+1 I've owned 3 '70's 94s and they were all very good. This 16" one is my favorite with a 100 yard group. I've read pretty convincing explanations that there was not a hard cut off some time in '64 from old to new. It was a rolling change of methods and parts. Not sure how long the transition lasted.Originally Posted by Wheeler
Attachment 24426
Last edited by JHC; 03-14-2018 at 07:39 AM.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
There was a specific cut-off point when they changed a number of things, at serial 2,700,000, but there wasnt a "pre-64" of legend that was flawless, perfect, and unchanged from the distant smoky past then suddenly changed to the horrible post-64 type. There was continual changes over time to make them easier to make, its just that the biggest set of changes came at 1964. The changes are very pronounced in several ways, but hardly makes the guns unusuable. One thing was the carrier (commonly called a lifter) was changed from a forged part to stamped sheep metal. they mostly work OK, but Ive heard of one or two bending. Its a simple change to get the later, improved forged or cast part and put in them. Otherwise, the roll pins instead of solid pins hasnt been a functional issue so far as ive heard. The receiver material is an early type of particle metal formed into a solid piece, I guess similar to MIM. They functioned fine, but they had some challenges with blued finish staying on them. When reblued by common methods, they turn purplish. Some gunsmiths say they figured out the combination of blueing salts and temperature, but in general, you see some with receiver finish problems from that period.
I think they went back to a forged receiver in the early 80s, but I'm not positive. It never mattered all that much to me what the date was, I wasnt buying later guns in that period. Overall, on the post-64s they just didnt spend as much time on polishing parts and getting things to the same level of finish and edges cleaned up, and dropped some details that they could simplify production with. The bevel on the bottom of the receiver was one of my pet peeves, I filed one down to get more bevel like the older ones to make it feel better carrying in the hand. It cold blued so-so. I didnt care that much about the finish. If any of the pins and such bother anyone, they could get later parts and swap them out. Theres lots of parts around and many being reproduced, like screws. All in all, a psot-64 wouldnt bother me if the price was right and in a configuration I liked. the common carbines being the most common, but they made some pretty cool commemoratives with 20" and 26" octagon barrels, high grade wood, checkering, long fore end wood on carbines, old type carbine butts, and other things, beside just shiny bling that can be fun. hey make an older style gun affordable as a shooter compared to a 100 year old gun in comparable condition and without the extra grade wood and checkering on some. The Buffalo Bill, Canadian Centennial, Legendary Lawmen, and Bicentennial carbines guns are all decent examples of upgraded or longer barreled types from the past. The octagon barrels seem to shoot very well by most accounts.
Ive only heard of 3/8" dovetails. Theyve been pretty standard, though I think some import guns have some close metric size, Rossis may be the one people talk about. They may have changed it to the common american size, but they are outside my area of interest, so dont pay close attention. I think the barrel mounted peep sights dont work as efficiently as the receiver mounted ones.
Last edited by Malamute; 03-14-2018 at 10:58 AM.
Well the gun is enroute....
What would everyone recommend on bore cleaning?
I would like to shoot cast in it. Just because. I read one must remove all the copper to keep leading from being an issue. That said, removing everythng in there can perhaps hurt accuracy. So which is it?
On my precision rifles, I clean maybe every 250rds or so, i’ve settled on Patch Out w/Accellerator. How would this be for a nearly 70 year old rifle?
I am not a fan of the aggressive cleaning solutions that are prevalent today, especially with older chrome-moly steels. If copper is a concern, I like to use a patch or boresnake soaked in Kroil. Run a few patches one evening, let the rifle sit until the next day, and run new patches on a tight brass jag through it. Kroil gets underneath the fouling and makes the fouling easy to remove.
Entropy,
I use an Otis cable kit on my lever guns.
Shooter’s Choice or Butch’s Bore Shine and oil when clean.
Two wet patches, then a few passes with the brush. Then I run a wet patch through and do something else for an hour.
Make sure the muzzle is lower than the chamber lest solvent runs into the action.
Patch it out with a couple dry patches, a pass with an oily patch, one last dry patch and you are done.
HTH,
Shumba
Anyone care to recommend a peep site for pre 64 94's that is available and doesn't look too out of place?
Last edited by bofe954; 03-17-2018 at 12:28 PM.
I agree. On all of my long guns, I clean after shooting with MPRO-7, just to get the majority of the powder fouling out. I only aggressively clean to get copper out and such every few hundred round through my .308, and I"m not even sure I need to do that, as I've not seen accuracy fall off because of it.
The Otis pull through cables work great on leverguns.
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
Well, the most period looking sight would be a tang sight, which I dislike, as I'm always afraid I'm going to get speared in the eye.
Other than that, I always thought the Lyman 66A looked like something would have been used in Ye Olde Times.
I was into 10mm Auto before it sold out and went mainstream, but these days I'm here for the revolver and epidemiology information.
Lyman #2 Tang: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/10...-94-steel-blue
Lyman #66A Receiver: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/10...-aluminum-blue
Lets define which ye old tymes we are meaning. Pre-64 isnt that far back, and generaly only means post-war and before the 1964 changes. Receiver sights were being used since the late 20s or early 30s in the form we know them, back to 1900-ish if you include the Lyman 21 and 38 I believe. Those are being reproduced I believe.
I steel takedown M-16 cleaning rods, I think commercially available from Kleenbore make decent rods for Winchesters. I use a brass cone shaped muzzle quide to keep the rod off the rifling. Works fine. its often mentioned about the wonderfulness of taking the bot out of Marlins, it never bothered me much to clean from the muzzle. I take a Winchester action apart maybe every 5 years or more, though I think one could realistically go most of a lifetime without actually needing to if you cleaned it once in a while and used a toothbrush on the action rails with solvent. Hard to lose parts if you dont take them apart.
The Lyman 66 is about all thats being made thats decent looking (IMO). Available doesnt necessarily mean currently made if one wishes to find good stuff and is willing to wait and pay for the good stuff. The older Lyman 66s were steel, the current ones are alloy. Before them was the Lyman 56, which I believe started in the early late 20s or 30s. Theyve gotten a bit more pricey, but are still around, and one of the better looking receiver sights. If you dont get hung up on the exact "correct" model number, about any of the ones made for a flat sides lever action seem to work on a 94. I havent found one that doesnt work so far. I have a couple-few of them.
I thought tang sights were cool, until I had one. It lasted about 20 minutes after getting the gun in hand. Disliked it greatly. My thumb thinks its supposed to be right where the tang sight sits. If one wants to hang their thumb off the side, by all means do so. I dont like it much. Sort of muddles up the overall handling to me.
The steel M-16 jointed cleaning rods, I believe sold commercially by Kleenbore, make decent rods for Winchesters. I use a brass cone shaped muzzle guide to keep the rod off the muzzle. I havent figured out much real reason to take the bolt out of them, despite many seeming to like to on Marlins. Its hard to lose parts if you dont take them apart. When I came into the 1927 carbine it seemed like it hadnt been cleaned in decades of hard use and abuse, and perhaps hadnt since early in its life. I stripped it and gave it a good cleaning, and it was nice and crisp functioning again. It hasnt really needed to be apart since I got it in the mid 80s.
Last edited by Malamute; 03-17-2018 at 04:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
