steve004 said
I think the rifle below serves as an example of a Model 1892 rifle that is probably all original rifle but has little appeal to most.  It doesn't have condition for collectors.  It would have appeal to shooters but I believe such individuals are on the decline.  Most shooters already own rifles to shoot.  Factory .38-40 ammo is not inexpensive either.  
The major failing here is what the seller thinks it's worth.  He is staggeringly far off in my opinion:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1154032421
  

The problem is the mentality that “it’s a Winchester” and it has to be worth a lot!

The problem also is that a lot of this stuff peaked about 20 years ago.  This rifle might have brought $1500 or more then.  Adjusting for inflation, one would think it should easily be worth $2200.  But it isn’t.

A general rule of thumb is you should try and double your money every 7 years.  That works ideally with the stock market, not so much with firearms.  The way the stock market has been, $1500 20 years ago is easily worth 5k.  It’s a tough pill to swallow if someone spent $1500 on this 20 years ago to find they might be lucky to get that now for it.

https://hushpuppyproject.com/hush-puppy-history/

The major failing here is what the seller thinks it's worth.  He is staggeringly far off in my opinion:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1154032421

TXGunNut said
Another problem with the 39 is that the barrel lugs apparently didn't engage the slide in a consistent manner and vertical fliers were common. I really liked the grip and frame shape, for an alloy frame handgun it was very pleasant to shoot. 
 
 
Mike
  

Concur. The design was really advanced for 1955 and very comfortable to shoot. I've always preferred single-stack automatics and the 39 was "right-sized."  The factory barrel could be gunsmithed by adding to the lugs and then hand-fitting or there were custom barrels. Not cheap. I never owned one of the later 4-digit models but there was one little single-stack marked "Ladysmith" that burly male investigators really liked because it was so compact and reliable. Smith finally made a version of it without the feminine  rollmark. Of course, the 10-round P365 has pretty much made all the foregoing pocket nines obsolete. 

I've never understood why I'm drawn to the neglected stepchild of the 94 family. At least I'm in good company. It's not because my dollar goes further when I "settle" for a 32WS because I was drawn to them before I noticed that. Reloaders know there is no difference performance-wise between the 30WCF and 32WS, one will do everything the other will do and vice-versa. 

I'm thinking these may have actually been mats used to protect a glass countertop or display case, I happen to have a table that needs a mat and one like that would be nice. I'll see what the Goles have to offer when we get to Cody.

Mike

TXGunNut said

steve004 said

Tony Ford said
32WS
  

Yes!
  

Steve-
I'm pretty sure you can smell a 32WS just by looking at a good photograph!
 
Mike
  

Mike - I'll admit I'm probably pretty transparent.

steve004 said

Tony Ford said
32WS
  

Yes!

Steve-

I'm pretty sure you can smell a 32WS just by looking at a good photograph!

Mike

Mike

Zebulon said
One last thing. The 39 was not drop safe; it had no firing pin block although it did have an inertial firing pin that did not rest on a live round. The 39A had a firing pin block. [For relevance, Colt's 1911 did not incorporate a firing pin block until Series 80 and higher. A cocked and locked Series 70 Colt dropped from 4' onto a hard floor will fire even though the sear was not forced. It wants a Titanium firing pin.]  Zebulon out.
  

OH gosh.  The 39 can't be sent to Ca.  But if one's already here I could buy it.  The only Smiths that I have left are a 1990's 357 and a Schofield. 

Tony Ford said
32WS
  

Yes!