does it make it less of a gun than the pre 64

does it make it less of a gun than the pre 64?

Thought I'd give my 2 cents worth here, even tho at today's inflation rates it doesn't amount to much.....after nearly 40 years behind a retail gun counter, one learns and hears alot!

The post '64 Model '94's had the same barrels and receivers (forged, milled and machined) as the pre-'64's. The things that were changed were the alloy and finish on the receiver, which is usually called black chrome and there were minor changes in the wood, mostly cosmetic. A few internal parts were changed, from flat spring to coil and the cartridge lifter/carrier. For some reason, the gun buying public just could not stand that cartridge lifter changed to a stamped out part in lieu of the previous machined/milled part. It functioned perfectly well and never was a problem, except for sales. We had phun in our shop in the 1960's and '70's when a client would complain about this item - we would usually ask what kind of shotgun he owned, and, the answer was often, "A Remington Model 870", which is a famous firearm in its own right. Whether you know it or not, the Remington 870 is comprised mostly of stamped out parts. Also, the Internationally famous AK-47 military firearm, and, they perform and function just fine. Much cheaper to manufacture, of course. Winchester listened and changed the cartridge lifter back to a machined part and now the stamped cartridge lifters in the Model '94 is somewhat of a rarity. Maybe they'll become a highly sought after collector's gun??!! Hee, hee.....

I blundered into a $200 M94 made in 1973. I don't consider it any less reliable or effective a rifle just because it doesn't have some of the features of a pre-64. I also own 2 of those, by the way. The 1973 rifle has a milled (forged?) lifter though. The only M94 I ever owned with a stamped lifter was in .44 Magnum. It worked just fine too.