“I did handle a post 1963 1894 Winchester once.  IIRC, it was 1970 production, the year I was born.  Now, that was absolutely junk.”

“But, as a WORKING TOOL and not a collectible, I did handle and fire a USRA Model 70 in .300 H & H Magnum and it was a very good working tool.  The workmanship is certainly not as good as pre1964 stuff, but about as good as one could expect for something circa 1987.”

“If you suspect I’m biased, I am.  Everyone had a finite amount of funds to spend on Winchester rifles, and the thought that would go through my head if I bought a post 1963 Winchester is what pre 1964 example could I use this money towards instead, this example likely being pre WWI, if not pre 1898.”

“Winchester really started to cut corners, at least aesthetically, when they shortened the forearm on the 1894 carbine and that was the beginning of the long slide downhill.”

————————————

I don’t think anyone is suggesting you broaden your personal collection to include anything outside your taste and budget.  However (as the hobo said while collecting refundable bottles on the roadside), one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. 

So also, I suggest, is one man’s “working tool” another man’s “collectible.”

There are those of us who find the history of the Winchester brand, as it has been reflected in its changing product line, interesting and worthy of study. That history continues and includes the disaster years wrought by outsiders brought in by John Olin, likely under pressure of his board of directors and with the influence of General LeMay and Secretary of Defense McNamara. 

I was in my pre-law work and in the market for my first centerfire rifle when McNamara’s Whiz Kids came to New Haven to help the rubes make a profit from its commercial gun sales. At the time, Remington was beating WRA’s head in with its Models 700 and 1100. 

What can be learned from a 1964-67 Winchester Model 70?  The best way to understand it is by making a side-by-side comparison with a run of the mine, late 1962 Model 70, which is not something most Model 70 collectors cherish or even like to think about.  

1. The 1964-68 Model 70 was cosmetically a reflection of the opinions of Detroit auto executives who did not intuitively understand what a Winchester rifle should look like. 

2. The newer gun was stronger and more accurate.  Fact, not opinion.

3. The newer gun was priced to compete and, if the market had accepted it, would have been profitable.  It was hideous and the market didn’t. 

4. Style and appearance trumps strength and accuracy, in commercial centerfire rifle sales. 

In 1968, as Clarence has said, things began to get better for the product, if not for the Commercial Gun Department. 

The eventual introduction of CNC machining enabled the 9422 and the re-introduction of the controlled-round-feeding Model 70 action. This was a transformational change. 

However, the cosmetic fit and finish of the Winchester Model 70 and Model 94 did not reach their present high standard of quality until production in the United States ceased.  A distasteful fact but something we’ll understood by Browning collectors. 

I remember when the .375 Big Bore came out – the very first version.  I was in a hardware store and saw one on the rack.  I had neither read or heard anything about it prior to having this carbine in my hand.  I was particularly curious about the chambering – and disappointed to see that it didn’t look very novel to me.

I recall discussing the BB with my, “gun” uncle.  He was was appreciative of the ’94 carbines (particularly in .25-35 and .32 Special).  His comment was that Winchester had completely spoiled the ’94.  

Nevada Paul said
 

“Now, having said all of the above, if a really nice early 94, 92, 73, etc. became available to me, and the only way to get it would be to sell the 9422’s or the post 63 model 70’s would I be willing to make that sacrifice?  Yep.”

 

Paul

  

Paul,  I think most of us would, too, although I’d consider doing temporary duty as a Walmart greeter before giving up BOTH 9422s. 

Speaking only for myself, If I were a dedicated Model 70 collector, I would want a 1966 rifle (not more than one; there are some things not even a lab rat will do), a limited run  Mannlicher-style rifle, and a short-action, post-1994 controlled feed Featherweight, to display for contrast and to show the changes over time. 

For the record, although I’ve never owned one, I believe a Winchester collector  who can  pick up and handle one of the new Winchester Featherweights without a twinge of desire — would probably shoot his own bird dog.  

All y’all need to buy those Cody raffle tickets. Vinny has hustled us one from Winchester Guns. 

Defining what is “collectable” is like trying to define what is “beautiful.” It’s an exercise in futility. Collectability, like beauty, is always in the eye of the beholder.

My wife was never a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model, but to me she is without any doubt, beautiful.  Each person has the freedom to determine, for himself/herself what is beautiful—- and what is collectable. No one else’s opinion much matters.

I was still a school boy when Winchester debuted the post 1963 rifles. My opinion agrees with the market on those rifles: they were failures.  When I got out of college and finished graduate school I would love to have been able to collect old Winchesters, and I did acquire a few, most of which I still own. But marriage, mortgage, and children prevented me from venturing too far into the deep financial waters necessary to amass the collection my heart desired.  By the time I was in the prime years of my earning potential, and had enough income surplus to requirements, those vintage Winchesters were well beyond my reach. But I did buy Winchester (USRAC) hunting rifles while I was in my 30’s and 40’s, and from 1994-1998, USRAC produced some beautiful, accurate, control round feed Super Grade rifles that are beautiful by any measure I could acknowledge. They came with fancy walnut, jeweled breech bolt and follower, and with a level of fit and finish that was excellent. And they were made in New Haven in the factory, and by the work force that produced the “collectable” rifles many here pursue.  I also found them entirely fit for purpose, with accuracy every bit as good, and in most cases better than some of my Pre-64 Model 70’s. 

Here are a few I bought and kept:

FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: Model 70’s in caliber .270., 30-06., 7mm Rem. Magnum, 300 Winchester Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum, and 300 WSM.

With this 30-06 I took many deer and antelope, and even when the hunting was slow, I could stop and admire the feather crotch figure of this rifle.

With this .338 Win Mag I took three moose and two bears, each with a single shot, and all beyond 200 yards. A more perfect BIG game rifle for the larger North American game would be hards to imagine.

This .300 WSM was one that was checkered by Jerome Glimm, here in Montana, and is fitted with a stock I purchased from the Winchester Custom Shop when they closed their doors. Checkering is by Evan Koch in Minnesota. It is my go-to elk rifle here in Big Sky Country.

To many here, these rifles are not collectable. I accept that you hold that opinion. But be very careful not to deny their collectability to another, as by so doing you might be shutting the door in the face of the next generation of Winchester aficionados, and dooming WACA to a slow death watch, one funeral at a time.  I have my medicare card, and so I am no spring chicken. I wonder what percentage of WACA members are my age or older, and what percentage is under the age of 40.  We all ought to respect the new people who come to us — exhibiting a spirit of generosity with our accrued knowledge and an openness to what interests them.  They may well choose to collect rifles which are beautiful, and collectable, to them.

All the best—

BRP

clarence said

Blue Ridge Parson said And they were made in New Haven in the factory, and by the work force that produced the “collectable” rifles many here pursue.  I also found them entirely fit for purpose, with accuracy every bit as good, and in most cases better than some of my Pre-64 Model 70’s.  

Turning out such stunning work as these examples makes it hard to understand why USRA was unable to keep its head above water.  Were they underpriced & therefore not profitable, or overpriced & thus not selling?  Or was it just incompetent management, which has doomed many a company that turned out fine products at fair prices. 

  

BRP,  Those are mighty handsome and certainly to my taste.  As for age, Clarence and I are octogenarians, one foot in the grave and the other on a wet banana peel.  I am the sweeter-natured of the two but he knows more stuff than I do.  USRAC was under-capitalized to take on the burden of what Olin Corp. sold them – which a name still suffering from the 1964 disaster, an aggressive machinist’s union, a bad political atmosphere, and well-established, fierce competition from Sturm, Ruger, Remington, Marlin, Savage, and Browning.  

Bert, 

In retrospect it shouldn’t surprise me the Detroit team would try to utilize sintering technology because it was in common use in the automobile industry for brake drums, carburetor bodies and so forth.  At some point, didn’t black chrome the Model 94 receivers to conceal the problem? 

I personally recall that in the Fifties, the entire American gun industry had become desperately focused on finding a manufacturing process other than machining because of the ever-increasing costs of highly skilled labor and — to be blunt – a decreasing pool of adequately skilled workers, many of whom were drawn to higher paying jobs in other industries. By 1962, Gun Valley was another Northeastern red brick industry under assault from businesses abroad and in the West and Southwest.   

At the same time, Olin Industries was making a lot of big and bad bets that dwarfed whatever the WW Division was doing. There’s a Forbes article about it. By 1963 Olin was a chemical giant that made fertilizer and bulk chemicals for money and let its surviving founder play with guns — until it needed to staunch serious  arterial bleeding for Wall Street. Then, even small losses from gunmaking became untenable. 

If anything, I suppose we should be grateful to the USRAC guys who tried to keep it going, some of whom probably lost their shirts. 

And, for all the lingering enmity between Utah and Connecticut (for which see glints in Herb’s company history), we should be grateful to old John Mose and his heirs. Without their relationship with FN, it’s doubtful we’d have current products to criticize. 

Zebulon said
Bert, 

In retrospect it shouldn’t surprise me the Detroit team would try to utilize sintering technology because it was in common use in the automobile industry for brake drums, carburetor bodies and so forth.  At some point, didn’t WRA black chrome the Model 94 receivers to conceal the problem? 

I personally recall that in the Fifties, the entire American gun industry had become desperately focused on finding a manufacturing process other than machining because of the ever-increasing costs of highly skilled labor and — to be blunt – a decreasing pool of adequately skilled workers, many of whom were drawn to higher paying jobs in other industries. By 1962, Gun Valley was another Northeastern red brick industry under assault from businesses abroad and in the West and Southwest.   

At the same time, Olin Industries was making a lot of big and bad bets that dwarfed whatever the WW Division was doing. There’s a Forbes article about it. By 1963 Olin was a chemical giant that made fertilizer and bulk chemicals for money and let its surviving founder play with guns — until it needed to staunch serious  arterial bleeding for Wall Street. Then, even small losses from gunmaking became untenable. 

If anything, I suppose we should be grateful to the USRAC guys who tried to keep it going, some of whom probably lost their shirts. 

And, for all the lingering enmity between Utah and Connecticut (for which see glints in Herb’s company history), we should be grateful to old John Mose and his heirs. Without their relationship with FN, it’s doubtful we’d have current products to criticize. 

  

Bert H. said
In my opinion, the Model 94s manufactured in the 1964 – 1977 production period will never be collectable.  The sintered steel receiver frames and stamped parts are simply ugly junk. 

In 1978, Winchester began the process of fixing (improving) the Model 94 when they introduced the Model 94 XTR (with a forged milled steel receiver frame).  The fit & finish improved dramatically from that point in time forward.  The Big Bore 94 XTR was introduced in 1979 (375 Win only) and it featured hand cut checkering on quality American Black Walnut stocks.  The early production (pre AE) Big Bore 94s were quality made guns and they have a moderate collector following.

Bert

There you have it—described succinctly—1964 to 1977 production is “ugly junk”.  I couldn’t describe it better.

But, while it may seem arrogant to frown upon post 1963 production, it clearly is not of the quality of the pre 1964 stuff—even with an attempt to improve the quality after 1978.  And that mid 1980s production Model 70 I handled decades ago, despite not being up to the standards of pre 1964 production Winchesters was still perhaps the finest new production rifle one could purchase at the time save for a bespoke rifle.

But there is also nostalgia, memories, etc.  As oldcrankyyankee pointed out, these can still be treasured, especially if one’s first deer was taken with a post 1963 Winchester.  But there’s a huge difference between nostalgia, memories, and collectibility.

One’s first deer rifle, as mine was, is likely to have problems.  Why?  Usually one is young, short of funds, one buys what one can afford.  I recall when I purchased this Winchester 1894 carbine manufactured in 1920 (I thought it was 1923 production then, in 1984) it was purchased at the local gun shop simply because it was about $200.  The other option was a 1930 production carbine from 1930, which may have, in hindsight, been more, or entirely correct, but the $300 price tag might as well have been a million dollars.  It also was more practical, being in .30 WCF.  Mine is in .32 Special, and at age 13 or 14, there’s something exotic about the words .32 Special as compared to “thuhty-thuhty”.

That carbine consists of a reblued receiver with a propensity to rust, and the entire carbine was built around this receiver.  Fluted stock, shotgun butt with a 1922 production recoil pad—which tells you that isn’t original.  Barrel with an improper front sight, half magazine.  A put together carbine—but affordable.

I would also argue that the 1964 date is just the time of the big slide downhill, but quality had been dropping off for about half a century previously.  Mid teens vis where it started, receivers that had the propensity to flake, gumwood stocks sometimes, hammers and levers blued instead of case coloured.  And so we can say the heyday of Winchester production was from the beginning until about WWI.  Then one can see that the quality of Winchesters after WWII is just not quite as good as those before the war.  I don’t think John Olin helped anything during the Great Depression, with the exception of his introduction of the Model 21.  And, obviously, post WWII stuff is better than that produced after 1963, although the shortened forearm on the Model 1894 carbine, IMHO, looks ridiculous, and cheapened that model long before 1964.

Of course, what I stated is based on my observations over the years.  You may not agree with what I have to say.  But, having stated all of this, I don’t own a Winchester produced after 1921, have a smattering of pre 1898 examples, but most I have collected date from the first decade of the 20th Century, despite not being antique.  Other than the fact the rifles produced during this era aren’t antique, the advantages are many:  probably THE peak of Winchester quality, earlier examples in the 1900 to 1909 era letter, special order features aren’t uncommon, condition can still be found relatively easily, etc.  I’m a BIG fan of pre 1899 antique production and the fact I own several rifles from this immediate post 1898 era demonstrates I value the quality from that era.  The McKinley-Teddy Roosevelt presidencies era.

But I extremely digressed.  I got sidelined trying to prove the 1964 changes were the last and biggest slide of many.

Lastly, this decease in quality, while defined by years when it comes to Winchester, is not experienced by Winchester only.  The Marlin Model 39 was of superior quality in the 1920’s.  By the 1940s, it had become a dull, rather ugly and pedestrian .22 rifle.  The Golden 39A example I own from 1979 exhibits a further slide still.  A synthetic finish to the wood, bluing not nearly of the quality of its predecessors.  I handled a new production example of this rifle circa 2008 and the quality then was so poor—abysmal wood to receiver fit, blemished and low quality wood finish, laughable stamped checkering, it made a 1964 to 1977 production Winchester seem of great quality.

Winchester rifles and carbines, at least before WWI, even though mass produced, were almost as good as something custom made.  Then the quality started to slide and I think that the mentality became “mass production for the masses.”

I totally understand this is a very subjective post, but it explains at least my thoughts regarding this subject matter.  YMMV.

I’m enjoying this thread, understand everyone’s opinions on pre vs post 64’s. Didn’t know that much about the details of metals and type of manufacturing of the post 64’s, but that’s one reason I joined this site!

I truly wish I had a bunch of pre 64’s, and as I done stated in my first post, I wanted an pre 64 Mod64 in 30-30 a long time! And when I found the (NRA Centennial) Mod 64 I now have, I went home thinking, I don’t know if I should’ve bought this piece of junk or not, that was 2019, and based on others opinions vocal from the past just like this thread? Well, what I know now, several deer, lots of rounds downrange, and I got this rifle unfired, hardly handled? Best $640 I ever spent! And if I lost it somehow?? I’d give 3 times that to get it back now, it’s family, an extension of me, and I’ve had plenty of rifle shooting and hunting all my life, other types of rifles and makes, and only one other IMO, fits this criteria!

You’lls opinions on this subject do not bother me, I understand them perfectly and they’re based on really hard facts of metal types and manufacturing types, business changes, etc, these are real!

But I ALSO KNOW, anyone who’d call this rifle junk is a blind & ignorant, because you’ve never put it to test, and probably wouldn’t be interested, because of your way thinking! That’s Truth!

So one man’s junk is another’s treasure, and when one comes to the end of his days, myself included, only material things that I’ll look at with my heart are those wrapped in perfectly good memories based upon performance and service, and this rifle so far, based upon what’s important, is priceless, TO ME!

And, from all I know, if a BB 94 came into my hands in 356, in good shape, I’d probably buy it even if I had to go borrow money! Fine rifle in an outstanding cartridge that didn’t make it, only because it was born 50 years too late! And I’d consider a 375 almost as highly!

Moral my post is, yes be careful of these slim pickings that younger people only have to choose from, because I know of few train loads of deer that have come outta these hills by some mighty fine post 64 Mod 94 30-30s! Unfortunately by now most those, the barrels look like a sewer pipe, and the actions a Sessapool!

As far as these new ones, I won’t buy em, mainly because of the Tang Safety. And I because I don’t need em, but 5 years ago I held a Mod 86 in 45-70, 22″, 3/4 mag, that I wanted so bad I could taste it. Went back 3 times, fondled it every time, i could use this rifle! But the safety made me sick!

mrcvs said

Bert H. said

In my opinion, the Model 94s manufactured in the 1964 – 1977 production period will never be collectable.  The sintered steel receiver frames and stamped parts are simply ugly junk. 

In 1978, Winchester began the process of fixing (improving) the Model 94 when they introduced the Model 94 XTR (with a forged milled steel receiver frame).  The fit & finish improved dramatically from that point in time forward.  The Big Bore 94 XTR was introduced in 1979 (375 Win only) and it featured hand cut checkering on quality American Black Walnut stocks.  The early production (pre AE) Big Bore 94s were quality made guns and they have a moderate collector following.

Bert

There you have it—described succinctly—1964 to 1977 production is “ugly junk”.  I couldn’t describe it better.

But, while it may seem arrogant to frown upon post 1963 production, it clearly is not of the quality of the pre 1964 stuff—even with an attempt to improve the quality after 1978.  And that mid 1980s production Model 70 I handled decades ago, despite not being up to the standards of pre 1964 production Winchesters was still perhaps the finest new production rifle one could purchase at the time save for a bespoke rifle.

But there is also nostalgia, memories, etc.  As oldcrankyyankee pointed out, these can still be treasured, especially if one’s first deer was taken with a post 1963 Winchester.  But there’s a huge difference between nostalgia, memories, and collectibility.

One’s first deer rifle, as mine was, is likely to have problems.  Why?  Usually one is young, short of funds, one buys what one can afford.  I recall when I purchased this Winchester 1894 carbine manufactured in 1920 (I thought it was 1923 production then, in 1984) it was purchased at the local gun shop simply because it was about $200.  The other option was a 1930 production carbine from 1930, which may have, in hindsight, been more, or entirely correct, but the $300 price tag might as well have been a million dollars.  It also was more practical, being in .30 WCF.  Mine is in .32 Special, and at age 13 or 14, there’s something exotic about the words .32 Special as compared to “thuhty-thuhty”.

That carbine consists of a reblued receiver with a propensity to rust, and the entire carbine was built around this receiver.  Fluted stock, shotgun butt with a 1922 production recoil pad—which tells you that isn’t original.  Barrel with an improper front sight, half magazine.  A put together carbine—but affordable.

I would also argue that the 1964 date is just the time of the big slide downhill, but quality had been dropping off for about half a century previously.  Mid teens vis where it started, receivers that had the propensity to flake, gumwood stocks sometimes, hammers and levers blued instead of case coloured.  And so we can say the heyday of Winchester production was from the beginning until about WWI.  Then one can see that the quality of Winchesters after WWII is just not quite as good as those before the war.  I don’t think John Olin helped anything during the Great Depression, with the exception of his introduction of the Model 21.  And, obviously, post WWII stuff is better than that produced after 1963, although the shortened forearm on the Model 1894 carbine, IMHO, looks ridiculous, and cheapened that model long before 1964.

Of course, what I stated is based on my observations over the years.  You may not agree with what I have to say.  But, having stated all of this, I don’t own a Winchester produced after 1921, have a smattering of pre 1898 examples, but most I have collected date from the first decade of the 20th Century, despite not being antique.  Other than the fact the rifles produced during this era aren’t antique, the advantages are many:  probably THE peak of Winchester quality, earlier examples in the 1900 to 1909 era letter, special order features aren’t uncommon, condition can still be found relatively easily, etc.  I’m a BIG fan of pre 1899 antique production and the fact I own several rifles from this immediate post 1898 era demonstrates I value the quality from that era.  The McKinley-Teddy Roosevelt presidencies era.

But I extremely digressed.  I got sidelined trying to prove the 1964 changes were the last and biggest slide of many.

Lastly, this decease in quality, while defined by years when it comes to Winchester, is not experienced by Winchester only.  The Marlin Model 39 was of superior quality in the 1920’s.  By the 1940s, it had become a dull, rather ugly and pedestrian .22 rifle.  The Golden 39A example I own from 1979 exhibits a further slide still.  A synthetic finish to the wood, bluing not nearly of the quality of its predecessors.  I handled a new production example of this rifle circa 2008 and the quality then was so poor—abysmal wood to receiver fit, blemished and low quality wood finish, laughable stamped checkering, it made a 1964 to 1977 production Winchester seem of great quality.

Winchester rifles and carbines, at least before WWI, even though mass produced, were almost as good as something custom made.  Then the quality started to slide and I think that the mentality became “mass production for the masses.”

I totally understand this is a very subjective post, but it explains at least my thoughts regarding this subject matter.  YMMV.

  

As stated above, lots of variables come into play, including subjective and objective variables.  For me, one of those variables is nostalgia.  I am not an octogenarian.  As a boy and teen I spent a lot of time staring at the rifles featured in the Winchester catalogs I was picking up at gun and hardware stores.  These were post-63 catalogs.  So when I see various post-63 rifles from that time period, these are rifles I had spent hours staring at (and the catalog artwork pictured with them).  So yes, there is some wistful nostalgia that tempers some of my harshness toward the post-63 firearms.