Log In
March 21, 2006
Offline
Hi guys,
Long time lurker here. 🙂
I have a couple of question about a couple of post 64, 94 carbines. My friend and I have almost identical ones, both in 30-30. By the Blue Book and serial #s, his was made in 1967 and mine in 1977.
1) They both have flaking receivers. The ’67 being in a little better shape than the ’77. It looks like lacquer paint that is old and flaking. It’s not really paint on this vintage 94 is it? I know Winchester cheapened them up, put paint? If it’s not paint, what is it? I’ve never seen any kind of bluing flake like on these post ’64 vintage 94’s. By reading some posts on this site I learned that some 94 receivers didn’t take bluing well because the receivers were hard or a hard alloy or something. Is there someone who can clarify that a little and also what the finish is?
There is a difference in these 10-year twins though.
2) The carrier in the ’67 is stamped metal. The carrier in the ’77 is a machined part. The 67 has lots of trouble feeding. If you run the lever slow or fast it doesn’t make any difference. The round pops up at a 45-degree angle. All you have to do is touch the round and it falls back into place and it will feed. The ’77 on the other hand, has the machined carrier and feeds flawlessly every time. I noticed that the stamped carrier was a little offset to the left when the lever is open. Can anyone enlighten me about these carriers and also if you think that might be the problem that’s giving the ’67 feeding problems.
Thanks in advance for any input,
Dave
January 24, 2013
Offline
Dave
1). The flaking that you are experiencing is because Winchester started using sintered steel in the 94 receivers. Sintered steel is powdered metal which is heated and compressed until the particles form a molecular bond.
Because the sintered steel would not blue like normal steel, Winchester iron plated the receivers. What you are seeing is the plating flaking off.
This is different than the flaking observed on post 1920s revivers, which is due to the bluing process used and not the alloy of the receivers as some claim.
2). On the carrier issue, I would start by replacing the stamped metal carrier with a machined carrier, see if that solves the problem
March 21, 2006
Offline
Thanks Mike.
March 21, 2006
Offline
So, one more question. Are there different carriers for different models of the ’94’s? For instance, will a pre ’64 carrier fit a post ’64 rifle? How about an angle eject, will that fit a top eject rifle? Will a ranger carrier fit a carbine?
1 Guest(s)
