Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Brooksy said
Forestock length is standard. The rear sight is a folder. The center of the dovetail is at 7 1/4″ from the barrel breech, the same as my other ’95’s.
Has anyone seen a ’95 short rifle with a forestock shorter than standard?
Brooksy said
Forestock length is standard. The rear sight is a folder. The center of the dovetail is at 7 1/4″ from the barrel breech, the same as my other ’95’s.
Brooksy if the forestock was 8 3/8 & rear sight dovetail 1” less than standard it would be good enough for me but that still doesn’t confirm it’s original. This gun unfortunately may never be 100% confirmed, but if collectors only purchased Lettered guns, that would leave out a mountain of very nice Winchester firearms.
RickC
Is
RickC said
Brooksy if the forestock was 8 3/8 & rear sight dovetail 1” less than standard it would be good enough for me but that still doesn’t confirm it’s original. This gun unfortunately may never be 100% confirmed, but if collectors only purchased Lettered guns, that would leave out a mountain of very nice Winchester firearms.
RickC
Rick,
Is there a precedence for these measurements on other short rifles?
Mike
Are there any other ’95 20″ barreled guns that have been found, in any caliber?
We know the 22 inch ’95 short rifles are more commonly encountered. I assume none of them have noted to have shorter than standard forearms or rear sight dovetails in a different location?
steve004 said
We know the 22 inch ’95 short rifles are more commonly encountered. I assume none of them have noted to have shorter than standard forearms or rear sight dovetails in a different location?
The 22″ 1895’s that I’ve owned or observed have all had standard length forearms and standard rear sight dovetail locations. Mark
Brooksy said
IsRick,
Is there a precedence for these measurements on other short rifles?
Mike
Mike
This has been discussed here before and a short rifle to me has the shorter forestock than standard & the rear sight location moved back 1” closer to the front of the receiver where others feel a short rifle is anything less than standard barrel length.
Short rifle is a collector term like trapper & deluxe so the term short rifle is subjective imo & not a term used by Winchester.
I don’t think I’m much help in this case with your rifle. For me it’s a 95 with a 20” barrel which if original, is very rare as Mark mentioned & a great find.
RickC
RickC said
Mike
This has been discussed here before and a short rifle to me has the shorter forestock than standard & the rear sight location moved back 1” closer to the front of the receiver where others feel a short rifle is anything less than standard barrel length.
Short rifle is a collector term like trapper & deluxe so the term short rifle is subjective imo & not a term used by Winchester.
I don’t think I’m much help in this case with your rifle. For me it’s a 95 with a 20” barrel which if original, is very rare as Mark mentioned & a great find.RickC
It’s interesting that in those models where, “short rifles” occur more commonly, such as the M1892 and the M1894, not all have shorter forearms. Yet at least some are in the letterable range and letter as correct. I suppose a specimen with a standard length forearm and outside the letterable range will always be subject to skepticism from some.
For me the bottom line is if you like something and can buy it right, do so. Just be prepared for skepticism from others. I am not criticizing skeptics. “Caveat Emptor” is very much needed on our field.
For those of you that are interested, I did some measuring. Muzzle is .715 (20″ from the breech) where the forestock ends .869 Rear sight .945 Breech is 1.086. So, if any of you guys have a gun in .35 we can compare.
Just thinking here, If they did a special profile for 20″ barrels in .35 then they would have had to hand fit a forestock just for this profile. Which leads me to believe the factory practice may have been just to shorten a standard .35 barrel.
This makes me wonder, how many “short rifles” in various models, have a different profile than the corresponding standard length barrel for that model? Or, how many are we aware of where the profile is identical. That is, the only way you know for sure it hasn’t been cut-off is there is a museum letter authenticating the barrel length.
Mike, I was hoping for a special profile, but my measurements are as follows for a 24 inch barreled 1895, in .35 Win. Serial is 41699, to compare. At the breach end just in front of the receiver is 1.072″ diameter. At the tip of the forend, I get 0.870″ t the 20 inch mark from the face of the bolt, I get 0.725″. At the muzzle (24 inches from the face of the bolt) I have 0.650″. I would expect manufacturing tolerances, so slight differences are within the realm of that. I would similarly expect they would shorten the barrel from the front, although other models of short rifles may have had their own profiles. I was hoping for a distinctly different profile, but not expecting one. It was worth a shot, though! Sorry my 24 inch barreled rifle didn’t differ more from yours. Too easy I suppose! Do these measurements help you any?
Tim
steve004 said
This makes me wonder, how many “short rifles” in various models, have a different profile than the corresponding standard length barrel for that model? Or, how many are we aware of where the profile is identical. That is, the only way you know for sure it hasn’t been cut-off is there is a museum letter authenticating the barrel length.
Steve,
For the Model 94, 64, and 71 rifles, the Short barrels definitely have a different contour than their longer siblings. One of the methods I use to verify a factory original 22-inch Model 64 219 Zipper is the fact the the barrel contour is measurably different from the standard 26-inch barrel. The same is true for the Model 71 20-inch barrel versus the standard 24-inch barrel.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
tim tomlinson said
Mike, I was hoping for a special profile, but my measurements are as follows for a 24 inch barreled 1895, in .35 Win. Serial is 41699, to compare. At the breach end just in front of the receiver is 1.072″ diameter. At the tip of the forend, I get 0.870″ t the 20 inch mark from the face of the bolt, I get 0.725″. At the muzzle (24 inches from the face of the bolt) I have 0.650″. I would expect manufacturing tolerances, so slight differences are within the realm of that. I would similarly expect they would shorten the barrel from the front, although other models of short rifles may have had their own profiles. I was hoping for a distinctly different profile, but not expecting one. It was worth a shot, though! Sorry my 24 inch barreled rifle didn’t differ more from yours. Too easy I suppose! Do these measurements help you any?Tim
Yes, helpful. Now we know it is a factory standard barrel that was shortened from the muzzle. But, who did it? Factory or local smithy. With the front sight mounted exactly as factory specs I suspect it is a factory job. Just my opinion of course.
Is it wise to compare short rifles of other models to this?
Also, I’m wondering if a ’95 of let’s say 30 ARMY with a 22″ barrel have a special barrel contour than a standard length ’95 in 30 ARMY?….or did it just get shortened from the muzzle like mine? I would think the factory would have standard forends that fit the .35 that has a large profile, and then have another standard forend for the 30-40’s and .303’s. In other words I would tend to think that they had standard forends for each caliber so no hand work would be involved hogging out wood in the forend to make it fit. Maybe I’m over thinking it…
I had no idea how complicated this was going to be! When I first posted this gun I figured I’d get a chorus of either yea’s or nay’s.
Mike
Welcome to the wonderful world of Winchester Mike. You can see why some collectors are only interested in lettered guns. It helps when knowledge is limited like myself.
RickC
Brooksy said
Yes, helpful. Now we know it is a factory standard barrel that was shortened from the muzzle. But, who did it? Factory or local smithy. With the front sight mounted exactly as factory specs I suspect it is a factory job. Just my opinion of course.
Is it wise to compare short rifles of other models to this?
Also, I’m wondering if a ’95 of let’s say 30 ARMY with a 22″ barrel have a special barrel contour than a standard length ’95 in 30 ARMY?….or did it just get shortened from the muzzle like mine? I would think the factory would have standard forends that fit the .35 that has a large profile, and then have another standard forend for the 30-40’s and .303’s. In other words I would tend to think that they had standard forends for each caliber so no hand work would be involved hogging out wood in the forend to make it fit. Maybe I’m over thinking it…
I had no idea how complicated this was going to be! When I first posted this gun I figured I’d get a chorus of either yea’s or nay’s.
Mike
My factory 22″ 1895s definitely have a different profile and a different barrel channel from the 28″ versions. The forends are most definitely not interchangeable.
Conversely, the long barreled 1895s also have a different profile and different profiles in the barrel channels. The muzzle width across the flats on my 38-72’s in 26″, 28″, 30″ and 36″ all are within a few thousandths of each other. The profiles were adjusted to make the muzzle diameters the same and the forends aren’t interchangeable.
Similarly, the muzzle diameters on my 22″, 24″ and 28″ in 30US are the same and forends don’t interchange. I can’t speak to the profiles on the short rifles with the heavier profiles because I haven’t encountered any that are unquestionably original. Mark
Thanks Mark, appreciate the info.. It sure put holes in all my theories! I think “unquestionably original” is going to be difficult with this gun.
I have a 20″ 95 in 405 made in 1906. Cody letter says “Standard Rifle”. I assume that means the barrel was cut at some point. The lack of records for most of the 95 production leaves confirmation of special features tough for those numbers above 60,000. I have another 95 with a non standard birds eye maple stock with a number of 60,0xx.
GibCurtis said
I have a 20″ 95 in 405 made in 1906. Cody letter says “Standard Rifle”. I assume that means the barrel was cut at some point. The lack of records for most of the 95 production leaves confirmation of special features tough for those numbers above 60,000. I have another 95 with a non standard birds eye maple stock with a number of 60,0xx.
Would you happen to have measurements of that 20″ .405 barrel? I hate to bother you, but….. Also, does it have a factory front sight base on it?
I will measure and post dimensions this evening. It does not have a front sight base. Dovetail is in the barrel.
Length is 20.5″, dia at breach 1.081, dia at muzzle .700, front sight is 1/2″ from muzzle. Dovetail cut into the round barrel.
Whoever cut it was at least competent, square and level, shoots to point of aim. This one came from Maine. Easier handling than a full length rifle.
Cody Letter states;
Rifle
405 caliber
Received in warehouse August 11 1905
Shipped from warehouse August 14 1905
Order number 20771
Pretty slim pickings as far as a letter.
I am comfortable saying it has been cut.
Cheers,
Gib Curtis
1 Guest(s)
