Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
Especially in the Models 1886, 1892, and 1894. Exact date or serial number if abrupt, or range of serial numbers and circa date if not distinct.
In the 1892, Madis says they were early and others were later. I didn’t look to see what he said about other Models. Even if he gave information about this elsewhere, as his data is now proven to be erroneous, it might not really matter what Madis had to say about this.
Offline
For the Model 1894, the transition was rather quick, and it occurred in the 175500 – 178300 S/N range (March – April 1903).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
mrcvs said
Even if he gave information about this elsewhere, as his data is now proven to be erroneous, it might not really matter what Madis had to say about this.
George was a fine gentleman who before the new information was easily available wrote a general book not to be duplicated in diversity. I will recommend his book to any new collector with the caveat on dates of manufacture.
Winchester was a factory like every other, it was designed to make money. They did not like to throw parts away, if an old model part fit on the new model they used it up. If the design charge part was put into the inventory it was added to the same bin, maybe on top. First and last serial number of almost any feature is a number that will change over time.
Any early model Winchester I take interest in I start with all information from any book or survey available, make a list of features and serial number range. This list I amend as I look at original guns that are outside the published range. George’s book is one of several I use. T/R
mrcvs said
Especially in the Models 1886, 1892, and 1894. Exact date or serial number if abrupt, or range of serial numbers and circa date if not distinct.In the 1892, Madis says they were early and others were later. I didn’t look to see what he said about other Models. Even if he gave information about this elsewhere, as his data is now proven to be erroneous, it might not really matter what Madis had to say about this.
Quite some time ago, there was a discussion here on the Forum about the hammer on a deluxe 92 in 44 WCF which was for sale. The serial number on the gun was 51720, dating it to 1895. The gun did not/does not have the widow peak hammer. I believe the consensus was that the hammer had been changed because in 1895 the gun would have been produced with the widow peak hammer (it is still for sale). In that discussion Bert had noted for the Model 1894 the change in hammers occurred in about 1903 and he suspected the same for other models. The gun is a really nice and highly desirable deluxe Model 1892. I do know about how others feel but when I find one problem with a gun I tend to get cold feet and wonder what else might be wrong. Personally, I would not have had a clue about the hammer if it would not have come up on the Forum. For you guests lurking out there, if you want to collect Winchesters, you need to belong to WACA so you have access to all the knowledge and experience of the guys here – cheap insurance for sure!
Well this question came about as the Winchester 1892 in the late 58k range that I purchased yesterday does not have a widow!s peak. Maybe if others in the 50 to 60 k serial number range are documented without the widow!s peak, perhaps the changeover in the Model 1892 occurred earlier than previously thought. Or, maybe mine was changed out as well, although my Model 1892 otherwise looks as right as rain, with the exception of a front sight I need to reverse.
mrcvs said
Well this question came about as the Winchester 1892 in the late 58k range that I purchased yesterday does not have a widow!s peak. Maybe if others in the 50 to 60 k serial number range are documented without the widow!s peak, perhaps the changeover in the Model 1892 occurred earlier than previously thought. Or, maybe mine was changed out as well, although my Model 1892 otherwise looks as right as rain, with the exception of a front sight I need to reverse.
I just read an old Forum post from Twobit (Michael) which stated that in other models (not the 1894) the transition from the widows peak hammer started in late 1895, way before the change in the 1894. So, if that is correct, the deluxe 1892 serialized in 1895 (and your gun), which does not have the widows peak hammer, could be correct. I personally do not know but there are so many guys on this Forum which have way more knowledge than me.
Burt Humphrey said
I just read an old Forum post from Twobit (Michael) which stated that in other models (not the 1894) the transition from the widows peak hammer started in late 1895, way before the change in the 1894. So, if that is correct, the deluxe 1892 serialized in 1895 (and your gun), which does not have the widows peak hammer, could be correct. I personally do not know but there are so many guys on this Forum which have way more knowledge than me.
Okay, if it helps to figure out when the transition was by providing additional examples of early but non widow peaked hammers on model 1892s, the serial number is 58949.
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/1892-short-rifle/
I have not contacted the seller of the deluxe 92 lately but this gun is not worth what he is asking. It is an early gun and should have the widows peak hammer. It you look at the side of the receiver you can see the buggered screws which most likely occurred when the hammer was changed.
Chuck said
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/1892-short-rifle/I have not contacted the seller of the deluxe 92 lately but this gun is not worth what he is asking. It is an early gun and should have the widows peak hammer. It you look at the side of the receiver you can see the buggered screws which most likely occurred when the hammer was changed.
Serial number 69091 is much later than mine is as well as several others without the widow’s peak. I’m guessing the widow’ speak hammer was discontinued earlier than thought, in the 50,000 serial number range, or at least the transition began around then.
If you read the string that I posted Michael states the last batch were in the 71,700 range.
Chuck said
If you read the string that I posted Michael states the last batch were in the 71,700 range.
But when was the first one or first batch?
Is there any reason to believe there was a problem with the widows peak hammer and it often needed replacement. The more I look, the more 1892’s from around 1895 I find which do not have the widows peak hammer – example attached, here is a long time dealer/collector with a 92 serialized in 1895 in the 90k range which does not have the widows peak hammer and he considers it correct.
mrcvs said
But when was the first one or first batch?
I’m not sure what you are asking? The early 1892’s all had the widows peak hammer. Michael believes the transition to the non widows peak happened in 1895. Like others have said Winchester was probably using both types until all of the widows peak ones were used up. They were not concerned which one was being used.
Chuck said
I’m not sure what you are asking? The early 1892’s all had the widows peak hammer. Michael believes the transition to the non widows peak happened in 1895. Like others have said Winchester was probably using both types until all of the widows peak ones were used up. They were not concerned which one was being used.
When was the first non widow peak hammer used, as believe to not have been replaced, either serial number, exact or range.
One of my 1873 rifles, SN 453,520 has a widow’s peak hammer. It was shipped in 1893.
I call myself a collector as it sounds better than hoarder
mrcvs said
When was the first non widow peak hammer used, as believe to not have been replaced, either serial number, exact or range.
According to Michael’s research it was in 1895 for the 1892’s. Maybe Michael has a more specific date in 1895? I know my 1894 production gun has the widows peak.
Anybody have an 1895 gun with the non widows peak?
1 Guest(s)
