Winchester Model 71 .348 Winchester|General Discussions & Questions|Forum|Winchester Collector

APmechanic said

“Thank you for the response. Would the 20” or 24” barrel have more value?”  

I think I can answer that question, although I couldn’t opine on dollar amounts. Because the short-barrel rifle was made in such small quantities one is more costly to buy than a standard barrel rifle, assuming the two are in comparable condition.  

The most recent (the online edition) Blue Book of Gun Values gives a value of $1350 for a standard rifle in 98% condition in the common calibers, with the caveat that a comparable carbine is valued at 150% more, $2025.  The value of a 95% deluxe rifle is $2500, with no values given for a carbine, although some were made. The few I’ve seen were priced to attract your more successful cocaine dealers. 

It is a paradox that the less popular versions of a collectible, out-of-production firearm are the more sought after by collectors and hence more expensive.

I’ve owned, loaded for, and shot two Model 71 rifles, a field grade Browning and a Winchester special grade, both with full length barrels. While their weight keeps the recoil manageable, even with the steel shotgun  buttplate, the muzzle blast leaves you in no doubt whether you touched off a round. 

While I’ve never seen or heard an M71 carbine fired, I can easily imagine it’s a real thrill. I once owned a 20″ Model 64 and its light weight and short barrel turned the relatively mild .30 WCF into something fairly nasty to shoot. The rear balance was nothing to write home about, either.  My Remington 600 .350 Magnum delivers ballistics that slightly exceed the .348 and shooting it on the bench is just miserable.

I can understand why Winchester didn’t make many of the short barreled 71 or 64. Maybe hunting guides liked them for horseback scabbard carry. 

98% Model 71 Carbines for $2025? 

deerhunter said

Now this makes me want to get out and shoot my 1922 15-inch 1894 trapper in .30 WCF.  I’ve yet to shoot it, but can only imagine the nasty thrill…

Don

  

  

Don, everybody has his own tolerance for blast and recoil.  But if you want nasty thrills, try an ugly little .350 Remington. It weighs six pounds loaded and produces 35 Whelen ballistics in barrels of the same length.  There’s just not enough gun to hang onto to retard the startling recoil velocity.  I’m about to send it on its way to a new home. A man of 80 Winters needs to keep what little hearing remains to him. 

I don’t have to guess what shooting your trapper would sound and feel like. USRAC made a number of 16″ M94AE carbines in 30/30 and I can say from personal (borrowed) experience a full length magazine made one of those much easier to hang on target and shoot than the near button magazine 20″ M64, which also had the skinny “pickle fork” forearm because it was built before WWII.  It felt “delicate” to the trapper’s “chunky.” 

Despite the popular name “trapper” given by enthusiasts to the M92 and 94 short carbines, I believe a remarkably large percentage of them were delivered to Mexico and points South, where I doubt they were employed primarily to hunt game. Subject to being corrected by one more schooled in their history, I can easily see una treinta treinta corta in the hands of a comandante de soldados or carried by the bodyguard of El Presidente de por Vida.  And, given  its power and length – short enough to disappear under a serape or abrigo, it would make a formidable assassination tool. 

Please do, Henry.  Between the salt water and the blood, I’d guess it has an “antique” finish for certain. But I’d really like to see how he’s got it slung on his belt!