Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
January 26, 2011
Offline
Yesterday, I was at a local Cabela’s looking at a Model 1895 flat side, octagon barrel, 40-72. The gun had some issues and I was not interested in buying it, but rather taking a little time to enjoy looking at a variation with very limited production. The rifle had a Marbles tang sight that was clearing the wrong application as the base was quite short and the forward mounting was in the middle of the tang stamping. Someone had drilled the tang to make this wonderful tang sight fit and they likely had no issue with doing so back in the day to make the rifle more accurate.
My question is, were any of the Model 1895’s drilled for a tang sight? I believe the answer is No since tang sights did not work well with the long travel of the 1895 bolt. I do see some Marbles flex joint sights with the “special base” coded for the Model 1895. These were the ones with the “L” shaped base and the sight staff was very near the comb of the stock. They also were spring loaded to allow the bolt to bump them and they would return to the original position.If there are tang sights made for ’95s, I suppose you were forced to drill the tang outside of the factory? I don’t recall seeing any ’95s that are drilled in the forward position for a tang sight.
Any thoughts? …………. Brad?
If it weren’t for the extra hole in the tang, and the aftermarket checkering, the rifle was in decent shape. Just priced about double what it should have been. It was still interesting to look at.
~Gary~
Online
A ’30s Lyman application chart I have lists “none” for ’95s in the tang sight category. Not surprising, considering that their wonderful #21 and #38 receiver sights served that purpose.
pdog,
I have seen a few 1895’s with the Marble’s W12 flexible sight you mentioned, but have never come across any that lettered. For that matter, I have not seen any 1895’s that letter with any form of tang sight. I think we can all agree that we should “never say never” where Winchester was concerned, but if Winchester installed tang sights on any 1895’s, I think they would be an extreme rarity. I believe you’re right that they didn’t install any. As Clarence pointed out, they had the very popular Lyman receiver sights for those wanting a longer sight radius or peep-style sight.
I’ve looked over the pictures of the flatside you are talking about. It is an interesting gun with an interesting story, but I agree that it is way overpriced, especially with an aftermarket tang sight and checkering. Cabela’s lists it as having a factory letter, but doesn’t say what’s in the letter. I’ve left a couple of messages asking if the letter listed the peep sight, but got no reply. I figured the lack of response was my answer.
I have several octagon barreled ’95’s, including some flatsides and I’ve never paid anywhere near that kind of money for one in original condition, much less in altered condition. I would consider $2,500-$3,000 to be top dollar for the gun. Appears to be a fun gun to look over, though, especially if it was used by a professional hunter back in the day.
January 26, 2011
Offline
Mark,
Thanks for your input, I know you are much more versed on the 1895s than most of us on here. Yes, I agree that the L21 and L38 worked well on those rifles, and also looked great. The only advantage to the tang sight with special base would be a longer sight radius.
As for the Cabela’s gun, it had an old CFM yellow search form that only stated 40-72, and octagon barrel, in addition to the dates. It had nothing about sights, or checkering. The fore end checkering was poor and a dead give away. The buttstock checkering looked pretty close, which made me wonder if it came off another rifle, or maybe the fellow practiced on the fore end and had improved a bit by the time he cut the buttstock, who knows. Either way, it wasn’t original. As I mentioned in the original post, the tang sight base was way too short and had been drilled in the tang stamping. It had been on there a long time, as I could see decent blue in the protected areas around the sight base.
There was a hand written letter from the owner stating that it had been in a Denver house closet for decades but didn’t say much more. It wasn’t signed or dated, so not much value to that. The Cabelas employee told me some story about the fellows grandfather hunting buffalo with it for one of the local railroad companies but nothing documented. I had a respectful argument about the fact that this rifle was not available in 45-70, which he told me it was. He originally told me that almost all of the 1895s were chambered in 45-70……….. I digress…… Anyway, it was fun to look at.
~Gary~
pdog72 said
Mark,Thanks for your input, I know you are much more versed on the 1895s than most of us on here. Yes, I agree that the L21 and L38 worked well on those rifles, and also looked great. The only advantage to the tang sight with special base would be a longer sight radius.
As for the Cabela’s gun, it had an old CFM yellow search form that only stated 40-72, and octagon barrel, in addition to the dates. It had nothing about sights, or checkering. The fore end checkering was poor and a dead give away. The buttstock checkering looked pretty close, which made me wonder if it came off another rifle, or maybe the fellow practiced on the fore end and had improved a bit by the time he cut the buttstock, who knows. Either way, it wasn’t original. As I mentioned in the original post, the tang sight base was way too short and had been drilled in the tang stamping. It had been on there a long time, as I could see decent blue in the protected areas around the sight base.
There was a hand written letter from the owner stating that it had been in a Denver house closet for decades but didn’t say much more. It wasn’t signed or dated, so not much value to that. The Cabelas employee told me some story about the fellows grandfather hunting buffalo with it for one of the local railroad companies but nothing documented. I had a respectful argument about the fact that this rifle was not available in 45-70, which he told me it was. He originally told me that almost all of the 1895s were chambered in 45-70……….. I digress…… Anyway, it was fun to look at.
I saw the reference to it being owned by a professional hunter, but I had no idea that it was supposed to have been used by a buffalo hunter. That’s rich, considering that buffalo were all but extinct in the wild well before 1895. I’d never heard of any claims of ’95’s being used by buffalo hunters, especially one chambered in 45-70.
pdog72 said
…The Cabelas employee told me some story about the fellows grandfather hunting buffalo with it for one of the local railroad companies but nothing documented. I had a respectful argument about the fact that this rifle was not available in 45-70, which he told me it was. He originally told me that almost all of the 1895s were chambered in 45-70……….. I digress…… Anyway, it was fun to look at.
Gun store clerks…sheesh. Your “respect” was wasted.
clarence said
Gun store clerks…sheesh. Your “respect” was wasted.
Unfortunately, many of these guys get used to being looked upon as “experts” by most customers who lap up everything they say as the gospel. They then get accustomed to spinning fanciful yarns about guns to try to get the customer hooked. I once had a salesman tell me the dings on the forearm of an 1894 were likely made while bouncing along on the seat of a covered wagon.
Mark Douglas said
…I once had a salesman tell me the dings on the forearm of an 1894 were likely made while bouncing along on the seat of a covered wagon.
Oh yes, those covered wagons were still traversing the plains in the 1890s, harassed by Indian war parties, so the driver needed his ’94 within easy reach.
There IS one kind of forearm damage that justifies such a tale, not that any store clerk would know of it–it’s the shallow depression in the wood that can result when a rifle is slung sideways in a leather loop behind a saddle horn. Looks like a precarious way to carry a rifle, but it’s documented in the paintings of Charlie Russell and other Western artists.
Folks,
Yes, there is no fixing “stupid”. However, the records for the 1895 do show some “unusual” chamberings, to include a few listed in .45-70 if I recall correctly. Several of us have been hoping that those serial numbered rifles would appear and we can then see what the chambering really is! The .45-70 is too big a diameter across the rim to fit the magazine in the normal configuration, although it will barely fit in the action opening. Jesi, myself, Rob and Brad think the entries are human error on a Monday after a day of celebrating on Sunday–but it would sure be nice to know if there were any 1895’s out there in 30 WCF, 45-70, et al. As was pointed out “never” is not a great term to use in this arena. Probably shouldn’t use “always” either.
Tim
1 Guest(s)
