Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I cant see on any of the photos that the upper tang was welded (if replaced with an upper tang), nor can I see any lettering on its surface. If the lettering was removed you would have to take off enough to remove the deeper dashes to each side of the “Winchester” that appear to be pressed deeper than the lettering on the Type 1 address. Any type of metal removal would alter the pitch of the upper tang if not make it flat or concave in appearance. If so, it would be most noticeable at the countersunk profile for the stock screw. From the side profile pics there doesnt appear to be any metal loss, edge wear, or rounding of edges. Not having a first model, I pulled one in the 10K range to mic the thickness at the following locations for comparison if interested in comparing to SN 714 or any other first model.
.294″ directly ahead of the tang screw
.280″ directly behind the tang screw
.255″ at the midpoint between the tang screw and stock screw
.2″ ahead of the stock screw
Lots of crud on the underside of the upper tang that looks like its been there a while as well as at the end of the top of the upper tang.
Seeing the gun in person might change my mind but I cant see anything in the pics that leads me to question its originality at this point.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
clarence said
Was this supposed to apply to all models? The reason assembly numbers (in most cases, the last 2 or 3 digits of the ser. no.) were used by many other makers was because some hand fitting was required–so that these parts were not fully interchangeable on other guns of the same model. But in my experience, Winchester parts, even barrels, usually ARE fully interchangeable, due to more carefully controlled machine work, I presume. So why would assembly numbers be needed? Or are some Winchester parts on some models less interchangeable than I’ve been assuming?
Good question, Clarence. Maybe 1892takedown will respond.
Speaking about assembly numbers in general and other manufacturers, it has been my experience that they were used not only because of hand fitted parts, but, for one, to match the caliber of the rifle, where another part might have needed hand fitting or not. More specifically, where assembly numbers are stamped on the left and right side of the tangs on Winchesters, they “appear” to me to either designate something special about the wood or something special about the metal, respectively.
Also, I would not be surprised for AG to find that there is “not” an assembly number on the upper tang inlet, since at this point in time, I believe the butt stock and the receiver are standard parts, aside from the blank-tang issue – just a guess on my part.
James
Hate to disappoint James. Here’s the matching numbers. Any believers yet?
AG,
Where did you get the idea that you disappointed me. You need to read what I wrote, again, and then change your note to me.
Good pictures. One thing regarding the assembly numbers on the left and right side of the tang that appears to be fairly solid at this point in time, is that when there is something special about just the wood or just the metal that corresponding numbers, or portions thereof, will most likely be found on both parts instead of just one.
James
I was hoping when I travelled to see the rifle again this morning there were matching numbers on the wood & yes there was. Once again I see no altering or repair etc to the tang & the patina is consistent through the gun. Each to their own opinion. It’s an original blank tang for me.
AG
AG said
I was hoping when I travelled to see the rifle again this morning there were matching numbers on the wood. Once again I see no altering or repair etc to the tang & the patina is consistent through the gun. Each to their own opinion. It’s an original blank tang for me.AG
Where did you get the idea that you disappointed me. You need to read what I wrote, again, and then change your note to me.
Matching numbers on the wood were to be expected, but I would not have been surprised to find it otherwise as previously referred to.
James
jwm94 said
AG said
I was hoping when I travelled to see the rifle again this morning there were matching numbers on the wood. Once again I see no altering or repair etc to the tang & the patina is consistent through the gun. Each to their own opinion. It’s an original blank tang for me.AG
Where did you get the idea that you disappointed me. You need to read what I wrote, again, and then change your note to me.
Matching numbers on the wood were to be expected, but I would not have been surprised to find it otherwise as previously referred to.
James
Was only kidding about disappointing James. Appreciate your interest and replies.
AG.
You need to remove the butt plate. If this gun has assembly numbers on the tang and stock it is likely they are also on the butt plate. The assembly numbers on Winchesters usually have no correlation to the serial number. Colts will use all or part of the serial number. I still say I don’t see anything wrong with this gun. Getting more interesting though.
Chuck said
You need to remove the butt plate. If this gun has assembly numbers on the tang and stock it is likely they are also on the butt plate. The assembly numbers on Winchesters usually have no correlation to the serial number. Colts will use all or part of the serial number. I still say I don’t see anything wrong with this gun. Getting more interesting though.
Ok Chuck I will see if I can get a pic with the butt plate off. I agree, at the very least this is interesting.
AG
clarence said
Was this supposed to apply to all models? The reason assembly numbers (in most cases, the last 2 or 3 digits of the ser. no.) were used by many other makers was because some hand fitting was required–so that these parts were not fully interchangeable on other guns of the same model. But in my experience, Winchester parts, even barrels, usually ARE fully interchangeable, due to more carefully controlled machine work, I presume. So why would assembly numbers be needed? Or are some Winchester parts on some models less interchangeable than I’ve been assuming?
Clarence & jwm94.
The article in the WACA publication from Winter 1995 was on First Model 1894’s. I couldnt answer the question of whether other early Win model examples have assembly numbers like the 1894 First Models (standard guns with assembly numbers on the upper tang and buttstock wood). Just going off what Ive read about for the first models from others researchers.
In the absence of an early first model to take apart to look for other similar assembly numbers on other parts to I dont have an answer to your question Clarence, but would guess you wont find the same assembly number anywhere else except maybe on the buttplate. In my opinion the assembly numbers you see on the 1894 first models has more to do with fitting the wood to the receiver for which it was fitted. Much the same as you see assembly numbers and markings on special order guns, normally found on the lower tang, buttstock, and sometimes the buttplate leading me to believe they wanted to make sure the wood that is fitted and configured (PG, SB, etc, or special wood) to a particular receiver is matched back to the receiver for which the wood was fitted.
Cant offer any definitive answers. Whatever the reason, there are examples out there to illustrate their occurrence.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
AG, I have sold a few antique guns with undocumented discrepancies that I believed to be original. In all cases it took a lot of (explaining) at the time of sale and did not add value to the gun. In the Colt world a Kopec letter is that documentation, in the Winchester world you currently have no one to document the undocumented discrepancy. In this case the factory making a mistake is not something I would pay a premium for. T/R
TR said
AG, I have sold a few antique guns with undocumented discrepancies that I believed to be original. In all cases it took a lot of (explaining) at the time of sale and did not add value to the gun. In the Colt world a Kopec letter is that documentation, in the Winchester world you currently have no one to document the undocumented discrepancy. In this case the factory making a mistake is not something I would pay a premium for. T/R
I would agree T/R on not paying a premium for a blank tang, or less value for those who think it isn’t. It’s a rarity (if you’re on the side of it being original) & I guess it’s up to how much the buyer would pay if it was for sale.
Either way it’s been an interesting debate and investigation to determine if it’s original with ser 714 getting some notoriety in the 1894 world, just with all the attention it’s gotten, no matter what way you side.
AG
1892takedown said
Clarence & jwm94.
The article in the WACA publication from Winter 1995 was on First Model 1894’s. I couldnt answer the question of whether other early Win model examples have assembly numbers like the 1894 First Models (standard guns with assembly numbers on the upper tang and buttstock wood). Just going off what Ive read about for the first models from others researchers.
In the absence of an early first model to take apart to look for other similar assembly numbers on other parts to I dont have an answer to your question Clarence, but would guess you wont find the same assembly number anywhere else except maybe on the buttplate. In my opinion the assembly numbers you see on the 1894 first models has more to do with fitting the wood to the receiver for which it was fitted. Much the same as you see assembly numbers and markings on special order guns, normally found on the lower tang, buttstock, and sometimes the buttplate leading me to believe they wanted to make sure the wood that is fitted and configured (PG, SB, etc, or special wood) to a particular receiver is matched back to the receiver for which the wood was fitted.
Cant offer any definitive answers. Whatever the reason, there are examples out there to illustrate their occurrence.
1892takedown,
Thank you for the WACA article. Notes that I consider most important in it as pertains to this subject has to do with: 1) The numbers showing up on both standard and deluxe guns, which coincides to some extent with what has already been stated in this thread about them pertaining to both sides of the tang, and being associated with either the wood or the metal, respectively, and; 2) The mention of other reported instances of blank-tangs back to Serial No. 8 (and it being the only authenticated one at the time the article was written). Couple this information with your notes and those of some other members, and I see no need to mention what appears to me to be obvious, at this point in time, with emphasis on “appears.”
James
AG said
Was only kidding about disappointing James. Appreciate your interest and replies.
AG.
Thank you, AG.
James
AG said
TR said
AG, I have sold a few antique guns with undocumented discrepancies that I believed to be original. In all cases it took a lot of (explaining) at the time of sale and did not add value to the gun. In the Colt world a Kopec letter is that documentation, in the Winchester world you currently have no one to document the undocumented discrepancy. In this case the factory making a mistake is not something I would pay a premium for. T/RI would agree T/R on not paying a premium for a blank tang, or less value for those who think it isn’t. It’s a rarity (if you’re on the side of it being original) & I guess it’s up to how much the buyer would pay if it was for sale.
Either way it’s been an interesting debate and investigation to determine if it’s original with ser 714 getting some notoriety in the 1894 world, just with all the attention it’s gotten, no matter what way you side.
AG
TR offers up some very sage advice…then there’s the wild side of things! Don’t you just love it! 
James
TR said
AG, I have sold a few antique guns with undocumented discrepancies that I believed to be original. In all cases it took a lot of (explaining) at the time of sale and did not add value to the gun. In the Colt world a Kopec letter is that documentation, in the Winchester world you currently have no one to document the undocumented discrepancy. In this case the factory making a mistake is not something I would pay a premium for. T/R
I totally agree with Tom. If you like the gun and it is not over priced you should buy it. Just remember that it will be hard to sell it. Since I am a collector I buy what I like and don’t worry about the rest.
Chuck said
Since I am a collector I buy what I like and don’t worry about the rest.
Agree. I never once thought about resale or recovering my investment. It’s nice if you, or your heirs can get it, or more back, but that’s not why I buy anything except stocks, and I don’t mean the wooden or black plastic kind.
Anyone care to say what they would pay for this rifle not detracting any value for the blank tang.
It’s a m1894 3 digit ser(714) brown gun in 38-55 cal. Still has a good bore & rifling, wood has some marks & dents as you can see from the photos and it still shoots well.
AG
AG said
Anyone care to say what they would pay for this rifle not detracting any value for the blank tang.It’s a m1894 3 digit ser(714) brown gun in 38-55 cal. Still has a good bore & rifling, wood has some marks & dents as you can see from the photos and it still shoots well.
AG
When you say Good bore & rifling, what exactly do you mean?
James
jwm94 said
AG said
Anyone care to say what they would pay for this rifle not detracting any value for the blank tang.It’s a m1894 3 digit ser(714) brown gun in 38-55 cal. Still has a good bore & rifling, wood has some marks & dents as you can see from the photos and it still shoots well.
AG
When you say Good bore & rifling, what exactly do you mean?
James
The bore is shiny with no deposits or marks. The rifling is good with very little wear.
AG
1 Guest(s)
