Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I recently bought 4 more antique Winchesters to add to my collection.
A Winchester Model 1873 rifle in .32WCF with 24″ octagon barrel & full magazine made in 1893.
A Winchester Model 1886 rifle in .45-70 with 26″ octagon barrel & full magazine made in 1890.
A Winchester Model 1887 shogun in 12 Gauge BP with 30″ round barrel & deluxe wood made in 1887. This one came with a letter.
A Winchester Model 1892 rifle in .38WCF with 24″ octagon barrel & full magazine made in 1896.
They all seem to be honest originals in fairly good intact condition for their age.
The only negative is that they all have bad looking bores. They don’t look like they’ve been cleaned properly in a very long time.
All the rifles have good looking rifling however.
I have a hard time getting good pictures, but I’ll try to do so when I get a chance to work on it without the wife around.
Congrats on your new treasures. I am, what they call, a bore freak. I don’t think I would buy a rifle with a bad bore no matter what. I have one rifle in my collection with a bad bore, and that is a 1907 vintage M1890 that was given to me in 1959. It still shoots pretty good though, although a 22 long. There are pros and cons on the bore issue. To some it doesn’t matter. To some is really does matter. Big Larry
Bores really matter to me as well. It is amazing what exc cond some are still in. ( a lot arent)
With cruddy bores , sometimes with a lot of long term soaking with a good quality cleaner, patience ,and good cleaning techniques, (never from muzzle) you can get a pleasant surprise of a good bore under all the gunge
Phil
Why do you say not to clean the bores from the muzzle end?
Do you use a bore cleaning snake from the breech end, or some other devices?
What are your recommended cleaning solutions?
I’ll probably get ammo for all of them, but I don’t really plan on shooting them unless the bores clean up really good.
The shooting ranges here in San Diego don’t allow black powder firearm shooting, and I don’t think that I want to shoot smokeless ammo in them unless it would be safe.
To me, they are a good investment.
I think they’ve already done their duty.
When you clean from the muzzle with a rod, the wobble causes wear. Blunderbuss effect (probably the most common reason for cut length barrels)
Use Boresnake or pull thru style form breech. I like Otis wire
Good bore solvent is
Kroil mixed with Shooters choice , or Benchrest quality (not Hoppes or cheap stuff) , Hoppes B/R Gold also ok substitute , 50/50 mix
Gunzilla (by itself) is a good product In Canada
soak a few days (at least overnite), then nylon bore bush , wet patch out with K/SC, gunge will appear on patch ,repeat entire process til you can see results with good light
If guns are mechanically OK , ask gunsmith, mild smokeless loads, even with jacketed bullets (prefferably thin or soft skinned ) intended for the old model are OK. and fun to shoot
Good luck
let us know
Phil
Jampard said
Why do you say not to clean the bores from the muzzle end?
Do you use a bore cleaning snake from the breech end, or some other devices?
What are your recommended cleaning solutions?
I’ll probably get ammo for all of them, but I don’t really plan on shooting them unless the bores clean up really good.
The shooting ranges here in San Diego don’t allow black powder firearm shooting, and I don’t think that I want to shoot smokeless ammo in them unless it would be safe.
To me, they are a good investment.
I think they’ve already done their duty.
Go to Jacumba or drop down to Ocotillo and shoot your rifles. These types were never meant to shoot at a range. Lots of Jackrabbits out there. I lived in San Diego mostly all my life. Very, very, glad to be living in the free state of Utah the past 17 years. I saw SDO go from a free place to shoot, to a completely controlled city. I wish you luck. BTW, everything 25-20 says is correct. Use extreme caution when dealing with old, valuable guns. Big Larry
I, too, have an original Model 1886 45-70 with 26″ octagon barrel and full mag made in 1890. I’m away from home until next week, so I can’t tell what my serial number is, but I do know that it was received in warehouse July 1, 1890 and shipped August 4, 1890.
Jampard,
Can I please get the serial number of the 1892 so that I can add it into my survey of these rifles. And i would love photos of all the stamped writing on the gun when you get a chance. [email protected]
Thanks so much
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Jampard, the serial number of my Model 1886, also a 45-70, FO, FM, shipped in 1890, is 46248. How close is my serial number to yours? Here is a photo of mine …
41702
Mine has a little more bluing on it however.
I also have one of the 1986 Browning made model 1886’s in .45-70 that was a lot less expensive than the real one although very nice.
I see they are not close in the manufacturing date (other than the same year). My work on the Model 53 reveals that Winchester tended (at least in the 1920’s) to do calibers by runs. Thus, if that was the case in 1890, yours and mine had a good chance of being close. By the way, I too have a Browning 1886 45-70 SRC.
win38-55 said
I see they are not close in the manufacturing date (other than the same year). My work on the Model 53 reveals that Winchester tended (at least in the 1920’s) to do calibers by runs.
Kirk,
Winchester used that same practice on the Model 94/55/64 into the 1950s.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Jampard said
I recently bought 4 more antique Winchesters to add to my collection.
A Winchester Model 1873 rifle in .32WCF with 24″ octagon barrel & full magazine made in 1893.
A Winchester Model 1886 rifle in .45-70 with 26″ octagon barrel & full magazine made in 1890.
A Winchester Model 1887 shogun in 12 Gauge BP with 30″ round barrel & deluxe wood made in 1887. This one came with a letter.
A Winchester Model 1892 rifle in .38WCF with 24″ octagon barrel & full magazine made in 1896.
They all seem to be honest originals in fairly good intact condition for their age.
The only negative is that they all have bad looking bores. They don’t look like they’ve been cleaned properly in a very long time.
All the rifles have good looking rifling however.
I have a hard time getting good pictures, but I’ll try to do so when I get a chance to work on it without the wife around.
Several of my Winchesters have “bad looking” bores. Should a benchrest shooter look down the bore of my 1886 45-70 he would say make it an anchor. The bore is not very pretty but the gun will knock over 10″ plates at 100 yards every time if I do my part. As long as the rifling is still there and you shoot lead bullets they should shoot just fine.
I would echo what Mark said. I have had some phenomenally bad-looking bores, with barely detectable rifling and pits that would make the moon green with envy. Nevertheless, even the worst ones would put five shots into less than 4″ at 100 yards (a ’73 44 W.C.F. that had a bore reminiscent of a badly corroded pipe). Lead bullets and a piece of single ply toilet paper to act as a flexible gas check seems to cut the group sizes in half. In general, I find the bigger bore rifles (38 W.C.F. and up) less sensitive to bad bores than the smaller calibers (25-20 and 32-20)
I have been able to clean up the bores in all of them fairly well. At least, there’s some fairly good shine in the barrels now.
The rifling still looks good in the rifles, but there’s a lot of what looks like short line marks in between the rifling.
I haven’t given up on the bore cleaning effort yet. I’m going to try some good lead remover to make sure I have all the lead out.
I do have ammo for the each of the rifles, but I haven’t decided if I want to shoot them or not yet.
I was under the impression that jacketed bullets work better in rifles with bad bores, but the only ammo in the calibers I need seem to be only readily available with lead bullets.
I don’t really expect these old antique rifles to be super accurate anyway, but if need be, I’m sure they will do their duty again.
Jampard said
I have been able to clean up the bores in all of them fairly well. At least, there’s some fairly good shine in the barrels now.
The rifling still looks good in the rifles, but there’s a lot of what looks like short line marks in between the rifling.
I haven’t given up on the bore cleaning effort yet. I’m going to try some good lead remover to make sure I have all the lead out.
I do have ammo for the each of the rifles, but I haven’t decided if I want to shoot them or not yet.
I was under the impression that jacketed bullets work better in rifles with bad bores, but the only ammo in the calibers I need seem to be only readily available with lead bullets.
I don’t really expect these old antique rifles to be super accurate anyway, but if need be, I’m sure they will do their duty again.
What do you consider Super Accurate? I have had M92’s that would punch the 10 ring out of the target at 100 yards and my BIL had a M53 32-20 that would constantly pick off ground squirrels with at 100 yards offhand. I first hunted deer in Colorado with a standard M1892 in 44 WCF and never missed. For 100 year old rifles in pretty much obsolete calibers, I would tend to think of them as super accurate. No, they are not as accurate as my M52’s, but at 100 yards will shoot just as many 10’s, but not as many X’s. 44-40 fan. Big Larry
Jacketed bullets usually work pretty well in bad bores without much in the way of any special loads, toilet paper gas checks or cast bullet hardness. Gas check bullets will generally work better than plain base bullets. Plain base bullets can be the most challenging, but that is where the toilet paper filler comes in ….. it gets rammed into any gaps between the bullet and the bore, preventing gas cutting. Typically, I expect sub-3″ five-shot groups at 100 yards for a good bore, aiming for 2″ groups, and sub 4″ five-shot groups at 100 yards for really bad bores with proper bullets/loads.
1 Guest(s)
