Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
Stereoscope hunting slide
September 21, 2013
10:59 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1053
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I bought this Keystone View Co. slide yesterday and here is a picture of 1/2 of it. The actual image is nicer and I will have to look through a viewer with it someday.

I like the older hunting pictures quite a bit. There is something about this particular one that really interests me as it is right in the time period I like to collect in. I think that's a nice long barreled 1895 in the foreground, so maybe a 30-40 or .303 if it's 28". The buck ain't bad either.

Brad

http://s1226.photobucket.com/user/hurint/media/DSCN4854_zps946f8129.jpg.html

DSCN4854_zps946f8129.jpgImage Enlarger

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

September 21, 2013
12:30 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 318
Member Since:
November 9, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Cool pic! But I think it's a 1894, looks like it has a forend cap.

September 21, 2013
1:15 pm
Avatar
Ontario Canada
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 681
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Neat Pic The rear guy has a 94 , but the front guy does look like he has a 95 with the black tip forend

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

September 21, 2013
1:16 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 617
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think he is referring to the rifle closest to the deer. You can see the screw that holds the forearm in place on the bottom of the forearm. 1894's don't have that.

Paul

September 21, 2013
1:22 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 318
Member Since:
November 9, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

your right!! I was looking at one in the back! Sorry about that!

September 21, 2013
5:18 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1416
Member Since:
May 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The back rifle very well could be a model 86. Hard to tell as the receiver is a bit blurry in the photo.

Maverick

WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!

September 22, 2013
5:40 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
June 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

To me, the back receiver looks a bit too long for an '86. I'd lean toward a 1894

September 22, 2013
6:02 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1053
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I wish I could tell on the back gun for sure and I was counting on you guys to know! Laugh *I'm changing my vote to an 1886.

Another reason I like the picture is it looks like it could have been taken in a lot of the same places I hunt based on the vegetation. Any guesses on the pistol in the holster?

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

September 22, 2013
6:10 am
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 617
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Just another thought. Could it be an 1893 Marlin? The Marlin only has 1 screw on the left side of the receiver and it is all the way to the rear.
The 86 has a rounded receiver on the bottom and this rifle looks squared off on the bottom of the receiver. Just my thoughts.

http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/1894%20others/61212%20ramp%20sight/1893Marlin_zpscf8b135e.jpg.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]

Paul

September 22, 2013
9:41 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9305
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that the rifle in the back is a Model 1894 Rifle. The vertical height of the receiver is too small for a Model 1894.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

September 22, 2013
10:39 am
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 617
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Model 1884? Typo error?
Even in very bad photos, you can almost always see the top forward screw ( close to the barrel ) on the model 1894 receiver. That is why I was thinking a Marlin. The forearm end cap does looks more like an 1894 than a Marlin. Maybe Brad can look a little closer with a magnifying glass and give us an answer. Anyway, glad that we all agree on the model 95.

Paul

September 22, 2013
11:05 am
Avatar
"road king"
Guests

Not to get picky but after 1895, which we can assume when the photo was taken the Marlin 1893 had 2 screws on the left side. The photo you have shown as an example is a very early 1893 without the re-enforcing in the frame which was added in around 1895. Although it could still be an early 1893 in the photo, but I believe like Bert says the angle of the frame near the hammer looks more like 1894 Winchester. Wink

September 22, 2013
11:46 am
Avatar
Ontario Canada
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 681
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Brad what did you start here ?. I think a non-gunnut would accuse us of having a screw or 2 loose , and too much time on our hands. Next thing we will be doing is scouring the pawnshops for antique cameras and taking pics of our models in the dark to figure this out!!

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

September 22, 2013
4:00 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 605
Member Since:
September 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Look at it through the stereoscope and see what you think! I have a collection of these, although not this particular stereoview, and they are amazingly three dimensional and might provide the answer you are seeking!

September 22, 2013
5:07 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1053
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't know Marlins but the rear barrel dovetail on the first post by Shorties is way farther down the barrel than the gun in my picture.

I'm one Stereoscope short of having one Stereoscope.

I put one of my 1894s from 1907 along side my 1886 33 WCF Rifle shipped 1905.

Approximate measurements, not exact: Receivers were almost the same length from the front to the curve down ahead of the hammer. Vertical height at the barrel and forearm is about 2" on the 1894 and 2 1/4" on the 1886. Bigger differences were the location of the rear barrel dovetail. On my 33 WCF 1886 it is 4" to the receiver. On my 1894 it is 5" to the receiver. Angle on the back of the receiver is quite sharper ahead of the hammer as it goes down to the upper tang on the 1894. This line on the 1886 receiver is not as sharp and longer to the upper tang. Maybe more hammer visible on the 1886 too.

Just looking at black and white profiles in The Winchester Handbook makes me think it is just too far from the top of the receiver down to the upper tang to be a 1894. Sure looks like the 1886 on page 89. Can't tell if the rear sight is a standard Sporting Rear. Now, if anyone of you guys starts up with whether it's a legit or a faked gun....

http://s1226.photobucket.com/user/hurint/media/53703f2a-d8aa-4613-9fed-2355241a8359_zpsab6fadcc.jpg.html

53703f2a-d8aa-4613-9fed-2355241a8359_zpsab6fadcc.jpgImage Enlarger

I still lean towards 1886.

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

September 22, 2013
5:07 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 196
Member Since:
February 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Looks like a Winchester Model 1894 Rifle to me.
I blew it up to 850% , the rear sight even seems to be in the right place for a Model 1894 and it does have a elevator in it.

"I Would Have Rather Lived Through The Industrial Revaluation"

"Instead of The Space Age"

From

 The Twilight Zone

 

September 22, 2013
5:31 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 617
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Don't own an 86 so went back and looked at some on GB. They do have that angle to the receiver near the hammer so, that would also explain the forearm end cap that looks like a Winchester and not a Marlin. I just was sure it was not an 1894.

Paul

September 22, 2013
5:38 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1053
Member Since:
December 30, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sure hard for me to tell for sure with the glare.

Paul, I thought you had a decent looking 33WCF at one time?

Brad

Regards

Brad Dunbar

http://1895book.com/

September 22, 2013
5:45 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 617
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I did have 2 86's but not any longer and did not recall the details that we are pointing out. Like I said, I just knew that it was not an 1894.

Paul

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: steff, Tony. R, Brian
34 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 6368

Posts: 51071


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 851

Members: 8530

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 3934

twobit: 2410

TXGunNut: 2062

Maverick: 1416

Big Larry: 1352

JWA: 1236

Wincacher: 1180

Brad Dunbar: 1053

clarence: 931

1892takedown: 838

Navigation