In a factory the new part can be used any time after the tooling has been made. That part can be used until  the tooling has been destroyed and all inventory is exhausted. Nothing is throw away. Inventory can hide for years in bins and various departments. The factory can make new tooling at any time and remake the same part. Winchester made parts for large orders, some with foreign countries. If you had money they did it.

 The only definitive statement is that given by some one doing a survey, “about their survey”. The odds are a survey’s first and last use will change as the survey expands. A survey is important but it hinges on the owners opinion on whether it’s original to the gun.

 If the hammer on your early model 1892 looks like it was born on the gun, then maybe it’s correct. I certainly would not change it or refuse to buy a gun over this subject. Most of the Colt SAA have a replaced or repaired hammer. When you read a Kopec Letter he often states that, most people never knew. The same can be said about Winchester owners, do they know for sure it’s original? How does that affect a survey? T/R

Just an opinion but Ive come to believe the hammer is the weakest link on the 1892.  Ive had to change out a number of them on 1892’s Ive owned in the past because the wear on the hammer face was enough to keep the bolt from sufficiently bearing against the hammer to attain full cock, allowing the hammer to follow or bear against the bolt/fire pin when the bolt is cycled closed.  Most times the half cock wont catch as this happens.  Creates an unsafe condition with the potential for touching off a round while cycling (plus no trigger safety feature).  I would imagine as they got worn they were changed out.  

I agree with what TR said above ” If the hammer on your early model 1892 looks like it was born on the gun, then maybe it’s correct. I certainly would not change it or refuse to buy a gun over this subject”. 

Chuck said

Here’s one chuck.   My post must have been overlooked……  

When was this gun serialized or when did it leave the factory?

It’s is usually not a problem when a gun has the earlier version of a part but it may be a problem when an early gun has the newest version.  But as many have said parts get used until there gone and nobody paid attention to which one they pulled out of the bin.  All of this only gets us closer to the transition period and that is what I started out to determine.   

Here is a copy of the factory letter.

Thanks Manny.  Maybe someone else could add to this to see if it shows up earlier in 1895?

So we know the widows peak was still around in November of 94 and the later hammer was being used by December of 95.

tionesta1 said
Here is my 1892 takedown serial number 37362 made in 1894 and it has the widows peak hammer.

  

And to my point regarding the “DOM” notice the slightly more than 5 month delay between serialization and warehouse dates in the letter.

Michael

twobit said
Let me weigh in on this one more time.  The earliest “consistent use of non-WP (Widows Peak) hammers show up in the SN 47300 range for the 1892’s.  What this means is that when I look at my spread sheet for lets say 50 sampled rifles in the range from 47170 to 49875 (2705 total rifles, 1895 serialization dates) I have hammer info on 15 of those 50 and 3 of those hammer are non-WP.  If I then take a look at another 50 sample interval from 56500 to 59726 (3220 rifles produced, 1896 serialization dates) I have hammer data on 17 rifles and only 2 are WP hammers.  And If i do this one more time for another 50 guns in the range from 69835 to 72198 (2363 rifles , 1897 serialization dates)  I have hammer data on 21 rifles but only 6 are Non-WP hammers.  So, as you can see from this little exercise the use of the hammers is not consistent and can vary dramatically over certain SN intervals.

Furthermore, I purposefully underlined the “serialization date” info to point out that this is not ALWAYs the “date of manufacture” no matter what the law or ANT printed data says.  It is purely the date the receiver was serialized.  In Burt Humphrey’s response above with regard to SN 51720 the receiver was serialized on November 20, 1895.  The rifle itself did not enter the warehouse until Dec 5, 1896!  A full 13 months later and possibly WAY out of sequence when compared to any near by numbered rifles.  In fact, this rifle is in a batch of various deluxe guns that some were not in the warehouse until 1898!!  So when we start looking at what rifle has what configuration attribute the serialization date only confirms that the rifle wasn’t assemble BEFORE that date.  How much later can and does vary from a few weeks to sometimes, albeit less commonly years later.  

The one thing for certain is that the hammer style use and change over dates at least between the 1892 and 1894 are definitely NOT consistent.

I hope this helps diminish some of the fog on the subject.

Michael  

I think it is clear there was a transition period and the magic/specific date for the change from the widow’s peak hammer does not exist. Even if a hammer had to be changed on a early 1892, and Chris Hartman has indicated the hammer was a weak point on these guns, it would not negatively influence my decision to buy an otherwise outstanding gun. Others may disagree but in my opinion serial number #51720 is a world class gun – I know guys that have been looking for a 1892 deluxe for 40 years. Yep, the price might be high but it may be negotiable and where are you ever going to get another one.

mrcvs said

Yes, thank you!

I will order a factory letter on mine this week, number 58949.  In the meantime, does your spreadsheet have mine on it and/or do you have the exact date the serial number was applied?  I assume the SNA date is the exact date the frame was forged?  

Your serialization dat will be late in 1896 and it will be interesting to see what the lag time between that date and the “in warehouse” date is.  I do not have the rifle in my data and would love some more details and possibly some photos also so that it can be added.  I do have 15 rifles cataloged between SN 58644 and 59672 (1028 SN’s).  Thirteen of those have hammer data and all are non-WP hammers.

Michael

Tedk said
Winchester receivers were serialized when they went through the Polishing Room.  

Are you asking a question here? Or just making a statement? As I’m confused on the context.

If a question, yes. If a statement, I agree with you. 

Serial numbers were stamped along with most other markings after the final polish was completed and before the part was blued.

The only fallacy with that statement would be those models that have removable lower tangs.

Sincerely,

Maverick