Summer 2025|The Winchester Collector Magazine.|Forum|Winchester Collector

Mike, you can’t open yours until I have mine!  Tim

Got it yesterday, Bert hit it out of the park again.

I enjoyed reading–at least what I have read so far–the latest issue of The Winchester Collector.  However, in the interest of scholarship, a few comments are necessary relative to the article Featured Winchester:  A Very Special Model 1895 (page 64).

The author states that he purchased this Model 1895 approximately 30 years ago, not sure if this rifle/carbine was modified at the factory, or if the good quality workmanship was not factory work.  A friend of his studied the rifle, and determined that the workmanship, although very good, is likely not factory work.  He later obtained a letter through his friend, and the letter states the configuration to be that of a rifle with a 26″ barrel, the stock is fancy, checkered, with rubber shotgun butt, and Lyman receiver & front sights.  The rifle underwent a “Repair & Return” to the factory on three occasions between 1901 and 1914, the first of the three being a mere five days after it was shipped from the warehouse in July of 1901.  The author states that, in reference to this rifle, that “It was apparently refitted with a carbine barrel, sling eyes and rear sight dovetails, and the long forearm, over the course of three returns.”  This statement is a subjective one, and cannot be asserted without more facts.  Since the R & R records do not usually exist today, it cannot be assumed that the three R & Rs were to reconfigure this Model 1895 to its current configuration and a return a mere 5 days after shipment likely means something was corrected that wasn’t quite right as shipped, as a reconfiguration after less than a week seems highly unlikely.

Also, usually if a Winchester rifle (or carbine) was reconfigured during the time of when R & Rs were being performed, it often is such that the current configuration, when significantly reconfigured, is stated as the current characteristics of the rifle, or it will state what it currently is, and note how it originally shipped.

Lastly, the two filled holes from a carbine sight in the barrel of this rifle was well as wear indicating that the barrel was once fitted with a carbine-style hand guard tells me that this barrel was from another Model 1895 carbine that someone had and fitted to this rifle, as the aforementioned strongly suggests the work was not factory.  And, the fact that the “forearm wood had been expertly repaired on each top corner, where it meets the receiver, with a triangular piece of cross-grained walnut” also strongly suggests that this work was undertaken outside of the factory, as the factory would likely have just manufactured a new forearm if there were issues with the original one and fitted it to this rifle.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a neat Model 1895, even if the work isn’t factory, but there are too many discrepancies with regards to this rifle in its current configuration and the historical record (factory letter) and how documentation and “Repair & Return” work was performed in the 1901 to 1914 era.

I hope this is viewed not as criticism but to set the record straight in a scholarly manner.  And, of course, feel free to critique my arguments, as my critique could be entirely wrong–and I hope, for the sake of this Model 1895, it is!

Steven Gabrielli said
Got it yesterday, Bert hit it out of the park again.

  

I also received mine yesterday, and after I got home, I sat down in my recliner to enjoy it, and committed a Cardinal Sin! I fell asleep, for a quick nap!

It certainly wasn’t because of the content, as that would almost be Blasphemy! IMO!  

Steve,

I am in agreement with you also! I enjoy Bert’s work, and his endless research, helping many of us her, as does several others! Can’t wait to dig in more on this Magazine, as I see many articles of interest!

Anthony

Mike,  it would be nice to beat you in reading it, but delivery to my part of the world can be a bit slow.  Go ahead and read it if you’ve been having train wrecks!  Tim

Maverick said
I’d agree that while it is still opinion and can’t be proven with much 100% certainty. That is with all R&R guns that are documented as such. And I lean towards there be a high chance that his opinions are correct. But obviously can’t necessarily be proven outright either way.

But I would add that just because a Winchester barrel has screw holes filled in with screws also doesn’t mean that it wasn’t done by the factory as such. As the factory did do such things. The case that proves that fact are the 95/94 Hybrid guns. There are plenty examples of one of its variations that have factory installed screws that are used to fill a different sight screw hole. Rather than making a whole new barrel or fill-in the hole with a plug(s). 

Also depending on what the customer wanted done, Winchester was not against building a custom forearm or stock. 

That said, the gun would be more valuable if it lettered exactly as its configuration. But of course that is with any Winchester.

Sincerely,

Maverick  

What about the evidence that the barrel was once fitted with a hand guard?  This suggests this barrel came from a Winchester 1895 carbine someone had once.  Also, would the factory make triangular repairs to a custom forearm?  Doubtful.  They would manufacture it from scratch.

With the R&R annotation, and no specific statement as to what was done during the R & R, it justifies what we desperately want to be true.  My guess is, more often than not, it isn’t.

The Model 1895 which is the subject matter of that article is a neat firearm, but it needs to be e recognized for what it probably is—custom work.  Especially since others like this one haven’t surfaced with similar modifications and letters indicating R & R work.

Mike (and others),  I received my “Collector” in today’s mail.  I opened it and have scanned the offerings.  MIKE–OPEN YOURS!

Tim