Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
This rifle was made in 1902. The caliber is 33WCF. The front sight does not appear to me to be orignal, and I would be interested in your opinion. Also, according to the Cody firearms letter this rifle was ordered with a shotgun butt, while clearly it now has a rifle stock. How often is this piece of information misrecorded? Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3
You probably need to ad a picture of the Cody letter here if you want opinions, and a photo showing the serial # of rifle.
[email protected] said
This rifle was made in 1902. The caliber is 33WCF. The front sight does not appear to me to be orignal, and I would be interested in your opinion. Also, according to the Cody firearms letter this rifle was ordered with a shotgun butt, while clearly it now has a rifle stock. How often is this piece of information misrecorded? Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3
That is an 1886 extra lightweight model. The ramp front sight is correct on the lightweights. Lightweight models did not have a lot of meat on the barrel to accept a dovetailed front-sight, hence the ramp front sight.
Don
Factory letter should also say pistol grip. If not the stock has been replaced. Pictures of the areas where the stock meets the upper and lower tangs and along the side of the receiver would help.
So this might help me too, but the letter clearly states that it’s not a factory letter and it shouldn’t be used to authenticate the firearm. I only halve a few factory letters and was wondering was he has pictured as factory letter. Is this one of the look ups that you get as a Cody member? If so how accurate are they to the actual factory letter?
Thanks
Bill,
That is a call in sheet that they send you by fax or email. They contain the same information as the letter you pay for. The reason they put the disclaimer on it is they want you to spend the money on the letter.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
I think the call in sheet should mention the extra light barrel also should it not? It doesn’t look to me like that gun is very original. Hope the OP didn’t buy it as such.
Eagle, would you be a little more specific and explain what doesn’t look correct? I don’t see any faults. You would help an old collector who has missed seeing faults many times in the past. I am hoping to become more astute in noticing “wrongs” before a purchase instead of after. Thanks. RDB
RDB…the call in sheet says that it was made with a shotgun butt and it has a rifle butt. It also does not mention the extra light barrel, but maybe that is standard?? In this day and age of values going south, I don’t think it’s a good idea to buy anything that is not in at least 85+% condition and letterable. Just my opinion of course.
Eagle, my question is in regards to: “It doesn’t look to me like the gun is very original.” What doesn’t look right or not original? What am I not seeing what looks wrong with the rifle? To my eyes the rifle appears to look correct. It doesn’t match the letter in configuration, but the rifle “looks” correct. RDB
Ah…so you would buy a gun on looks verses originality? That is the type of buyer this seller is looking for I would guess. That’s all well and nice sir, but when push comes to shove, with values going down and buyers being very picky, your not going to come out financially with that. I’ve seen it happen in other collectable markets and this market is heading that way also IMO. Yes, I would buy an old Winchester on how it looks, but it better be original in this market. Peter
[email protected] said
Here are some more pictures of the rifle and the letter.
Tang areas have a good fit. Still would like to see the sides along the receiver for fit. Need to double check the shotgun butt vs the rifle butt.
Just to clarify, I am not trying to sell this rifle. I was looking for opinions because I too thought that the discrepency between the crecent butt and the description in the letter was “curious”. The dealer I purchased from told me that this sort of error does occur in those letters, but also agreed that it is difficult to be sure. Again, I like and intend to keep this rifle. Thank you all for your comments – they are appreciated.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I agree that from what the pics show the rifle appears to be original. I also believe that sometimes there are mistakes in the ledger as I own what I believe to be proof that even at Winchester, mistakes were made. The sad fact is that a rifle that does not “letter” will never be worth as much as one that does. Buying this rifle to re-sell would probably be a poor decision in today’s market.
Mike
Eagle,
My question is in regards to the gun not looking right. I understand the gun doesn’t match the call out sheet. I understood you to say the gun doesn’t look right. What doesn’t look right? Wood to metal fit, finish or something else? What am I looking for that doesn’t look right? If the Cody call out sheet wasn’t shown, does the gun “look” right? I am aware of the importance of the gun matching the Winchester Letter and the value it adds to it being legitimate. Thanks for your input. RDB
Thank you Eagle, that answers my question. I could not find a flaw in the looks of the gun and thought I was missing something. I realize that ’cause it looks right don’t make it right. Thank you for your reply and clarification. And yes I have purchased a few guns that looked right but were not right. I am trying not to make that mistake again and am seeking to learn all I can so I don’t get fooled again. Regards, RDB
Roger, despite having collected and shot rifles for the past 40 years I am still learning about what constitutes “original” especially in the the world of Winchesters. My understanding is that these Cody letters can often have errors with respect to how a rifle left the factory. I also wonder if back then someone could return a rifle to the factory for modification? -Jeff
1 Guest(s)
