Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I’m currently working on a model 94 made in 1910. It was tampered with already by the previous owner and I wish to bring some of its glory back. The action and barrel was already scuffed down to bare metal and the wood was sanded down, an horror to look at…
I took it all apart and cleaned the gunk from the action and am now ready to bring some bit of life back into this gun. I hear the pre-67 model 94s had a higher nickel content in their steel which makes them harder to reblue (not that I think we normally should, but in this case, it’s different), even with the new Oxynate 84.
I have no interest in investing 2k in tanks and salts, so I`m looking for a contact to reblue the gun I would need someone in Canada since crossing firearms parts in the states seems to be a challenge.
This is a shooter project, not to be a collector’s gun, so don’t be too harsh on my attempt to reblue it. The damage is done and I only wish to give it some bit of appeal and bring it at the range.
It’s a myth that the 1894 receivers were made out of nickel steel or had a higher nickel content in the steel. I don’t know there this miss-information came from or who continues to perpetuate this myth.
The bottom line is that pre WWII receivers were made out of standard low carbon steel, and have no issues with traditional hot blues.
For work in Canada, I would contact James Carruthers: [email protected]
Hope this helps
Mike
Mike: I have been collecting Marlins for many years and am fairly new to the Winchester world this bring up a question
to mind after the introduction of the new smokeless powder in 1895 Marlin began to advertise some of their models
as having their receivers made from their new smokeless steel i assume that you are saying Winchester opted for the
staying for the softer steel
I was referring to the nickel content based on what’s written on the barrel: “nickel steel barrel, especially for smokeless powder”. If it can be successfully hot blued, I’ll be a happy camper. Thanks for the contact, I’ll get in touch soon with this guy.
Although the NI steel barrels were originally rust blued, they can be successfully hot blued.
Jim
I know Marlin began using SAE 4140 after WWII for their frames, and Winchester was using 4140 for the M70, I have not run across any data that Winchester used anything but low carbon steel in the pre WWII M94 frames.
V/R
Mike
Mike
What changed about 1903 on Win Lever receivers ? The originals I have from 1890’s.and first 2-3 years of 1900’s , have the more prominent forging marks , (striations ) , but retained the bluing. After 1903 or so flaking blue is more prevalent into the 1930’s. I have seen somewhere the increased Nickel content was the reason / Maybe forging process ?
Phil
Phil the same thing can be noticed on the Marlin lever guns about the same time
era maybe a little bit earlier
Well, I contacted James Carruther, but no luck with him taking on the job, more of a personnal hobby for him and I understand if he doesn’t want to tamper with someonelse’s gun. Do you guys know anybody else in Canada that could reblue this WIN 94? I live in New-Brunswick.
Thaks in advance.
There is a fellow out on the East Coast, New Brunswick I think, Who does an outstanding job of bone and charcoal color case hardening. He may also do bluing as well. I have seen some of his work, but do not have his contact information. Call Gary the gunsmith at Shooters Choice in Waterloo, Ontario. He should be able to give you the contact information for the fellow in New Brunswick.
Phil
The flaking exhibited on later guns is due to the bluing process that Winchester used at the time. The went from a Charcoal bluing process to a Machine or Carbonia blue process. This process is fairly time/temp sensitive, and Winchester had issues with frames flaking right out of the furnaces, so much so that they added an additional inspection stamp on the lower tang to check for flaking. If the finish cracked or flaked when the inspector stamped it, it was rejected.
I went into this into this in quite a bit more detail in the last Collectors Magazine; another good reason to become a WACA member
Mike
25-20 said
Mike
What changed about 1903 on Win Lever receivers ? The originals I have from 1890’s.and first 2-3 years of 1900’s , have the more prominent forging marks , (striations ) , but retained the bluing. After 1903 or so flaking blue is more prevalent into the 1930’s. I have seen somewhere the increased Nickel content was the reason / Maybe forging process ?
Phil
Thanks Mike Yes I am a WACA member and did read your article , just went to go thru it again , and you explain the different bluing processes in detail, and say the Carbonia process was used in the twenties. My question regards the difference around 1903. Where there is a huge difference in bluing adhesion of receivers at this point , and coinciding with the end of the visible striations .Barrels consistently retained the blue finish throughout.and wore evenly, so the Rust blue process was successful. Mag tubes ( and all other components ) arent as good as they Patina faster Also wondering why Winchester let this receiver defective flaking go on for a 35 year span. Your dating of the 1939 start of the Salt Bath , leads me to believe this process was better for Blue adhesion
Phil
Phil
I don’t have an exact date as to when Winchester started the Machine/Carbonia process. I do know that as of June 1904 Winchester was still charcoal bluing receivers.
I believe that Winchester changed to machine bluing as a more efficient and labor saving method; basically to cut costs. The parts that were once blued via the very labor intensive charcoal bluing process, with a worker laboring over an open pit of hot charcoal, could now be done by machine. One machine could turn out hundreds of pieces per day.
Then again in 1939, Winchester adopted the Dulite (hot salts bluing) because it was a quicker and cheaper way to blue parts. What took several hours to machine blue could now be done in twenty minutes.
I don’t believe that Winchester changed their forging process, nor do I believe that they changed the composition of steels. I’ve had several of the frames tested: 1886, 1892 and 1894, from several time frames; pre 1900 thru the 1920s, they all tested out as the same steel composition.
I do believe that steels as a whole were better, less impurities and contamination, that would account for fewer forge marks, as it’s my opinion that the forge marks are contaminants hammer forged into the steel.
Again, there is a lot that we still don’t know….yet.
V/R
Mike
Thanks Mike
less impurities in the steel would explain the less prominent forging lines .Funny that the lines have a some what similar pattern in common to each different model/ Noticed this first in all the pics on the net of flatside 95’s models comparing to them to mine ,Then looking at 92’s & 94’s seeing their general patterns , specific to each of those 2 models. Interesting that you have tested the steel composition
Phil
1 Guest(s)
