You are gracious.

As you know, in Texas we have large -- almost unhealthy -- populations of the Rio Grande turkey subspecies,  from Westward of a North-to-South line drawn through Fort Worth to Austin to San Antonio and Laredo.  Meleagris Gallopavo Intermedia is slightly smaller and reputedly more gullible than its Silvestris Eastern Gobbler cousin, although they have wised up considerably after Texas introduced a Gobblers Only Spring Season in 1989. 

I mention this because Texas permits hunting the Rio with a centerfire rifle and the 25 and 32 Winchester cartridges are really ideal for that purpose. While I know the 22 Hornet is supposed to be the ultimate wild turkey round,  I have considerable experience with it on turkeys and it needs to be handloaded down to no more than 2000 foot seconds, preferably less, if body shots are taken. 

Among my peers on a couple of leases in West Texas, sniping clueless turkeys with headshots at 100 yards with a scoped high velocity rifle is considered the moral equivalent of shooting your own bird dog. It does not require the skill and artistry of calling a bird into spitting distance before whacking him mid-strut. At that distance, it matters not whether you use rifle, handgun, or shotgun but meat damage becomes a consideration if a single projectile is used -- the head is never still and headshots are too risky 

The 25 Winchester with 86 grain lead at 1200 - 1400 foot seconds, fired from a tang sighted Model 92 cannot be beat. Given our large populations in some counties, hens are legal as well and a lever gun can be very handy.  

So, here in the Lone Star State,  this little Winchester has considerable utility. I restored it to use, not just to look at

I can certainly understand what you chose to do here. Not being a true piece you would collect, but instead, a very nice and accurate shooter, that you brought justice to. 

I applaud you for you're evaluation and how you handled it! This is a good example of bringing something back from being a poor example, and not spending a fortune to try to make it something that it wasn't!

Tony

First, that there is a material difference between repairing (restoring to mechanical functionality) a gun of collectible condition, on one hand, and restoring or "improving" its cosmetic condition - thereby destroying its originality - on the other. 

Second, that there is a point of no return, most typically because of a prior, egregious "restoration" but also because of corrosion and neglect, at which the gun has no "original condition" and can be used in whole or in part as a restoration of the same or another gun. 

Of course, this gun's d.o.m. [per Bert] was 1929 when the kitchen sink was likely being used for material, so maybe a sapwood stock is semi-authentic? 

Buck1967 said

MidwestCrisis said
That appears to be a brand new 1929 92 to someone like me.  
  

Yeah to me too! It looks amazing and would love to see the before pics if any exist. If you are feeling guilty for owning a restoration and need to get rid of it to cleanse your soul, I will be happy to give you back your original $399 😉 Kidding of course. Great job Zeb and thanks for sharing!
  

Buck, I was still in harness then and enamored of Kimber of Oregon and Sturm Ruger rifles, having been soured on Winchester products since 1964. My re-awakeming came later when I rescued a nice 1950 Model 70 Supergrade 30 Govt '06 from a local consignment rack. 

I wish I had taken "before" photos of this  92 as well.  My Dad was still alive and we had it in his workshop, installing a tall brass blade he'd made I could file down as needed to zero the gun with the Lyman tang. Whoever had installed the Lyman never changed the front sight to match. I'd give a lot to have a photo of Dad with the rifle clamped in his big Wilton machinist's vice (between softwood blocks.)

Scott was asking $4700 and that included a set of custom dies. Now, that money was the 2026 equivalent of at least six or seven grand and was well over my pay grade then (and now.) 

But it showed me what he could do when he was let. I would put his work up against Dale Goens, Earl Milliron, or Al Biesen for grace and execution.  

I've always felt I got a small piece of Scott's work at a bargain price. 

Did I mention how long it took to get this 92 back from him? Seventeen months. 

I noticed that you said the barrel was replaced, but I hadn't noticed anything as far as the receiver.

As I had a friend who had a similar situation with a M-1886, and after a bargain priced restoration, from a guy that did it on the side, the Receiver wasn't blocked up properly, for the extreme heat from the new case color restoration, and had moved and tightened up a little, causing the actions smoothness to disappear.

The M-1886, is considered by many, to be one of the best rifle designs by J.M.B.  It's smooth cycling is second to none. IMO! 

Tony

Otisman68 said

 
Just measured the bullet.  Within size.  I ran a new empty cartridge into the chamber.  It came out rolled at a 2.398 not 2.40.  This is a new barrel too.  Maybe needs cut anther 0.002?
  

It does appear to be a slightly short chamber.  It is possible that the breech end of the barrel was trimmed a bit when it was being fitted to the receiver and bolt.  If you do ream the chamber length to fix the problem, I recommend .004 - .005" versus just .002".

Bert

MidwestCrisis said
That appears to be a brand new 1929 92 to someone like me.  
  

Yeah to me too! It looks amazing and would love to see the before pics if any exist. If you are feeling guilty for owning a restoration and need to get rid of it to cleanse your soul, I will be happy to give you back your original $399 😉 Kidding of course. Great job Zeb and thanks for sharing!