Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Not every firearm that’s no longer in original condition and configuration has been intentionally faked. It’s quite possible, and in fact probable, that whoever had the work done just wanted it refinished and rebarreled to their desired caliber by a local gunsmith. Looking at the work, it’s highly unlikely that whoever did the work was seriously trying to pass it off as an original. While serious collectors would never have this work done to an original Winchester, it doesn’t mean that this rifle was intentionally faked for profit. Mark Douglas said
I think the fake WP proof mark proves the work, however crudely & ignorantly done, was intended to deceive; thus a deliberate fake. What other reason would there have been to apply that mark if it was only an “honest” re-barreling job?
Yes, I was going to originally state that this rifle wasn’t faked but reblued and with a replacement barrel. Fakery is more with the intent to deceive. Like quasi Turnbull work but passed off as original.
Mark Douglas said
Not every firearm that’s no longer in original condition and configuration has been intentionally faked. It’s quite possible, and in fact probable, that whoever had the work done just wanted it refinished and rebarreled to their desired caliber by a local gunsmith. Looking at the work, it’s highly unlikely that whoever did the work was seriously trying to pass it off as an original. While serious collectors would never have this work done to an original Winchester, it doesn’t mean that this rifle was intentionally faked for profit. I’d have to agree with Brooksy, it would make a great shooter for those of us who will never have an opportunity to own a legitimate 50-100-450. Heck, I’d enjoy having here on the ranch for a weekend and do some shooting with it. Of course, I like to shoot them all.Mark
Dan,
I agree with everything Mark says.
In the collector car hobby they use the word clone for cars that the VIN number doesn’t match the features. If you change the serial numbers then you have a problem. Like I said the serial number looks thin but original to me based on the one picture. If you look under the magazine the original caliber might still be there. In order to do that you have to remove the forearm cap, magazine tube, and forearm wood. The caliber is marked under the barrel on the camber end. Note: remove the small roll pin in the barrel band and the forearm cap before you try to slide out the tube. Again if you don’t know what your doing get help. T/R
I think it is good you are going to get a letter from the museum as it will provide documentation that the rifle is not real. A potential problem is the rifle is marked that it is a .50-100-450. Hungry relatives may be doing a bit of checking. If they contact someone knowledgeable (not showing the rifle to them) and say they have a Winchester M1886 in .50-100-450 and it has about all the bluing, they might get responses suggesting the rifle could be $50,000+. This is the type rifle that based on just a description, gets people very interested. Just look at the interest the topic title generated here 
It’s been suggested this rifle would be a good shooter. I would agree with that – to the point that it is very likely it is a good shooter when used as a single-shot. It remains to be determined how well, or if it all, the rifle will feed cartridges. The .50 caliber cartridges, in the M1886, required Winchester to perform several additional internal machining maneuvers to get those very fat cartridges to feed. When gunsmiths rebarrel a M1886 with a .50 caliber barrel, not all (e.g. few) have the knowledge and expertise to perform all these functions.
We don’t know if this rifle was redone to make up a hunter/shooter or an attempt to fake-up a collectible. The faked proof mark makes me suspicious the latter was the intent. This is partly why I asked about the history of the rifle. If you happen to know that the relative who owned it, used it to hunt with, shot a few animals with it and so on, then we could at least know if this rifle has value or utility as a shooter. Because if cartridges won’t feed through it, the dollar value shrinks even further.
steve004 said
I think it is good you are going to get a letter from the museum as it will provide documentation that the rifle is not real. A potential problem is the rifle is marked that it is a .50-100-450. Hungry relatives may be doing a bit of checking. If they contact someone knowledgeable (not showing the rifle to them) and say they have a Winchester M1886 in .50-100-450 and it has about all the bluing, they might get responses suggesting the rifle could be $50,000+. This is the type rifle that based on just a description, gets people very interested. Just look at the interest the topic title generated hereIt’s been suggested this rifle would be a good shooter. I would agree with that – to the point that it is very likely it is a good shooter when used as a single-shot. It remains to be determined how well, or if it all, the rifle will feed cartridges. The .50 caliber cartridges, in the M1886, required Winchester to perform several additional internal machining maneuvers to get those very fat cartridges to feed. When gunsmiths rebarrel a M1886 with a .50 caliber barrel, not all (e.g. few) have the knowledge and expertise to perform all these functions.
We don’t know if this rifle was redone to make up a hunter/shooter or an attempt to fake-up a collectible. The faked proof mark makes me suspicious the latter was the intent. This is partly why I asked about the history of the rifle. If you happen to know that the relative who owned it, used it to hunt with, shot a few animals with it and so on, then we could at least know if this rifle has value or utility as a shooter. Because if cartridges won’t feed through it, the dollar value shrinks even further.
Of course, none of us can positively say what was intended by the person who did the work on this rifle. However, look at how weak the proof mark is on the barrel. I would wager that it’s an original proof mark that was polished with the rest of the barrel prior to it having the caliber restamped. My take is that this is a later (post 1905) barrel that was likely rebored and rechambered to its present caliber and had the caliber, but not the proof mark restamped. If this were an intentional fake, why would the faker proof stamp the barrel of a rifle made more than a decade before Winchester proof marked barrels? Even if he didn’t know about the dates, why would he have only proof marked the barrel and not the receiver? Even the most dimwitted of fakers would know better than that.
As far as it possibly not feeding correctly. That wouldn’t be a problem for me. I know a guy who can fix that. Mark
March 23, 2023
Offline
TR said
Dan,
I agree with everything Mark says.
In the collector car hobby they use the word clone for cars that the VIN number doesn’t match the features. If you change the serial numbers then you have a problem. Like I said the serial number looks thin but original to me based on the one picture. If you look under the magazine the original caliber might still be there. In order to do that you have to remove the forearm cap, magazine tube, and forearm wood. The caliber is marked under the barrel on the camber end. Note: remove the small roll pin in the barrel band and the forearm cap before you try to slide out the tube. Again if you don’t know what your doing get help. T/R
TR,
Great advice, I’m not going to remove/disassemble anything at this juncture. I’ll wait until I have the report back & see what they have to say. There’s a local gunsmith here in town & there’s Brubaker Arms in Yakima. (https://www.brubakerarms.com) Both are excellent Smiths so I could use either one if needed. I’ve used both @ one time or another but on modern weapons. (Bolt action Remington’s and AR semi-auto style guns.)
On an aside note, there’s a member here that reached out to me when he seen my name. We went to school and rode motorcycles together back in the 60’s. Rather ironic it took a rifle to put us in touch again. He was a year ahead of me but his brother was my age. I’ll send the $75.00 out on Monday and wait for the report. BTW, the barrel measures exactly .5″. That’s not measured on the lands.
Dan
Dan –
Do you happen to know if the relative who owned it, ever used it?
As far as the functioning of the rifle, just running one dummy cartridge through the action – either a .50-100-450 or a .50-110-300 would be very telling.
March 23, 2023
Offline
steve004 said
Dan –Do you happen to know if the relative who owned it, ever used it?
As far as the functioning of the rifle, just running one dummy cartridge through the action – either a .50-100-450 or a .50-110-300 would be very telling.
Not as far as I’m aware. Like I said previously, family history is a place to stay away from and they’re not hunters/shooters.
Dan
steve004 said
We don’t know if this rifle was redone to make up a hunter/shooter or an attempt to fake-up a collectible. The faked proof mark makes me suspicious the latter was the intent.
If you are a collector and can’t spot the amateur reblue and think this is original due to the proofmark, DO NOT pass go!
if you are a shooter, the reblue and the proofmarks won’t matter one way or another.
Mark Douglas said
steve004 said
I think it is good you are going to get a letter from the museum as it will provide documentation that the rifle is not real. A potential problem is the rifle is marked that it is a .50-100-450. Hungry relatives may be doing a bit of checking. If they contact someone knowledgeable (not showing the rifle to them) and say they have a Winchester M1886 in .50-100-450 and it has about all the bluing, they might get responses suggesting the rifle could be $50,000+. This is the type rifle that based on just a description, gets people very interested. Just look at the interest the topic title generated here
It’s been suggested this rifle would be a good shooter. I would agree with that – to the point that it is very likely it is a good shooter when used as a single-shot. It remains to be determined how well, or if it all, the rifle will feed cartridges. The .50 caliber cartridges, in the M1886, required Winchester to perform several additional internal machining maneuvers to get those very fat cartridges to feed. When gunsmiths rebarrel a M1886 with a .50 caliber barrel, not all (e.g. few) have the knowledge and expertise to perform all these functions.
We don’t know if this rifle was redone to make up a hunter/shooter or an attempt to fake-up a collectible. The faked proof mark makes me suspicious the latter was the intent. This is partly why I asked about the history of the rifle. If you happen to know that the relative who owned it, used it to hunt with, shot a few animals with it and so on, then we could at least know if this rifle has value or utility as a shooter. Because if cartridges won’t feed through it, the dollar value shrinks even further.
Of course, none of us can positively say what was intended by the person who did the work on this rifle. However, look at how weak the proof mark is on the barrel. I would wager that it’s an original proof mark that was polished with the rest of the barrel prior to it having the caliber restamped. My take is that this is a later (post 1905) barrel that was likely rebored and rechambered to its present caliber and had the caliber, but not the proof mark restamped. If this were an intentional fake, why would the faker proof stamp the barrel of a rifle made more than a decade before Winchester proof marked barrels? Even if he didn’t know about the dates, why would he have only proof marked the barrel and not the receiver? Even the most dimwitted of fakers would know better than that.
As far as it possibly not feeding correctly. That wouldn’t be a problem for me. I know a guy who can fix that.
Mark – and if it didn’t feed correctly, or the internals had never been altered to feed a .50 caliber cartridge, he could just be sent instruction on how to make the alterations 
Dan – this is an unusual rifle for someone to own – or to have modified to what it is now. I doubt you know, but it would be interesting to know if your relative purchased it this way, or had it modified. Mark’s thought that it has not been rebarreled, but rather has been rebored and rechambered with new caliber markings, is a sound one. The rate of twist selected would be of interest as well. I’m someone who enjoys detective shows and mysteries. There’s a story here and the clues observable thus far are intriguing. You probably don’t know this either, but if your relative owned other guns, and if they were collector guns, modified collector guns, hunting guns, etc. would also help fill in the story.
I’d love to go out shooting today, but like every other day for the past five months, it’s too cold. I could turn a mystery on TV but this is more appealing than anything I would find.
steve004 said Mark – and if it didn’t feed correctly, or the internals had never been altered to feed a .50 caliber cartridge, he could just be sent instruction on how to make the alterations.
Rather more helpful would be a dummy round he could try himself.
clarence said
steve004 said Mark – and if it didn’t feed correctly, or the internals had never been altered to feed a .50 caliber cartridge, he could just be sent instruction on how to make the alterations.
Rather more helpful would be a dummy round he could try himself.
I was stating if he had already determined it didn’t feed correctly – e.g. through the use of a dummy round – the step that comes after that is much more complicated
November 7, 2015
Offline
It appears to be a nice enough rifle in a desireable chambering. We’re collectors so when we say the rifle has no value it means it has no collector value. It’s had a long, likely interesting life and somewhere along the line someone decided to freshen up the exterior a bit. That’s often part of the life of a working gun. As noted above it would certainly be fun for a dedicated .50 fan.
Mike
March 23, 2023
Offline
Paperwork ordered this morning. 4 weeks (+/-) to get it.
Dan
Dan Deckert said
Paperwork ordered this morning. 4 weeks (+/-) to get it.
Dan, as Chuck suggested, you could have a copy of the handwritten worksheet (used to be called yellow-sheet) emailed to you. Same info as the letter, just not “suitable for framing.” If it were possible to buy this sheet alone at a lower cost, I’d do so readily. No room on my walls for anything but dog pictures.
clarence said
Dan Deckert said
Paperwork ordered this morning. 4 weeks (+/-) to get it.
Dan, as Chuck suggested, you could have a copy of the handwritten worksheet (used to be called yellow-sheet) emailed to you. Same info as the letter, just not “suitable for framing.” If it were possible to buy this sheet alone at a lower cost, I’d do so readily. No room on my walls for anything but dog pictures.
The so called “worksheet” that the CFM sends out is only for paid members of the CFM. Dan’s only option is the Factory letter that he ordered. While the CFM advertises 4+ weeks, it usually takes no more than 2-weeks.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 23, 2023
Offline
No answer yet.
March 23, 2023
Offline
Well folks… Here’s the answer..
It was a 40/82 with a round barrel & plain trigger. Shipped on Nov.2 1892, order #8933
I’m still am UNABLE to load images so I can’t show the letter..I’ve tried every way I know of.. 
Dan
I sent the image to Bert and asked him to post the image from the Museum letter.
2 Guest(s)
