pskpfw,
I've got a 1968 vintage Model 94 in .32 Win Special. It's the nature of the beast on those post 64 Winchester Model 94's. One of the many reasons there is so much disdain for them is the steel alloy receivers that does not take a good looking blue job. They are safe to shoot, can be very accurate, but they are just plain UGLY. The person who designed that receiver should be tarred and and feathered then run out of Dodge! One of the most vile looking things on a fire arm I have ever laid these older eyes on.
358 Win

 

Have a 1973 and it looks ....great. No problem what so ever with bluing.

 

Sav.250........you've carried yours a lot by hand on the receiver?
ok, thanks men, I still think i made the right call, the close up pictures, particularly on the left side, looked like some small, ghost "circles" were showing up and i seem to remember that on mine. before it started flaking off.
I take mine the first day every year. put a peep on it for my aging(52) eyes, shoots good.

 

When one considers that some of the antique Win lever actions, had that Carbona blue, which flaked off in a very similar manner as the post 64 94, its rather ironic.

It seems to be, the early post 64s flake worse than the later ones. I guess the process changed again with the AE series and the 94 22

 

good point, just learned some about that when i sold a 1936 30wcf today.
I'm just wondering if I'm better off getting one that has already gone through that stage, and been "cleaned up", or do I gamble on one that's nice now, but will perhaps eventually flake off.
It's a Bday present, a blued one might be more "wow" when he gets it, but one that's been "restored", might be better in the long run, that's my dilemma......

 

The newer ones that flake off, IME , generally got pretty hard use in the first place. If a gun actually gets used and abused, all finishes deteriorate to some degree.

To my knowledge, no one has ever successfully "restored" a post 64 gun in question, perhaps the factory, I do not recall ever seeing a factory refinished gun though.

A lot of guys claim to have reblued the cast metal guns, but their idea of a good job, apparently varies from mine.:biggrin:

 

RGR, agree about the "restored", I'm talking about the receiver ending up being a different color than "blue".
mine is copperish and my brothers is olivish, best way i can describe it.
Mine wasn't abused per se, it wasn't taken care of as well as it should have been no doubt.
thanks for the info.

 

With a lot of the guns that came out in the mid 60s, for example the early TC Contenders and Ruger Blackhawks, most any gun that was investment cast, they are turning a nice reddish purple color at present. They look a whole lot like a cheap cast iron Single Shot shotgun receiver that was dulite blued.

Unless folks have done actual hot caustic bluing, they do not really realize how much of a challenge it is, to get an actual black color on a gun. There are 29 different variables, maybe more, that give anything other than a good black finish.

Point being, Win 94s are not the only gun in the bunch that can be a challenge to refinish and that age takes a toll. Heck, I have a Smith 27 looking a bit reddish now, decades later, in the right sunlight.

 

I do agree that the "sintered" metal receivers of the Post-64 guns do weather and flake very differently. Had one that flaked almost to a corroded metal look. The one I made my "Trapper" out of looked like it had a fine coat of rust evenly distributed on the receiver. That one I Cerakoted. Another interesting option for a so-called restoration would be this. GunBlack.com - Black Oxide and Manganese Phosphate

 

The early post '64's had black chrome plated receivers.... Those kinda look "Painted" - but it's not paint....
Later - they went to iron plated receivers - which took bluing just fine....

 

Flaking off, that's what mine did, ugly.
Thanks for the input men.

 

We have a pristine 1971 94 in 44 mag, looks like it just came out of the box

 

I have read in 1964 the receiver was changed from a forging to a casting. It was so bad at holding blue it was at some point iron plated to hold the blue better (I wish I knew the year) finally black oxide was used, again year unknown. In 1983 with angle eject the receiver was once again forged.

I wish I could nail down when (after 1964) the bluing was again acceptable.

 

I believe it was in the angle eject series, and perhaps the 94 22, but they came before the A E series now that I think about it.

 

ok, let me ask another stupid question, what's a 1972 manufactured 94 with the receiver "restored" so to speak, but the rest of the gun is in real nice shape, maybe worth?
thanks for the input all.

 

don't know 'bout cash value, but i like my 1980-ish "wrangler" 16" 32 special, even though the "engraved" scenes on the sides of the receiver have a funny orange cast to 'em. i figgered if that was the only problem, havin' a trapper in 32ws wuz worth it, anyhow. it's a family thing.
mind yer topknot!
windy

 

Assuming it is a standard 30 30, it would go for approx. $300-400 around here.

 

I'm not sure about the dates, but I don't think it is as simple as just "post 64". Though I have never seen a "pre 64" with the problem. I have had a few in the late 60's and 70s that get spots that look almost like chrome. It is very strange and not at all like normal bluing wear. They will take a cold blue to dress them up, but it doesn't last. It seems more prevalent on rifles that may have been exposed to salt. I would agree it is an investment-casting issue. You can usually tell the ones that look "cast" they appear off when looking at the area under the hammer. Some of them are so poor, especially the the late 60's, that they almost look like toy cap guns at the back of the receiver.

My 80's rifles seem to wear more like the bluing on any modern production rifle. I don't know when it changed, but the angle eject date is a good guess.

That being said, I think if you find a good rifle from that period and take exceptional care of it, it will still hold up well. Any neglect at all and they will show it with a passion. One night in a rifle case after a winter hunting trip can destroy the finish for good.

 

Far as I know, the carrier on the post 64 was a stamped POS type carrier, while the pre 64 guns was an actual forged carrier. And of course the lock screw in the bottom metal pivot pin on the pre 64 guns. I dont recall the name of that piece off hand...the "link" maybe.

that screw gives them away, from across the room. One will see transition wood and perhaps buttplates and sights, but that screw is generally a given, as far as I know.

 

It is called a link. The screw you are referring to is in the link (viewed from the bottom) to retain the pivot pin. 1964 that screw disappeared and the pivot pin now had a screw head on the receiver left side.
BUT a link screw is NOT a sure way of IDing as pre '64. At some point that retaining screw came back. I have seen them on Angle Eject 94s.

 

I am aware of that, but the wood, etc, is way different on the late guns as well. One can still pretty much tell by the lock screw on the pivot pin as the first clue from a distance.

Serial numbers are another good giveaway.:biggrin: