Forward Observer said

jwm94 said
F.O.

 

Echoing here what has been mentioned. 

 

I find myself going to the handbook much more often than I do the larger version.  Madis explained in the introduction of The Winchester Handbook that demand for a smaller concise book be published due to the many editions and size that The Winchester Book had become. 

James  

That’s good to know.  I initially had it in my mind that the handbook would be like the pocket version of the Winchester Blue book price guide that only deals with Winchesters as opposed to the huge Blue Book that covers prices on all firearms.  Of course that thinking was obviously flawed.

 

@Twobit

I am also aware that much of the Madis serial number data has been brought into question by the discovery of other records from the Winchester factory that came into possession of the Cody museum long after Madis did his research.   I also have the Pirkle books which are quite helpful, but sometimes for me they raise as many questions as they answer.  I’m hoping the Madis book will help fill in the blanks.

Are you still collecting data on the 92?   My carbine appears to be nothing special, but I will gladly send you the particulars

 

Cheers   

FO,

Yes,  I am still at it with the Model 1892’s and would love to add your rifle.  Every rifle is of interest to me.     The Pirkle book tend to just mimic a lot of what is in Madis regarding DOM and rarity.  And there are omissions of information in both books.  Use them as a LOOSE guide but not the set in cement text.

Michael

If you consult either book for information on the Model 53, one should be aware of some major errors that I have discovered in my work with the ongoing Model 53 survey.

1. Page 391 of the Winchester Book states that there were a total of 24,916 manufactured. This is incorrect. The actual number is around 15,118.
2. Page 391 of the same book states that some of the early “transitional” model 53’s used receivers numbered in the Model 92 serial range. This is actually the opposite of what actually happened. Approximately the final 26% of Model 53 production used receivers numbered in the Model 92 range, with the earliest Model 92 receiver discovered thus far dating to December, 1927 … three years after production began.
3. Page 129 of the Winchester Handbook has a list of calibers and numbers of each caliber for the Model 53. Using that list, it appears that the percentages were 68% for the 25-20, 19% for the 32 WCF, and 13% for the 44 WCF. With 645 rifles in my survey, amounting to 4.25% of total production, the percentages have long been stabilizing at around 49% for the 25-20, 37% for the 32 WCF, and 14% for the 44 WCF.
4. If one adds up the total production of all three calibers on the same page, one gets 24,916, but his serial number by year list indicates a total of 15,118 rifles. My survey indicates that the actual production number is, at most, 15,118. I say ‘at most’ because thus far we have found three Model 53 receivers that were used to factory build Model 92’s. The number may be as high as 2% of Model 53 receivers used for Model 92’s but my sampling is too small to say that with confidence
5. The table on page 130 of the Winchester Handbook shows thousands of serial numbers that never existed. I have a copy of Winchester’s polishing room records for the Model 53, and the last Model 53 serial number, before switching to Model 92 serial numbers, was 10,874. Madis’s serial numbers from 10,875 to 15,118 never existed. After serial number 10,874 all Model 53’s began to be numbered within the Model 92 serial range.

If there were just one or two minor errors or typos here and there, I would understand. But I have no explanation as to why the errors are so huge and completely out of sync with Model 53 production.

Warts, errors and all I’m very much impressed by Madis’ encyclopedic knowledge of Winchesters. I’m aware that he made more than a few errors but with all the info contained in his books that’s inevitable. A fair bit of data has become available since he did his research and I’m beginning to suspect that some of his reference materials have been lost or are not available to today’s researchers. One thing’s for certain, if his books are any indication he was fortunate enough to have handled and examined thousands and thousands of exceptional Winchesters, some very special indeed.

Good thread, thinking I may add a “Handbook” to my reference library.

Thanks, been wondering where the new books were coming from.