But the he main thing is they all work and shoot. Then there are differences in the manufacturing and parts even among the post 64 models. There are big differences in the manufacturing procedures vs the pre and post 64 everything from winchester. They all do what they were designed to do. But given a decent example of either, they'll both kill stuff just the same. The pre-64s sell for nutty prices these days, while perfectly good post-64s sit there gathering dust with way smaller price tags on them. But if it shoots straight, I think you'll get more gun for the money with a post-64. Given the choice I'd have still chosen mine, but for silly inconsequential reasons (I just really disliked the sharp horizontal stippling on his hammer, vs the smooth square stippling on mine).Īs with any gun, I'd make sure there's nothing wrong and/or weird with it before forking over the money.
His gun was more accurate than mine (but then again his was significantly less clapped out, too), but mine had fewer sharp edges. Honestly, I think that a lot of the pre- vs post-64 stuff gets blown a little out of proportion. I had a school buddy that I hunted with a good bit who used a post-64 model 94, also chambered in. 30-30 for shooting everything larger than and including groundhogs. When I was a kid, I used a pre-64 model 94 in.
