No, it isn't a myth, when the "new" Model 94s were introduced, they did not sell well in the beginning and that is exactly why Winchester brought out the "Commemoratives." I did not say sales stayed poor anywhere in my post, Winchester learned from their mistake and set about trying to improve the post-64 variant almost immediately.

__________________
Dan
'94 Winchester Fan...
Slow down, you'll get a more harmonious outcome......

A lot of derogatory terms thrown around, and it appears that some people have a different understanding of some of the terminology.
When I think of 'pot metal' think of some sort of zinc or aluminum casting. The Winchester Model 94 receivers have never been made of that type of material.
Some have been referring to junk metal, and it appears they use that term because the metal doesn't blue the same way as the other steel parts. I don't see how that makes it junk. Winchester produced a product and then found a way to have it coated in order to have a blued finish. I don't see how that it their problem that you cannot re-blue it the same way.
I have read that the receivers were made of castings, and I don't think the article was clear whether or not it was investment casting or some other type. As I remember the article, the cast receivers were actually stronger than the forged ones. In any case, the question I would put to the complainers is: do the rifles work and are there any problems such as stretched receivers. If the headspace is the same, and the rifle continues to work effectively, why are we calling down the product because it doesn't blue the way you would like it to?

.



The post 64 Winchester 94 was of much lower quality than the pre-64. It is loose, it rattles, and it is full of stamped tin parts. You can defend it and excuse it all you like but that is the way it is.

.

Still fun to shoot for me though, regardless of your opinion.

Mine has rust coloured speckles all over the reciever. I tried to remove it with a mildly abrasive pumice paste but wasn't very sucessful. Now I just keep a good coating of rust inhibiting oil on it.

Just put a Lyman No. 2 Tang sight on it. That's an improvement!

It was interesting to read the various entries relating to the "funny" metal that Winchester used to make some Model 94 receivers. The fact is, the material from which they were made is ductile cast iron sand castings. I own one of those castings that has never been machined - it's probably the only one in existence. I suppose a really hard core Model 94 collector would like to have it.

I had one with a sheet metal carrier (which i changed to a stamped carrier) and i was told by the person i got it from (pawn shop) that it was made in 1965 and i can't verify that since i sold it but anyway i could not find a cold blue that would blue it but g-96 paste did blue it so i finally decided to use the wonderful magical g-96 to touch up my 1974 94 and it looked alright to start with but after inspection the next day it was lightly pitted and brown! I steel wooled it off and tried again but it will not work on this one. AAARRRRGGGHHHH why did it work on the other one? Who knows but i even posted on this forum that this stuff would blue these receivers but i was wrong and apparently looked like an idiot to those who knew better. Oh well we have to learn from our own mistakes.

All kinds of metals, and steels can be investment cast, and investment castings from many different kinds of steel are often used in the same gun. Usually in an investment casting made from good steel like 4140, a reddish tint is caused by a high silicone content in the steel. One sees that on early Rugers now, and then. I saw castings of the 94 Winchester receiver, and samples of the various machining operations when I was at the Browning Museum in Ogden Utah back in the early 80's. I have to say that I wasn't too impressed with what I saw at the time, and I had been around investment castings for a while at that point.

Welcome to the forum. That's pretty fascinating, do you have a picture you could post?

__________________
MikeG

That is interesting. I could only look at the castings I saw through glass at the Browning museum, but they did sure look more like iron sand castings than the 4140 investment castings that I was used to seeing, and I sure wouldn't be surprised at all if that is what they were.

So....Did any one ever figger out a way to keep theses things from rusting?

Pre-64 Model 94 receivers were machined from a block of forged steel, with bolt, lifter, lower link, etc likewise machined from steel forgings.

In 1964 - 1970, Winchester cast the receicers from steel, but not solid steel - it was a mixture/process called sintered metal - which is why they needed plating with cast iron to take bluing (If they were alread csat iron, why plate them with the same material ?) .

The Commemoratives had the same receivers, but with (variously) silver, gold, pewter, and black chrome plating ILO cast iron & bluing.
The Model 94 Antique had the same receiver, too, also cast iron plated, but with a faux CCH.

As of 1964, the lifter was changed from forged/solid/machined to one of stamped sheet metal, and hollow roll pins were used in several places within the action ILO the previous solid pins.

In 1970, after years of gunrag complaints, Winchester upgraded the internals somewhat - the stamped lifter was changed to a solid, but cast, lifter (look for the mold seam mark), and replacing some of the hollow roll pins with different pins.

In 1983, with the introduction of the Model 94AE (angle eject), Winchester returned to a forged steel receiver.

This stuff's a matter of record, not conjecture.

Keep the outside waxed/oiled, from Day One.

IMO, To many owners, these are tools, and not treated very gently, instead of something nicer/better.



.

__________________
Feed a starving man a fish & he will eat for a day - Teach the man how to fish & he will never starve again.

Sintering, by the way, is a process where powdered substances are compressed into a mold to form the basic shape, then removed from the mold heated to just under the melting point of the material(s) to fuse everything together. It isn't a "bad" process as some folks would assume, but has drawbacks for making parts that would be blued. Sintering is how carbide saw teeth are made - a mixture of tungsten, carbon, and cobalt as a binder. FYI. I believe that S&W uses sintering for some internal lockwork parts. Complex shapes can be molded for less cost than machining from solid metal. Long term durability is probably less though.

A little trivia.

__________________
MikeG

Honestly mine is a working gun. its something I have been meaning to buy for years and just now got around to it.its an 81 model and the wood and the tube are "prestine" to me the reciever adds creadance to a life well lived. kinda like battle scars. I dont mind the worn finish. i like it. I just dont want it to rust to the point of damage. Thanks for the info. I'm glad I found this forum. This 94 is just one of many firearms I have acquired "just because"