Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I picked this 94 carbine ser. #983416 up several years ago thinking that the ramp front sight and the short magazine were quite unusual. All seemed correct, as the underside of the barrel shows no reliefs or holes for the standard front barrel band and magazine plug screw. The barrel is dated ’38. The forend magazine channel is drilled at an angle to cause the magazine tube to contact the barrel. There is a machined slot to accept the flange on the magazine plug and a hole for the magazine plug screw in the bottom of the barrel at that point. The hole and slot have the same blue as the barrel.
To me, all this appears and seems correct and not some gun shop ‘special’. However, in the “WINCHESTER MODEL 94” Book Mr. Renneberg states on page 56 that Winchester did not produce a short magazine carbine with the ramp front sight. Just would like to hear other views on this fluke. Thanks, Roger B.
Roger,
The serial number was applied to the receiver frame in August, 1925. As you mentioned, the barrel is dated to the year 1938. While it is possible that Winchester assembled your Carbine, the odds are against it. Like Bob Renneberg, I have not yet encountered a short magazine Model 94 Carbine with a ramp front sight (that can be verified) , and I have thus far surveyed nearly 13,000 Carbines with the ramp style front sight.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Pulled out my 30 W.C.F ser. #1159549 with the ‘button mag’, for a comparison. My other “Frankenchester” 94 carbine with the ramp front sight. I wonder how it is that only I find these non existent guns?
You know what, if it were me, I wouldn’t be concerned. I don’t care who it is or how much “research” they have done, no one knows everything. It is common knowledge that Winchester did a lot of strange things to use up left over parts. They didn’t waist anything. If they did, they weren’t making money. I’m not saying that Bert or Renneburg are wrong, but anyone who has collected Winchester’s for decades, we all know that when someone makes a statement about production or authenticity, you must look at your gun, using the knowledge you have acquired. Most of us old collectors have seen and owned enough to know if it is factory or not. That doesn’t mean we always make the right call, but old age makes you pretty good.
rogertherelic said
Pulled out my 30 W.C.F ser. #1159549 with the ‘button mag’, for a comparison. My other “Frankenchester” 94 carbine with the ramp front sight. I wonder how it is that only I find these non existent guns?
Roger,
I have serial number 1159549 in my survey, with a barrel date of “48”, which is 10-years later than the receiver frame. I suspect that you may not actually be the person finding these odd-balls guns… instead, they are finding you (and there is a distinct difference).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Thank you 4575 and Bert. I had forgotten how excited I was to have found these ‘diamonds in the rough’ (and a few other) unusual Winchesters. I should have expected to be met with doubt since no proof positive exists. At the same time there is no solid proof they weren’t made. New discoveries are being made every day. “The proof is in the pudding”, and it all depends on the taste buds. I am blessed! Roger B
Roger I have 2 of these “hibrids” 1st ser#1343643 is a 30 wcf, 24″ mod ’64 stamped bbl. with ramp/ hooded fr. site, short mag., and is mentioned in Bob Rennenbergs book on page 236 as factory made up of parts. 2nd Ser#1299636 is an identical twin with the following differences ’32 sp. bbl. is stamped mod’ ’94 and has sling swivels. Both bbls. are stamped ’39 under the forearm. My point being Winchester did some different things to stey in the black, like 4575 said. Or maybe they did it just to keep Us later collectors guessing. Nice gun by the way.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
1 Guest(s)
