Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Does anyone have any information on 92s with ramp front sights? These three do not show the usual re-done characteristics and all are from pre 1920. Is it possible they are from a ‘parts clean-up’ period? The only barrel date I have checked is the 44 with the 1/2 mag, ’38 barrel date. The bottom gun is pictured in the 1892 section of the ‘Madis Book’. I showed Mr. Madis this gun at his last Reno Show and he wrote a note in my book clarifying the incorrect serial posted in his book.
Top Ser. #668706 Center Ser. #765249 (Has bolt peep) Bottom Ser. #873505 (not 87350 as in the Book)
Any ideas?
Thanks, RDB
I have 2 carbines like that, one from 1894 and one from 1929. Both are factory re-barrels.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Thank you for your logical response. I always felt the guns possibly resulted from a ‘parts clean up’ period, not considering the return for repair possibility.
Until now all who have inspected my ramp sighted ’92 Winchesters have suggested that they were NOT done by Winchester, but rather outside gunsmiths and such. I now recall reading of Winchester making it possible in the 1930’s to return your older Winchester guns and have them returned to like new condition and even modified to current caliber offerings. I have two hi-wall rifles that show results of having this done. One is in 25-35 cal., serial #6580 (originally 38-55 cal.) and the second in .218 BEE cal., serial #110937 (no original records). John Campbell, in his “THE WINCHESTER SINGLE SHOT VOL II”, makes reference to this process in Chapter 3.
Thanks to all who help with the understanding of the Winchester mystique available to we ‘the curious’.
Roger B
Hi Roger,
I am almost certain that these rifles are factory refinishes and barrel replacements. If there was an “oval/P” proof on the barrels then they would have been done by non factory gunsmiths. A “parts cleanup” rifle would most likely have a type 6 upper tang stamp on them as that was the last style used for the Model 92. SN 668706 was manufactured during 1912 and has a correct type 3 tang stamp on it. That part would have needed to have sat around for 25 years to be matched up with a ramp sighted barrel. While that might be possible I would also then have expected to have seen more “out of place” tang marked receivers used earlier in the production as they were found. This is not the case.
I would interpret each of these rifles as having a factory refinish with a replaced non original barrel. The caliber may also be suspect as original.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Since they were “factory refinished” as opposed to “parts clean-up” how does one determine a value?
I would guess that factory rework doesn’t lower the value as much as re-blued, is that correct?
RDB
I would guess that if one were to obtain a Cody Museum Letter for one of these carbines, and if it indicated a Return for Repairs date and number, one would have a quite interesting piece. In this case I don’t think the value would be diminished, especially if the original caliber and the current one are the same and if no other alterations have been made.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Thanks for the information. I just realized I won’t have to worry about the value, ’cause I haven’t even considered selling them. Let the family take care of that. Like Mr. Madis said, “You never pay too much for a Winchester. You just bought it too soon.”
Thanks for your help.
Roger B
Wincacher said
I would guess that if one were to obtain a Cody Museum Letter for one of these carbines, and if it indicated a Return for Repairs date and number, one would have a quite interesting piece. In this case I don’t think the value would be diminished, especially if the original caliber and the current one are the same and if no other alterations have been made.
Each of these carbines are well outside the range of available information for a factory letter so there can never be any documentation of the original configuration or if any R&R occurred. I would suggest that the potential value for the rifles is not anywhere near what the gun would be if the original barrel and the original finish were still present.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Folks,
No guarantees, here, but if the rifles were redone by Winchester, there could be multiple final inspector’s marks on the lower area of the receiver, adjacent to the trigger. This would be due to the receiver being repolished and the original marks thinned out, if that makes sense. Then the final repair/rework would be reinspected. Potentially, the receiver could even have a ghost image of the original proof mark, with a subsequent applied WP on top of the receiver yet maybe in a slightly different location from the first WP. Naturally, I would expect to see only the one WP on the barrel. Were the barrels replaced only, and the receiver not polished and reblued to match the degree of blue of the new barrel, then there would not be such inspectors marks nor reproof of the receiver, etc.
Tim Tomlinson
About 15 years ago, I picked up here in Canada, a Model 1892 carbine 44 W.C.F., serial number 29773, built in 1894, that had a ramp front sight. The barrel had a Winchester factory proof mark, but no oval/P stamp. The factory letter indicated it was originally an OB rifle shipped in 1894. Several years ago, I put this carbine up for discussion and examination with photos on this WACA forum and the general consensus was that it was a legit, complete rebuild by Winchester, probably done in the 1930’s, as I recall. I sent it to one of the WACA members who has since passed on (MikeD, if I recall correctly). He examined it and then bought it from me. I imagine it is floating around in the USA now. Mike lived in California. Here is a photo of the carbine.
1 Guest(s)
