Good morning, I have searched through the saved image files on more than 100 takedown Model 1892’s and can pretty much guaranty that the alignment marks are indeed factory original.  Rifles that have been refinished or those that exhibit a good amount of wear and bluing removal will not have them present.  The higher condition examples clearly are marked.

Michael

Rick C said
I’ve observed the same thing Michael on mine as well. Higher the condition of gun the more visible the lines are. Must’ve been a light strike for alignment reference during the assembly process.

  

I totally agree.  Can I please get a photo of the hammer on this rifle?

Michael

  Rick C,

 You have a sharp eye. I looked at my 92 and 86, they both have the marks. I owned these guns for 30 years and never noticed.

 Thanks, I learned something new.

                                                T/R

rogertherelic said
Well this is certianly a “good news” thread.  I was informed at the Aug, 2010 Big Reno Show, by David Bichrest, that the marks should definately be there.  Other knowledgeable Winchester people, said that the alignment marks were not Winchester and devalued my 1886 50 EX. by 50%.  Glad I didn’t dump it off!  Thank you for your continued “study and learning”. RDB

  

Yes, it is definitely good news for you!!  Glad that we could be of help.

Michael

I too have to give thanks to the dedication, and hard work on this remarkable and informative thread. I also don’t have any take down’s left in my collection, as the last was a model 1894, in 38-55, in a Deluxe configuration, that I parted with at an OGCA, show to a member from Pa, that kept asking about and for a nice take down, and on returning Sunday to my tables, there he was bright and early, and the dance lasted all day Sunday, almost until 3:00 o’clock, when we we’re getting ready to pack up, as the stack of bill’s kept piling up, until he had enough to satisfy me, and I sold it. Even though a nice representation, thee receiver bluing was about 50%, showing good honest use and wear. One of the ones that I wish I still had, but, can live without, as I do remember those marks on it, but can’t remember the reason that I gave in to the younger gentleman, with a kind and persistent demeanor. I guess the Benjamins got the best of me, as if I remember correctly, I picked up something else that I wanted the day before. The Deluxe grade wood was gorgeous on that wood with tremendous figure on it, as I wish I would have researched it, back then, as I never took the time to do so. The tang had to have several x’s on it in my imagination, as I think back.

Thanks Gentlemen!

Tony

Rick C said
I almost didn’t start this thread as I thought it must have been discussed or just a known fact but, after not being able to find anything anywhere about the marks, and with everyone’s assistance, it turned out very informative.

Would be nice to know the earliest gun with them so maybe in time, we’ll get some more information about them.    

Rick,

The patent of the takedown assembly was granted in 1893, hence the date stamped on the lever.  One of the difficulties is finding VERY early guns in good enough condition that these very light marks might be visible.  

Michael

Model 1892’s  These are some of the earliest T/D rifles and they do not appear to be marked.  It might be a few days but I will go through ALL of my images and see if I can determine an “earliest marked” date.

The earliest 1892 Ive found with clear marking is SN 34241.  There are likely earlier examples, but several of the clear examples I had up into the 20K range did not have the marking.  Michael likely has more examples that may show something a bit earlier. 

On the 1894’s, the latest I have is 1053090.  Would assume they all did till the end. 

1st. model 1894 ser#2215 has the allignment mrks, very faint but definetly there

Henry Mero said
1st. model 1894 ser#2215 has the allignment mrks, very faint but definetly there

  

It’s beginning to look like 1894’s had the alignment marks from the beginning and they were added to the 1892’s very close to the time the 1894 was introduced. 

Mike