Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
January 31, 2017
Offline
Has anyone noticed the 1894 on Gunbroker. Item # 886943022, seller Ironmen Arms. The stock is stunning. Opinions on condition and value appreciated.
Lawrence Clarey said
Has anyone noticed the 1894 on Gunbroker. Item # 886943022, seller Ironmen Arms. The stock is stunning. Opinions on condition and value appreciated.
I agree that’s the nicest wood I’ve seen on an 1894. This rifle’s been talked about at the tail end of the below forum thread:
Don
Lawrence Clarey said
Has anyone noticed the 1894 on Gunbroker. Item # 886943022, seller Ironmen Arms. The stock is stunning. Opinions on condition and value appreciated.
My better instincts tell me to be careful on this one. Bert has already commented on the erroneous antique status. The caliber and round barrel hurt it. Yep, it left Winchester with 4x wood -I’m just not sure it was the wood which is one it – which I agree is gorgeous just like others have commented. The metal is not very good on this gun – original but shows a lot of wear and aging. The wood is just too nice for the metal to suit me. And, it could just be the lighting in the photos but the forearm and buttstock just don’t seem to match, color, figure, etc. A long time ago an old school 94 collector named Glenn Hockett was discussing a 94 with me at a show. He told me on a special order gun make sure the mane and the tail match because Winchester did!
Lawrence,
The auction listing is in error, and the seller is about to commit a Federal crime. That rifle is not an Antique, and representing it as such is dishonest to put it mildly. I sent the seller the actual date of manufacture, but he is refusing to use that information. I would caution any of you against buying that rifle, as it is likely going to get some unwanted attention.
Edit: I am retracting my caution about purchasing this rifle. The seller has updated the auction listing to reflect that it now requires a FFL 01 or FFL 03 license to ship it to.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
January 31, 2017
Offline
Thank You, just read the thread on short 94’s. Larry
Sure is a handsome ’94 but very suspect,
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Hello
Let me start by saying that the 1894 Deluxe Serial number 139712 is our rife.
It is guaranteed all correct and original. The wood has not been changed or altered in any way. The assembly numbers match and the wood to metal fit is superb. Please review the many pictures in our auction and please be aware that the photos do not do this fine Deluxe justice. If you have any questions or concerns please email or call us. We offer a 3 day inspection period on every firearm we sell.
Because of the discrepancy from this forum as to its antique status we are reluctantly requiring a valid 01 FFL or 03 C&R for the purchase of this rifle.
Bert, What does your statement ” I would caution any of you against buying that rifle, as it is likely going to get some unwanted attention.” actually imply? Please advise.
It is a shame that the very well defined and age old documented antique serial range for antique 1894’s (from George Madis, Steve Fjestad as well as others) seems to be in question. Are not firearms in general under enough pressure from the ever changing attitudes and poliitcal climate?
Anyway, Its a great 1894 Deluxe and it is guaranteed.
We are long Time Cody Museum members since the 1990’s and more recently WACA members. We are having difficulty logging in to the forum as WACA members. Moderators Please advise.
Regards,
ironmenarms@outlook. said
We are long Time Cody Museum members since the 1990’s and more recently WACA members. We are having difficulty logging in to the forum as WACA members. Moderators Please advise.Regards,
What is your WACA membership number so that I can verify it is in the system. Once verified, I can verify that your User Id is registered and has the proper credentials to logon to the WACA forums.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
ironmenarms@outlook. said
It is a shame that the very well defined and age old documented antique serial range for antique 1894’s (from George Madis, Steve Fjestad as well as others) seems to be in question. Are not firearms in general under enough pressure from the ever changing attitudes and poliitcal climate?
The authors and documents (Fjestad simply copied Madis’ information) have been proven through examination of the historical records to be grossly inaccurate. Simply put, it is old and out of date information, and there really is no question about its lack of validity. The original Winchester factory production records are the proof. I highly encourage you to avail yourself of that readily available historical information.
In regards to your question, Yes, they are under pressure, and in my opinion, one of the ways to alleviate some of that pressure is for everyone to strictly adhere to the existing Federal regulations and law to the “T”. I highly suspect that you would not welcome a visit from the BATF asking you questions about a firearm that should be recorded on a Form 4473.
By educating ourselves, and abiding by the current laws (enacted in November 1968), that is one way we can reduce the “pressure” being applied, and hopefully positively influence some of the negative attitudes from the political camp.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert,
We try very hard to run a tight ship regarding the law with the information available to us. That is one reason we changed / added to the auction the FFL status on the 1894 in question
We welcome the BATF anytime in our shop. Do you report businesses and or people to the BATF?
Just curious.
WACA Member # 9398
Cody Museum # 89188673
Thank You
ironmenarms@outlook. said
Bert,We try very hard to run a tight ship regarding the law with the information available to us. That is one reason we changed / added to the auction the FFL status on the 1894 in question
We welcome the BATF anytime in our shop. Do you report businesses and or people to the BATF?
Just curious.
That is good information to know and commendable on your part… honesty is always the best answer.
In answer to your question, No I do not. However, the BATF does monitor the firearms forums on the internet.
Did you read the information I sent to you in response to the email message you sent me this morning?
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
ironmenarms@outlook.
WACA Member # 9398Cody Museum # 89188673
Thank You
What is your Login ID for the WACA website?
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert is just trying to protect potential buyers too. You have a copy of the factory letter. These letters are prepared using the original Winchester records held in the Cody Museum. Unfortunately Madis made a big error on the 1892’s and the 1894’s. In the future use the data on this sight. Look at the top of the page under Resources. There is a section When was my gun made. This data is straight out of the Factory records.
Nice looking gun.
After reading They’re expanded description of the gun I am not so suspect of it and I think it would be a very welcome piece in My rack. It’s also a very good thing They responded to this post and straightened things out. Some times We all have to eat a little crow.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Henry Mero said
After reading They’re expanded description of the gun I am not so suspect of it and I think it would be a very welcome piece in My rack. It’s also a very good thing They responded to this post and straightened things out. Some times We all have to eat a little crow.
Henry – I too have come around on this gun. At first I was certain the wear to the wood and metal was not consistent. But as I look at it further, including enlargement of the photos, I think the wood is original to the gun and wear is consistent with wear and aging of the metal. Careful review of the disassembled photos of the wood led me to change my mind. Also, as I originally noted, the lighting of the photos contributed to my concern regarding mis-matched forearm and stock wood. I now feel better about that.
Burt Humphrey said
Henry – I too have come around on this gun. At first I was certain the wear to the wood and metal was not consistent. But as I look at it further, including enlargement of the photos, I think the wood is original to the gun and wear is consistent with wear and aging of the metal. Careful review of the disassembled photos of the wood led me to change my mind. Also, as I originally noted, the lighting of the photos contributed to my concern regarding mis-matched forearm and stock wood. I now feel better about that.
Yesterday I visited a local gun shop which has a lot of Winchester levers for sale – mostly brown guns. I jotted down serial numbers of several 92’s and 94’s that were noted on the tags as “antique”. When I got home and ran the numbers, I found 3 that were not “antique” – obviously not using the correct references.
1 Guest(s)
