Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
First year production 1894?
May 22, 2020
10:12 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 927
Member Since:
July 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert,

Here is sn 3238. A beautiful First model take down with "fancy stock". Not mine, but wish it were.

Al

attachment-1.jpegImage Enlargerattachment-2.jpegImage Enlargerattachment-3a.jpegImage Enlargerthumbnail-1.jpgImage Enlargerfirst-model-from-Scott.jpgImage Enlargerfirst-model-from-scott-4.jpgImage Enlarger

May 22, 2020
11:05 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

tionesta1 said
Bert,

Here is sn 3238. A beautiful First model take down with "fancy stock". Not mine, but wish it were.

Al

attachment-1.jpegImage Enlargerattachment-2.jpegImage Enlargerattachment-3a.jpegImage Enlargerthumbnail-1.jpgImage Enlargerfirst-model-from-Scott.jpgImage Enlargerfirst-model-from-scott-4.jpgImage Enlarger  

Al,

Thanks...I already had this serial number in the survey, and it is a very nice TD Rifle.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

May 22, 2020
11:17 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 753
Member Since:
December 27, 2007
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert,

We have 818.

May 22, 2020
11:21 pm
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 197
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Did Winchester have two production lines forging  both the First Model receivers and the Second Model receivers simultaneously or were all the First Model recieivers all manufactured and then when the revision was made the Second Model design began to be produced and the production of the First Model ceased. This would mean of course that all First Model receivers were made in 1894 and all pre date the first Second Model but obviously  not by serial number. My understanding from some forgotten source,and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the receivers were all mixed up in a big bin and as the production of the model proceeded receivers were just randomly selected, serialized and assembled hence we find First Model receivers being found on guns assembled long after after the production of Second Model receivers began. This would certainly explain why First Models appear in the 7000 range and why Second Models  appear as low as the 500 serial range. Please excuse me for my ignorance if this was not the case.

May 22, 2020
11:29 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

FromTheWoods said
Bert,

We have 818.  

Do you have a CFM factory letter for it?  I have it listed in the survey, but without the received & shipped date, and order number.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

May 22, 2020
11:47 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Dave K. said
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Did Winchester have two production lines forging  both the First Model receivers and the Second Model receivers simultaneously or were all the First Model recieivers all manufactured and then when the revision was made the Second Model design began to be produced and the production of the First Model ceased. This would mean of course that all First Model receivers were made in 1894 and all pre date the first Second Model but obviously  not by serial number. My understanding from some forgotten source,and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the receivers were all mixed up in a big bin and as the production of the model proceeded receivers were just randomly selected, serialized and assembled hence we find First Model receivers being found on guns assembled long after after the production of Second Model receivers began. This would certainly explain why First Models appear in the 7000 range and why Second Models  appear as low as the 500 serial range. Please excuse me for my ignorance if this was not the case.  

Dave,

I do not know what (or how) the two different receiver types were manufactured and used at apparently the same time.  What I do know, is that the First models are almost all 38-55s (there are (3) Take Down First models in 30 WCF).  All of the 32-40 and 25-35 WCF caliber guns are Second model receivers, as are most of the 30 WCFs.  All of the early 38-55s (up to serial number 510) are First Models, then they are mixed with Second variation receivers up to serial number 7471.  They become very scarce after serial number 5220 though, with just (7) First Models found thus far with a serial number > 5219.  Serial number 7471 was applied on September 12, 1895 (almost exactly 1-year after serial number 1), and it was received in the warehouse a month later on October 14, 1895.  It is still a mystery to me how Winchester managed the assembly line production of the two different receiver types simultaneously... I am open to any theories and discussions.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

May 23, 2020
12:03 am
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 197
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert, Are cartridge guides made specifically for each caliber? If so I wonder whether or not the different cartridge guides needed for each version were a factor why the .38-55 was produced predominantly in the First Model. Could it be that Winchester First Model guides were made specifically for the .38-55 only initially and then used only for that caliber until a Second Model version of the .38-55 guides were produced along with the other calibers. This would not explain a .30-30 First Model however.

May 23, 2020
12:50 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 753
Member Since:
December 27, 2007
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

No letter, Bert.

I would like to replace the carrier though.  The original was abused and problematic, so the rifle now has a later version.  If any of you have one you would like to sell, or if you know of one I may purchase, I'd appreciate the help.

May 23, 2020
2:33 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Dave K. said
Bert, Are cartridge guides made specifically for each caliber? If so I wonder whether or not the different cartridge guides needed for each version were a factor why the .38-55 was produced predominantly in the First Model. Could it be that Winchester First Model guides were made specifically for the .38-55 only initially and then used only for that caliber until a Second Model version of the .38-55 guides were produced along with the other calibers. This would not explain a .30-30 First Model however.  

The cartridge guides are different for the 38-55 versus the 32-40.  The Take Down rifles with interchangeable barrels were offered in 38-55/30 WCF/32 WS, or 32-40/25-35 WCF, which implies that the cartridge guides used for 38-55 were also used for the 30 WCF and 32 WS.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

May 23, 2020
3:15 am
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 197
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert, Well perhaps this might explain why the First Models were almost all chambered in .38-55? The guides being unique to these very early production guns and Winchester perhaps didn't want to make a guide specifically for the .32-40 or .25-35 after the Second model production had begun but could use the remaining First Model receivers for the .38-55 and a few .30-30's.

May 23, 2020
3:27 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 231
Member Since:
October 29, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert H. said

The cartridge guides are different for the 38-55 versus the 32-40.  The Take Down rifles with interchangeable barrels were offered in 38-55/30 WCF/32 WS, or 32-40/25-35 WCF, which implies that the cartridge guides used for 38-55 were also used for the 30 WCF and 32 WS.

Bert  

I thought we discussed the Clint Culligan, Captain Bligh display that had a 5 barrel set and that the receiver wouldn't have feed all 5 calibers.

Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.

May 23, 2020
3:35 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Old Logger said

I thought we discussed the Clint Culligan, Captain Bligh display that had a 5 barrel set and that the receiver wouldn't have feed all 5 calibers.  

We did... what is your point now ?

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

May 23, 2020
5:58 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1584
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Dave K. said
Bert, Well perhaps this might explain why the First Models were almost all chambered in .38-55? The guides being unique to these very early production guns and Winchester perhaps didn't want to make a guide specifically for the .32-40 or .25-35 after the Second model production had begun but could use the remaining First Model receivers for the .38-55 and a few .30-30's.  

The reason most first Model 94's are 38-55's is Winchester was having trouble getting the bugs worked out on the 30 WCF cartridge.  The 94 was designed to use the 30 WCF.  The 32-40, like Bert said, was not chambered in the 94's until much later.  The same for the 25-35.  The carrier should be the same for the 30 WCF, 38-55 and the 32-40.  They all use the same basic case.  I have not looked at the 25-35 but it may be too.

May 23, 2020
6:37 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Chuck,

The carrier is not the same for the 32-40.  The 38-55 and 30 WCF (and later the 32 WS) share a common carrier.  The carrier for the 32-40 and 25-35 WCF are the same.  Winchester specifically mentioned it in their early catalogs (the text below is in the October 1905 catalog);

"Model 1894 "Take Down" rifles can be furnished with interchangeable barrels, the .25-35 interchanging with the .32-40, and the .30 Winchester with the .32 Winchester Special and 38-55. See page 24.

Extra Barrels, complete with magazine, forearm, etc.,  ......  $12.00"

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

May 23, 2020
7:41 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1584
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert H. said
Chuck,

The carrier is not the same for the 32-40.  The 38-55 and 30 WCF (and later the 32 WS) share a common carrier.  The carrier for the 32-40 and 25-35 WCF are the same.  Winchester specifically mentioned it in their early catalogs (the text below is in the October 1905 catalog);

"Model 1894 "Take Down" rifles can be furnished with interchangeable barrels, the .25-35 interchanging with the .32-40, and the .30 Winchester with the .32 Winchester Special and 38-55. See page 24.

Extra Barrels, complete with magazine, forearm, etc.,  ......  $12.00"

Bert  

I see what you are saying but the fact is that 3 of the cartridges are the same basic length of the each other and the other 2 are the same basic length of the each other.  These dimensions are really close.  But I still believe that the carrier might be the same?   You are probably right though. I have dimensions for all of these so I might spend some time later looking at this.  We had a 25-35 when I was younger but before I ever started collecting. Since it is not an antique I have not paid much attention to this caliber.

June 3, 2020
11:45 am
Avatar
Me
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 701
Member Since:
March 6, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Chuck said
Lot #3003 is ser. #5 for comparison.  

Does anyone have any thoughts about the authenticity of this one. Description says serial markings appear to be legitimate.
https://www.rockislandauction.com/catalog/79

RickC

WACA Member
CFM Member
NSSA Member

Always get the water for the coffee upstream from the herd

June 3, 2020
2:12 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

RickC said

Does anyone have any thoughts about the authenticity of this one. Description says serial markings appear to be legitimate.
https://www.rockislandauction.com/catalog/79

RickC  

I believe that it is authentic.  I had my hands on that rifle about 10-years ago, and it looked good.  I suspect that it will sell for at least the top end of the estimate though.

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

June 3, 2020
2:23 pm
Avatar
Me
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 701
Member Since:
March 6, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert H. said

I believe that it is authentic.  I had my hands on that rifle about 10-years ago, and it looked good.  I suspect that it will sell for at least the top end of the estimate though.  

That’s good enough for me Bert. I would assume Bob Renneberg never knew about this one in 2009 when his 94 second edition was sent to print. 3 & 8 are the only ones mentioned.

RickC

WACA Member
CFM Member
NSSA Member

Always get the water for the coffee upstream from the herd

June 3, 2020
2:35 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9969
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

I suspect that eventually, all of the "missing" early serial numbered guns will show up. Thus far, serial numbers 3, 5, 8, 18, and 22 have surfaced. I suspect that all of them (except no. 1) will eventually be found.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

June 3, 2020
4:39 pm
Avatar
Me
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 701
Member Since:
March 6, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Vince said
For the 1000th time. All those pages date Winchesters before actual polishing room records were found. The date your Winchester on this site is based upon the correct records. 

In addition,  a few of our members are collecting information on various Winchesters where factory records are nonexistent.  A sort of fill in the blank.   

I’ve talked to several collectors in the past couple weeks who would never buy or sell through RIA ever again. Hearing one persons bad experience can be he said/she said, but not several from trusted collectors.
I had already dismissed them when I found out they were using Madis’s incorrect dates.

RickC

WACA Member
CFM Member
NSSA Member

Always get the water for the coffee upstream from the herd

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: Bert H., pdog72, TXGunNut, Kevin Jones, Aussie Chris, Big Mac, johnirwinelectric@gmail.com
60 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 7281

Posts: 60211


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 985

Members: 9266

Moderators: 5

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 4297

twobit: 2557

TXGunNut: 2367

clarence: 1733

Chuck: 1584

Maverick: 1547

Big Larry: 1419

JWA: 1280

Wincacher: 1184

Brad Dunbar: 1084

Navigation