Can someone advise if the Belgian Congo 1894 30WCF had the sling swivel mounts mitred or recessed into the wood. I have never owned one but some pictures look like they are set in to the buttstock but other pictures look like they’re just screwed flat to the side of the buttstock.
RickC
Rick C
I had a, “Congo” carbine long ago. Actually, I think I returned it. But I recall the swivels were recessed (inletted). I often think of a standard .25-35 SRC I had that had these same style side mounted swivels. I have never seen another. The swivels did not have any special markings on them like the, “Congo” rifles had. I would dearly love to see that carbine again.
steve004 said
I had a, “Congo” carbine long ago. Actually, I think I returned it. But I recall the swivels were recessed (inletted). I often think of a standard .25-35 SRC I had that had these same style side mounted swivels. I have never seen another. The swivels did not have any special markings on them like the, “Congo” rifles had. I would dearly love to see that carbine again.
Thanks Steve. I just wanted to confirm for another collector who’s interested in one he has a line on.
Rick C
The side mount sling swivels were inletted into the stock by Remington for the WW 1 French contract Model 1894 SRCs. After WW 1, the French sold off a number of them to a Belgian mining company that was operating in the Congo.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
The side mount sling swivels were inletted into the stock by Remington for the WW 1 French contract Model 1894 SRCs. After WW 1, the French sold off a number of them to a Belgian mining company that was operating in the Congo.Bert
Excellent information Bert, thank you, as there is still a lot of misinformation floating around regarding where and by whom these sling mounts were added to the French Contract SRC.
Do you have a link to the source of this info (involvment of Remington into the French contract)?
My source of information was Michael Carrick, who has extensively researched the French contract firearms.
The background is that Remington already had a contract in place to sell their Rolling Block rifles to the French to support WW I. Winchester did not have a contract in place, so the Model 1894 SRCs were purchased by the French military but were shipped to them by Remington Arms.
Winchester did not install the side mount slings, and Michael uncovered photos of the guns being unpacked from the shipping boxes with the side mount sling on them. So. they left Winchester without the slings, and subsequently arrived in France with them… that leaves Remington as the guilty party.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Thank you very much Bert.
Yes, it makes perfect sense, and possibly also accounts for the W stamp on the sling mount. There was no reason why these would have had to be marked as “Winchester” if they had been installed by the Company. However, in case of a third party, identifying them makes sense.
I’ll get your message to Gerard (and flog him if he knew already and did not warn us )
Gilles
1 Guest(s)