Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
December 23, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
September 7, 2023 - 7:39 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

There’s a gun listed on GB 1004231281 that’s listed as an antique, but has proof mark on recvr. My understanding that started about 1905 or 6. If it was sent back for Repair would recvr be proofed?

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1657
Member Since:
September 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
September 7, 2023 - 9:01 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

[email protected] said
There’s a gun listed on GB 1004231281 that’s listed as an antique, but has proof mark on recvr. My understanding that started about 1905 or 6. If it was sent back for Repair would recvr be proofed?

  

Yes, if after circa 1905.

Avatar
Troutdale, OR
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1847
Member Since:
June 26, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
September 7, 2023 - 9:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The gun in question was actually manufactured in 1901–not 1898.

https://winchestercollector.org/dates/

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10620
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
4
September 7, 2023 - 11:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

[email protected] said
There’s a gun listed on GB 1004231281 that’s listed as an antique, but has proof mark on recvr. My understanding that started about 1905 or 6. If it was sent back for Repair would recvr be proofed?

  

More accurately, it has a Winchester proof mark stamped on both the barrel and receiver frame, which is what I would expect if the factory records show a “Repair & Return” entry.  Based on the caliber marking location on the barrel, it should have a “R&R” entry after 1907.  I most certainly would verify this gun through the CFM records office before considering at candidate for purchase.

As Don mentioned, the actual DOM is 1901 (September).  It is not “Antique”.

Bert

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

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: Bert H., 426crown, Byron Russell, Tedk, Antonio, Louis Luttrell, RickC
Guest(s) 137
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6154
TXGunNut: 4876
Chuck: 4520
1873man: 4261
steve004: 4098
Big Larry: 2296
twobit: 2284
TR: 1691
mrcvs: 1657
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12515
Posts: 108638

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1729
Members: 8723
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation