Log In
April 15, 2005
Offline
Positively Not a “1st year 1935”, and not factory original. I surveyed this rifle back in January 2013, and at that time it was a Standard M71 Rifle.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
October 14, 2024
Offline
Thanks for the public service announcement Bert.
June 19, 2009
Offline
Thank you Bert!
November 7, 2015
Offline
Nice looking rifle, what caught your eye?
Mike
August 27, 2014
Offline
A blond stock set?
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
April 15, 2005
Offline
TXGunNut said
Nice looking rifle, what caught your eye?
Mike
Mike,
The serial number on that rifle is what alerted me as to its origin. As I mentioned, I first encountered this rifle back in January of 2013 when it was still a Standard Model 71 rifle (not a Special as it appears today). The Gunbroker listing is touting it as a “1st year 1935” rifle when in fact the serial number on it “7176” was manufactured in October 1936. (late in the 2nd year).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Bert H. said
TXGunNut said
Nice looking rifle, what caught your eye?
Mike
Mike,
The serial number on that rifle is what alerted me as to its origin. As I mentioned, I first encountered this rifle bac in January of 2013 when it was still a Standard Model 71 rifle (not a Special as it appears today). The Gunbroker listing is touting it as a “1st year 1935” rifle when in fact the serial number on it “7176” was manufactured in October 1936. (late in the 2nd year).
Bert
It would have fooled me, I’m guessing it was a wood swap. Looked like an honest gun to me. It’s interesting how Winchester sometimes made very few guns in the first year, 1894, 1895 and 71 come to mind, I think we can put the Single Shot on that list too.
Mike
January 20, 2023
Offline
With Bert’s timely warning, my first sight of the auction photos may have been with a jaundiced eye. However, my immediate impression of the gun was that there was something wrong with the buttstock, as if it had “melted” almost imperceptably.
Looking more closely, the contours of the comb at and around the nose, are too soft. Likewise, the buttplate is sunk into the face of the wooden butt slightly more than I have usually seen, anyway. To me, this indicates a non-original fit and finish of the buttstock.
Wood and wood finish color are almost impossible to judge from a digital image because the quantity, placement and color temperature of the illumination can vary so widely. Then the digital camera’s “understanding” of the object’s colors and our own display equipment both have a go at it.
In short, a knowledgeable photographer/graphics guru, can manipulate tone, tint, saturation and reflectivity to the point of changing the race or ethnicity of a human subject. I don’t think this dude was that good but we should all be grateful Lou is on our team.
Moving from butt to muzzle, the roll marks are not pulled but they look shallow to me. I know the steel has some wear and small marks in (not under) the blue – but are those just enough “ageing” to deflect a question of finish originality? Even I’m not dumb enough to buy a 100% “1935” gun.
To conclude, I would bet a glass of a good single malt that sight hood is not a Winchester #3276/M. The curve from (a) the bottom rear, where the hood meets the back of the integral ramp, to (b) the top surface of the hood, has an excessive radius that does not match the radius of the frontal curve, which latter was hand filed.
My thoughts, only.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Bill,
Correct… the front sight hood is an aftermarket replacement, but it is a minor transgression in comparison to the stock swap and claim that it is a “1935” production rifle.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
April 2, 2024
Offline
Thanks Bert for the alert!
January 20, 2023
Offline
Bert H. said
Buyer beware… Winchester Model 71 Deluxe 1935 MFG 1st year Excellent Original 98% 348 WCF – Lever Action Rifles at GunBroker.com : 1144093586
Positively Not a “1st year 1935”, and not factory original. I surveyed this rifle back in January 2013, and at that time it was a Standard M71 Rifle.
AWARD IT THE FULL TEN (10) PINOCCHIOS.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Zebulon said
Bert H. said
Buyer beware… Winchester Model 71 Deluxe 1935 MFG 1st year Excellent Original 98% 348 WCF – Lever Action Rifles at GunBroker.com : 1144093586
Positively Not a “1st year 1935”, and not factory original. I surveyed this rifle back in January 2013, and at that time it was a Standard M71 Rifle.
From Standard to Special???
AWARD IT THE FULL TEN (10) PINOCCHIOS.
Unfortunately, that transition (transgression) is more common than most collectors are aware of. I witnessed it happen on multiple occasions in the past with one well known former dealer.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
May 14, 2025
Offline
So I’ve learned a lot reading these posts. I thought a first year meant the first 12 months of production but in fact I’ve learned First year means the year the 1st one is produced in and if only one is produced on Dec 31st then only that rifle is considered first year. I know I wouldn’t have seen what you guys all caught about this one but you have taught me to catch the date and I wouldn’t have missed that. Recently, I passed on a First year 1894 at Richmond Auctions because I believe it was a 2nd year when the Cody letter clearly showed it was made in 95 and of course WACA’s website also confirmed it. I would have bought it as I wanted a First year and I would have been very disappointed when you guys gave me the bad news. Worked out for me as I passed on buying it and got the #8 a few weeks later at RIA. I’m fairly confident, that it is in fact, a true 1894 first year! Below is the one Richmond advertised as a First year. Thank you guys for keeping me from making a mistake!
March 14, 2022
Offline
Buck1967 said
So I’ve learned a lot reading these posts. I thought a first year meant the first 12 months of production but in fact I’ve learned First year means the year the 1st one is produced in and if only one is produced on Dec 31st then only that rifle is considered first year. I know I wouldn’t have seen what you guys all caught about this one but you have taught me to catch the date and I wouldn’t have missed that. Recently, I passed on a First year 1894 at Richmond Auctions because I believe it was a 2nd year when the Cody letter clearly showed it was made in 95 and of course WACA’s website also confirmed it. I would have bought it as I wanted a First year and I would have been very disappointed when you guys gave me the bad news. Worked out for me as I passed on buying it and got the #8 a few weeks later at RIA. I’m fairly confident, that it is in fact, a true 1894 first year! Below is the one Richmond advertised as a First year. Thank you guys for keeping me from making a mistake!
https://guns.richmondauctions.com/lots/view/5-21EWK8/honest-first-year-4-digit-10-oclock-frame-screw-winchester-model-1894-38-55-win-lever-action-rifle
Congrats Buck1967 on acquiring m1894 ser #8. That wasn’t pocket change. Great acquisition!
Rick C
May 14, 2025
Offline
Rick C said
Buck1967 said
So I’ve learned a lot reading these posts. I thought a first year meant the first 12 months of production but in fact I’ve learned First year means the year the 1st one is produced in and if only one is produced on Dec 31st then only that rifle is considered first year. I know I wouldn’t have seen what you guys all caught about this one but you have taught me to catch the date and I wouldn’t have missed that. Recently, I passed on a First year 1894 at Richmond Auctions because I believe it was a 2nd year when the Cody letter clearly showed it was made in 95 and of course WACA’s website also confirmed it. I would have bought it as I wanted a First year and I would have been very disappointed when you guys gave me the bad news. Worked out for me as I passed on buying it and got the #8 a few weeks later at RIA. I’m fairly confident, that it is in fact, a true 1894 first year! Below is the one Richmond advertised as a First year. Thank you guys for keeping me from making a mistake!
https://guns.richmondauctions.com/lots/view/5-21EWK8/honest-first-year-4-digit-10-oclock-frame-screw-winchester-model-1894-38-55-win-lever-action-rifle
Congrats Buck1967 on acquiring m1894 ser #8. That wasn’t pocket change. Great acquisition!
Thanks Rick, it went for a lot less than it sold for at auction previously so hopefully it was a decent investment. Regardless, it is a great piece of history and I’m glad to have it for this part of its journey. I was going to have it restored until I read the comments on the Forum and learned Bert and many others would shoot me or at least beat me within a half inch of my life for being that stupid and destroying it. I hope you guys realize how impactful the knowledge you share is. Some of you had Madis to learn from and we now have you! Thank you
1 Guest(s)
