Worst Winchester 94's
Why are the ones from 64-80, ser# 2,700,000-5,024,956 +- not very desirable? Materials, manufacturing process or what? Thanks
0
-
At least on rifles in the 1960: stamped carrier, non-walnut stocks, odd alloy for receiver that could not be conventionally blued, so when original finish wore, owner was stuck. 0 -
Just as you said, Materials and manufacturing process was cheapened up there by making them undesirable to collectors. 0 -
I recall that in the early 1970's, quality was so bad that it was embarrasing. I was in a store when a shipment of different kinds of commemorative M94's came in, and the proprietor was unboxing them. One that came out of the box, an octagon carbine, had wood that was so gorgeous that a customer who was standing nearby declared that he wanted to buy it immediately. The proprietor extended the gun to him, opening the action at the same time, and the action disintegrated, with parts bouncing off the customer's shoes. The customer turned green, and refused the gun.
But it sure was nice-lookin' stuff. If you wanted a Red Ryder Special for the blank spot on the wall, that is. [xx(][xx(][xx(].
The receivers at the time were called 'sintered metal'. It wouldn't take blueing, so the guns were flash plated with something that would, but it all wore off quickly, leaving ugliness.
Bean counters are good at precipitating tragedies.0 -
asop,
During the timeframe, that you mentioned, Winchester stopped using forged steel, and started making the receivers out of sintered metal (a powdered metal alloy). I have read that various plating materials & methods are required to reblue these receivers, once the original bluing wears off. After this 15-odd-year period, Winchester (or U. S. Repeating Arms, around then) started making forged steel receivers, again.
++++++++
###########0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments