality of fit and finish. After WWII, folks had a lot more money, and production demands increased, and the only way to meet the demands of the increased marketplace was to turn the guns out as fast as possible. Thus, the first thing to be relaxed was fit and finish, and they tended to settle for "good enough" instead of their previously higher standards. Modern production methods, such as stamping parts instead of forging everything and then fitting it with files, etc. became necessary to meet demand. The result was simply that the pre-war guns just feel and sound different as a result of the forged parts and closer fitting. Barrels were hand-lapped before the war too, and I'm uncertain when that actually ended, but I believe it was either during or shortly after the war.
In 1964, Winchester (or its accountants and financiers?) finally had to deal with the fact that it was costing them too much per unit to stay profitable.
Their production methods and facilities and equipment just couldn't survive in the economic climate without modernization. This gave rise to the extensive use of stampings and an "if it'll work, it's good enough" type of philosophy of production.
Simple fact is, the steels used in today's productions really IS significantly superior to that used in the pre-war guns, but the pre-war guns are plenty good enough for any reasonable loads. The pre-war guns, then, are simply better working, better and more finely fitted rifles, that are "good enough" in steel quality for what they were designed for.
When it comes to Winchesters, it really IS true that "they just don't make them like they used to." I'd go afield with a new Winchester with complete confidence that it would perform perfectly adequately, or even better. Some of us 50ish and over types, though, just remember how these guns USED to feel and sound, and we just simply prefer them, even at the elevated prices above a perfectly good new one.
The complete story of Winchester is a very interesting one. I once participated in serving a two companies in Indiana and Kansas that make cellophane, a wood product. One had formerly been owned by Olin (parent co. of Winchester) and the other by DuPont (parent company of Remington). This was one of the most glaring and clear lessons in manufacturing and economics I think could ever exist. The two companies were bought out and came under a single management company.
The "Olin" co. employed older technology and machines, and employed twice as many people, to get half the production. The "DuPont" co. was MUCH more "mechanized" and computerized, and employed half the number of workers. These employees of the DuPont co. often just sat and kept watch over the machines, adjusting and manipulating the computerized controls as needed, and read the papers while "at work." They also got paid twice as much, and paid particular attention to the financial and stock market pages, while the "Olin" workers worked their buns off and were always in motion, like a bed of ants. The "DuPont" plant also made twice as much profit.
Now, it it was YOUR money you were investing, which company, given a choice, would YOU have put money into?
This whole question and set of conditions is what has driven our gunmaking industry to "lower" its "quality" in many respects. The return benefits, though, have been off-the-shelf rifles that have barrels MUCH more economically made - unless given the "royal treatment," much as ol' Harry Pope might have done, and hand lapped and having lots of HUMAN TIME (and thus MONEY) spent on them. Today's barrels are made of better, more uniform quality steel that is more free of defects, and is MUCH more uniform from lot to lot. Boring and rifling is MUCH better and more consistent. Modern production methods MUST be employed to produce popularly priced rifles for so many, many people. The population HAS increased, too, you know, as well as per capita income and thus, access to these goods. Receiver and parts mfg. is done as economically as possible, and assembly is as mechanized as they can get it. After all, a machine does things more consistently and reliably than human hands (these days particularly?) and they don't take vacations, get sick, or require a salary and 401K's and health insurance, and ...... well, you get the picture.
It's the technology and economics that drives production of everything we make these days, and certain aspects of rifle production haven't fared well as a result. We DO have, as I've tried to point out, some plusses to compensate for being unable to economically produce these guns "the old way," though, so I guess it all depends on what a man wants in his gun.
Then too, we've cut so many walnut trees that it's getting harder and harder to GET good walnut for stocks. This is a reason that synthetics have become so prominent. The synthetics DO have some advantages, of course, and I own one such equipped rifle. However, when it comes to "real" Winchesters, some of us will always gravitate to the pre-64 and pre-war guns, even at a higher price, for the simple reason that we just plain miss a truly well fitted gun and the sound of more closely fitted forged parts. We just LIKE the idea of a hand-lapped barrel. In short, we just like to hold an artifact from a very different world and time and place and set of folks that just PLEASES us.
I guess that's just part of the "crankiness" of getting older, maybe?
The guns WILL vary according to how they're produced, and what ethos and philosophy and whatever level of sophistication in knowledge and ability is in the "hands" of those that do the work, and supervise it, along the way from the raw materials to the finished products that we all love so well. I guess it's kinda' like the old Bourbon vs. Scotch arguement?
Owning (or maybe "caretaking?") a pre-64 or pre-war gun is to have an artifact that would probably cost $2,500 to make today, if "the old ways" were used. When you can buy one of these for, say $600 today, SOME consider this a "bargain." Wives are notoriously confused by such "bargains," as are many who just want a good gun to go in the woods and hunt with. That's what makes good horse races, and maybe what makes the world go 'round, I guess?
___________________________________________
