Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have spent a couple hours looking at images of Model 1892 takedown frame rifles. It will make your eyes hurt trying to see the registration marks. I firmly believe that they are factory original BUT…… It find it REAL difficult to make any deductions regarding if they are consistent throughout all rifles and time periods. The mix of no photos of the SN, refinished rifles, terrible photos, low condition, and old heavily worn receiver bottoms makes any very difficult to be conclusive.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Online
Chuck said
Bert H. said
Chuck said
So would it be safe to say that the 86, 92, 94 and 95 got them at the same time?
No it would not. The Single Shot and the Model 1895 share the same Take Down system (patented in May 1907), and first used on the Single Shot (not adopted for the 1895 until 1910).
The Take Down mechanism used for the Model 1886, 1892, and 1894 (later used on the Models 53 and 55) was first used in the year 1893. After doing some searching, I found an early Model 1894 TD with those marks.
Bert
OK. Someone, not me, that has access to all of this info needs to start a spreadsheet. I guess I need to look at my 85 20 ga. to see if it has the marks.
Chuck,
Your Single Shot 20-gauge will not have those marks. I have owned several Single Shot Take Downs, and none them have the alignment markings on them.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
As a data point, I only own 1 1892 takedown and it does not have the marks (that I can see).
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
As a data point, I only own 1 1892 takedown and it does not have the marks (that I can see).Best Regards,
JWA I think this is them below. They can be very faint with wear.
Rick C
Possibly, now that you highlight them I can imagine seeing it. I will have to dig it out of the safe to check, those were just pictures I had in my file.
There is quite a bit of wear on the receiver in that location from me (and others) carrying it. That 25-20 is one of my favorites for coyotes when I feel like going old school and leaving the Model 43 in .22 Hornet at home.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
… and leaving the Model 43 in .22 Hornet at home.Best Regards
What say you!
I thought that I had trained you better than that!! 
There is nothing finer for killing ‘Yotes than a 22 Hornet (except a 22 K-Hornet)
BFADM
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I agree Brother, but sometimes you feel sorry for the coyotes and just want to give them a fighting chance…..but no worries, I don’t go that soft in the head often. 😉 But, for full disclosure, the scoped 43 doesn’t slide into the saddle scabbard as nice as the ’92, so the rifle choice is also affected by the means of transportation.
Best Regards and Merry Christmas!
PS: And, my pack mule doesn’t like the 43, but to be honest, she is picky about everything……
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Assuming these actually are, “alignment marks” I am pondering just how useful they are. It seems a lot of us have them on various TD rifles, yet none of us have used them to align the takedown collar to the receiver. It doesn’t seem needed. I haven’t seen examples where the markings don’t align. If they were an important feature in aligning the two parts, you would think we would see examples where they don’t align.
My suspicion is that Winchester did not place them on there with customer use in mind. More likely, something to do with the assembly process, inspection, quality control or?
You bring up a good point, Steve. In one of the previous examples, I noticed one where the marks we’re slightly out of alignment, as the rifle in my memory looked to tighten past the so called alignment marks, showing some wear, in my mind. Showing possibly some wear and tear, on both halves, of the adjoining rifle as, time and use can do, but other than that I’m in agreement with you. Now you really got me thinking! Where’s Clarence when we need him?
Tony
Anthony said
You bring up a good point, Steve. In one of the previous examples, I noticed one where the marks we’re slightly out of alignment, as the rifle in my memory looked to tighten past the so called alignment marks, showing some wear, in my mind. Showing possibly some wear and tear, on both halves, of the adjoining rifle as, time and use can do, but other than that I’m in agreement with you. Now you really got me thinking! Where’s Clarence when we need him?
Tony
He’s at home probably reading this.
steve004 said
Assuming these actually are, “alignment marks” I am pondering just how useful they are. It seems a lot of us have them on various TD rifles, yet none of us have used them to align the takedown collar to the receiver. It doesn’t seem needed. I haven’t seen examples where the markings don’t align. If they were an important feature in aligning the two parts, you would think we would see examples where they don’t align.My suspicion is that Winchester did not place them on there with customer use in mind. More likely, something to do with the assembly process, inspection, quality control or?
Steve,
I actually just looked at my TD’s and it’s hit or miss in regards to them actually aligning. And I still will bear witness that my 86 from 1899 doesn’t have the marks, I just checked again. There is a hint of a scratch on the receiver but it is shorter than what is seen on my other specimens and given the wear on collar is equivalent I say it’s not there. I will attempt pictures tmmo of them but no guarantee.
oldcrankyyankee said
steve004 said
Assuming these actually are, “alignment marks” I am pondering just how useful they are. It seems a lot of us have them on various TD rifles, yet none of us have used them to align the takedown collar to the receiver. It doesn’t seem needed. I haven’t seen examples where the markings don’t align. If they were an important feature in aligning the two parts, you would think we would see examples where they don’t align.
My suspicion is that Winchester did not place them on there with customer use in mind. More likely, something to do with the assembly process, inspection, quality control or?
Steve,
I actually just looked at my TD’s and it’s hit or miss in regards to them actually aligning. And I still will bear witness that my 86 from 1899 doesn’t have the marks, I just checked again. There is a hint of a scratch on the receiver but it is shorter than what is seen on my other specimens and given the wear on collar is equivalent I say it’s not there. I will attempt pictures tmmo of them but no guarantee.
Are you sure your 1886 takedown is from 1899? The takedown mechanism was patented in 1893. My 1886 takedown from 1895 does have the marks.
Don
deerhunter said
oldcrankyyankee said
steve004 said
Assuming these actually are, “alignment marks” I am pondering just how useful they are. It seems a lot of us have them on various TD rifles, yet none of us have used them to align the takedown collar to the receiver. It doesn’t seem needed. I haven’t seen examples where the markings don’t align. If they were an important feature in aligning the two parts, you would think we would see examples where they don’t align.
My suspicion is that Winchester did not place them on there with customer use in mind. More likely, something to do with the assembly process, inspection, quality control or?
Steve,
I actually just looked at my TD’s and it’s hit or miss in regards to them actually aligning. And I still will bear witness that my 86 from 1899 doesn’t have the marks, I just checked again. There is a hint of a scratch on the receiver but it is shorter than what is seen on my other specimens and given the wear on collar is equivalent I say it’s not there. I will attempt pictures tmmo of them but no guarantee.
Are you sure your 1886 takedown is from 1899? The takedown mechanism was patented in 1893. My 1886 takedown from 1895 does have the marks.
Don
Guess this makes me sure of the vintage
The repair and returns could have been something that removed the alignment marks. T/R
TR said
The repair and returns could have been something that removed the alignment marks. T/R
Could be. But aside from a refinish what would you suggest, as it defiantly hasn’t been refinished.
oldcrankyyankee said
deerhunter said
oldcrankyyankee said
steve004 said
Assuming these actually are, “alignment marks” I am pondering just how useful they are. It seems a lot of us have them on various TD rifles, yet none of us have used them to align the takedown collar to the receiver. It doesn’t seem needed. I haven’t seen examples where the markings don’t align. If they were an important feature in aligning the two parts, you would think we would see examples where they don’t align.
My suspicion is that Winchester did not place them on there with customer use in mind. More likely, something to do with the assembly process, inspection, quality control or?
Steve,
I actually just looked at my TD’s and it’s hit or miss in regards to them actually aligning. And I still will bear witness that my 86 from 1899 doesn’t have the marks, I just checked again. There is a hint of a scratch on the receiver but it is shorter than what is seen on my other specimens and given the wear on collar is equivalent I say it’s not there. I will attempt pictures tmmo of them but no guarantee.
Are you sure your 1886 takedown is from 1899? The takedown mechanism was patented in 1893. My 1886 takedown from 1895 does have the marks.
Don
Guess this makes me sure of the vintage
My bad. Was thinking 1889 for some odd reason…
Don
oldcrankyyankee said
TR said
The repair and returns could have been something that removed the alignment marks. T/R
Could be. But aside from a refinish what would you suggest, as it defiantly hasn’t been refinished.
The dates of the three repair and returns are within nine years of new, now 100 and some years later it would look like they did nothing. It’s the Winchester factory back in the day, they could of changed or re-finished anything and we wouldn’t know or care if it matches the letter.
That’s quite a letter, you can sure be proud of the gun. T/R
oldcrankyyankee said
deerhunter said
oldcrankyyankee said
steve004 said
Assuming these actually are, “alignment marks” I am pondering just how useful they are. It seems a lot of us have them on various TD rifles, yet none of us have used them to align the takedown collar to the receiver. It doesn’t seem needed. I haven’t seen examples where the markings don’t align. If they were an important feature in aligning the two parts, you would think we would see examples where they don’t align.
My suspicion is that Winchester did not place them on there with customer use in mind. More likely, something to do with the assembly process, inspection, quality control or?
Steve,
I actually just looked at my TD’s and it’s hit or miss in regards to them actually aligning. And I still will bear witness that my 86 from 1899 doesn’t have the marks, I just checked again. There is a hint of a scratch on the receiver but it is shorter than what is seen on my other specimens and given the wear on collar is equivalent I say it’s not there. I will attempt pictures tmmo of them but no guarantee.
Are you sure your 1886 takedown is from 1899? The takedown mechanism was patented in 1893. My 1886 takedown from 1895 does have the marks.
Don
Guess this makes me sure of the vintage
Tom –
Yes – the checkered trigger .45-90 I had been very tempted on that one. Glad you got it (sort of) 
Steve, I know you were. Glad we didn’t get in to a bidding war on it. But rest assured it is mine til I die and them some as it will be given to my son for his life.
2 Guest(s)
