Mike

Bert H. said

I discovered something very odd while looking at my November 1885 Winchester catalog (No. 39) to answer a question that Chuck posed... and the answer is, No, it is not marked "No. 39" anywhere on or in the catalog.

Bert
  

Thanks Bert.

1873man said
Bert,
I can say I have never seen 22 WCF or 22 CF in the ledgers. In the 73's they did list some just "22" for caliber with no differentiating for long or short. When I saw a gun that letter just 22 they were either long or short.
Bob
  

I am of the belief (opinion) that Winchester did not ever actually manufacture any Model 1873 rifles in 22 WCF simply because none have ever surfaced in the flesh, or in the ledger records.

The early entries in the Single Shot ledgers for the 22 Short were usually "22 R", "22 RF", or sometimes just "22".  For the 22 Long, the entries were nearly always "22 L", but rarely "22 Long".

Bert

I can say I have never seen 22 WCF or 22 CF in the ledgers. In the 73's they did list some just "22" for caliber with no differentiating for long or short. When I saw a gun that letter just 22 they were either long or short.

Bob

I would have bought that rifle for $3,000.  If you find it again, try to make a deal for it.

Bert

Peter Brigham said

Anthony said

Steven Gabrielli said
Ian is on point.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m14-americas-worst-service-rifle-what-went-wrong/
  

Steve,
As you're well aware of, he usually is!
Good find!
Tony
  

Sorry, couldn't disagree more. I realize I'm late to the commenting game here, but his video is highly misleading and is presented as if no one is aware that the M14 remained in Navy service long after it lost favor in within "Big Army" and Marine Corps (it may still be in use on ships today) and, in fact, was retained in a modernized form by the SEALs, who loved it (hell, it is very likely still in service with them). It also remained in service with Army Rangers for decades afterward, too. (I carried a selective fire M14 in Ranger school in the 1980s, where it gave excellent service (we automatic riflemen always opened up before the machine gunners could, always. Extremely reliable, too). Further, both the Army and Marines relied heavily on two modernized variants of the M14 in Afghanistan: The Army's Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)--two per rifle squad-- and the Marines' Enhanced Marksman's Rifle (EMR)--issued at the platoon level. It was estimated that the Army and Marines had approximately 10,000 modernized M14s in service in the 2010s (perhaps still today, I don't know). Max effective range of these modernized M14s was 800 meters, which is damn good. Further, the Army did not get rid of its Grease Guns (SMGs) until sometime in the late 1980s. Perhaps the last soldiers to employ them were army tankers and Cav scouts when the M1 tanks was fielded. They were replaced by M16s which sure as hell didn't fit in a tank (too damn long) like a short barreled Grease Gun!
Ian missed the boat on this one, IMHO.....
  

As I previously mentioned, the U.S. Navy carried the M14 rifles aboard the Ohio Class Submarines through at least the year 1997 (I transferred off of my last Sub tour in January 1998).  It was sometime shortly after I retired (in February 2000) that the M14 rifles were replaced with the M16A3 and (2) M60s were added to the onboard small arms inventory.

Bert

Bert H. said

1873man said
 
Bert, how did they enter the 22 center fire caliber in the 1885 ledgers?
Bob 
  

The early entries were "22 CF", but sometime within the first year it was changed to "22 WCF".  Serial number 779 was the first Single Shot rifle chambered for the 22 WCF.

 
Bert
  

Bert and I have had this discussion before, and I passed on #779, in the past for about $3,000.00 Bucks ,(my pics tell me 2010), which I did not know was the first S.S. in the .22 WCF caliber. My friend had it, and sold it and can't remember who he sold it to here in Ohio. The hunt continues to help out our beloved 1885 Guru!

1873man said
 
Bert, how did they enter the 22 center fire caliber in the 1885 ledgers?
Bob 
  

The early entries were "22 CF", but sometime within the first year it was changed to "22 WCF".  Serial number 779 was the first Single Shot rifle chambered for the 22 WCF.

Bert

steve004 said
Very interesting.  My initial speculation was that it was a mistake.  Wires crossed with the advertising department.  What furthers my speculation is that the .22 rimfire came out in 1884 and this is an 1885 catalog - and there is not mention of the .22 rimfire?
When is the .22 rimfire first mentioned in a catalog?  And while I'm at it, was it offered in .22 short, .22 long and .22 extra long (i.e. all mentioned in the catalog)?
  

Steve,

The November 1885 catalog did mention the .22 rim fire variation (on page 10).  I simply scanned just the pages listing the 22 center fire.

Bert

Peter

Peter Brigham said

Anthony said

Steven Gabrielli said
Ian is on point.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m14-americas-worst-service-rifle-what-went-wrong/
  

Steve,
As you're well aware of, he usually is!
Good find!
Tony
  

Sorry, couldn't disagree more. I realize I'm late to the commenting game here, but his video is highly misleading and is presented as if no one is aware that the M14 remained in Navy service long after it lost favor in within "Big Army" and Marine Corps (it may still be in use on ships today) and, in fact, was retained in a modernized form by the SEALs, who loved it (hell, it is very likely still in service with them). It also remained in service with Army Rangers for decades afterward, too. (I carried a selective fire M14 in Ranger school in the 1980s, where it gave excellent service (we automatic riflemen always opened up before the machine gunners could, always. Extremely reliable, too). Further, both the Army and Marines relied heavily on two modernized variants of the M14 in Afghanistan: The Army's Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)--two per rifle squad-- and the Marines' Enhanced Marksman's Rifle (EMR)--issued at the platoon level. It was estimated that the Army and Marines had approximately 10,000 modernized M14s in service in the 2010s (perhaps still today, I don't know). Max effective range of these modernized M14s was 800 meters, which is damn good. Further, the Army did not get rid of its Grease Guns (SMGs) until sometime in the late 1980s. Perhaps the last soldiers to employ them were army tankers and Cav scouts when the M1 tanks was fielded. They were replaced by M16s which sure as hell didn't fit in a tank (too damn long) like a short barreled Grease Gun!
Ian missed the boat on this one, IMHO.....
  

Peter,

It's always good to hear first hand accounts, from someone who's been there and done that. My youngest Son a Marine Scout Sniper in the Corps, spent time over there also, and couldn't agree with you more, as I sought his opinion on more than one occasion. 

Thanks for you're comments, and for you're Service! 

Tony

Anthony said

Steven Gabrielli said
Ian is on point.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m14-americas-worst-service-rifle-what-went-wrong/
  

Steve,
As you're well aware of, he usually is!
Good find!
Tony
  

Sorry, couldn't disagree more. I realize I'm late to the commenting game here, but his video is highly misleading and is presented as if no one is aware that the M14 remained in Navy service long after it lost favor in within "Big Army" and Marine Corps (it may still be in use on ships today) and, in fact, was retained in a modernized form by the SEALs, who loved it (hell, it is very likely still in service with them). It also remained in service with Army Rangers for decades afterward, too. (I carried a selective fire M14 in Ranger school in the 1980s, where it gave excellent service (we automatic riflemen always opened up before the machine gunners could, always. Extremely reliable, too). Further, both the Army and Marines relied heavily on two modernized variants of the M14 in Afghanistan: The Army's Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)--two per rifle squad-- and the Marines' Enhanced Marksman's Rifle (EMR)--issued at the platoon level. It was estimated that the Army and Marines had approximately 10,000 modernized M14s in service in the 2010s (perhaps still today, I don't know). Max effective range of these modernized M14s was 800 meters, which is damn good. Further, the Army did not get rid of its Grease Guns (SMGs) until sometime in the late 1980s. Perhaps the last soldiers to employ them were army tankers and Cav scouts when the M1 tanks was fielded. They were replaced by M16s which sure as hell didn't fit in a tank (too damn long) like a short barreled Grease Gun!

Ian missed the boat on this one, IMHO.....