Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Thanks Larry and Bert for such a great resource! I’ve been reading and checking, checking and double checking my 1892 and 1894s (previous posts) for 3 hours now. Great information and it kept me off the street tonight! I’m happy to say I’m right side up on purchases made when I was blind and that is using the serviceable to fair condition rating. I think I may have one, maybe two that are good condition but I’m still a novice so I’ll stay conservative.
If you haven’t got it and you plan to buy more Winchesters, you may as well buy this $70 worth of insurance first. Ron
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
Online
Ron,
Thanks you for the glowing feed back. We just shipped (3) more cases of books to Trish Smith for the WACA Book Store, so if anyone still wants or needs a copy, please go to Store link at the top of the page.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Must agree the Red Book has certainly sped up my learning curve (that’s harder than I’ll admit) and it’s helped me make some good decisions as well as learn from bad ones. It’s also a good primer on investing in collectable firearms. Only problem (?) is that it has gotten me interested in a few firearms I wasn’t interested in several months ago and has encouraged me to consider higher condition firearms.
Money well spent, Ron, and time well spent reading it. My copy hasn’t made it to my reference book shelf, I keep it within easy reach. If you study it closely you may discover an investment opportunity or two. I suspect a few areas of the market are undervalued at this time and the tables are helpful in identifying those areas.
I was looking through the 1894s over the years and am confused as to why the 38-55 would have gained in value more so than the other calibers. Do you suppose it has to do with shear volume of that caliber and therefore a larger sample selection of prices?
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
I would agree just got mine too, The new edition is a great resource for a Winchester enthusiast. It has information which has assisted me in purchases and researching the rifles in my collection and… friends collections. This new edition is easier for me to use at my level of collecting. great job !
That is a good question about the 38-55 values.
rwsem said
I was looking through the 1894s over the years and am confused as to why the 38-55 would have gained in value more so than the other calibers. Do you suppose it has to do with shear volume of that caliber and therefore a larger sample selection of prices?
Probably because there were less made of these. Same with the 25-35. The 30-30 was the gun of choice. Add to that the fact that these are big bore rifles and the bigger the bore, the more collectability it has. Look at the values of 44 calibers compared with the rest. It near doubles the value of a rifle. Especially the M53. I have a 38-55 SRC, a 38-55 1/2 oct. full mag., and a 38-55 full oct. bbl. and would not trade any of them off. I too like the big bores. Unfortunately, I cannot afford a 50-110 M1886. Big Larry
rwsem said
I was looking through the 1894s over the years and am confused as to why the 38-55 would have gained in value more so than the other calibers. Do you suppose it has to do with shear volume of that caliber and therefore a larger sample selection of prices?
During the later production years (post WW I), the 38-55 (and 32-40) were very scarce before being discontinued in late 1937. In my research survey, from January 1927 – December 1938, the caliber production breaks down as follows;
| Caliber Production Totals by Year for the Model 94 | ||||||
|
Year |
30 W.C.F. | 32 W.S. | 25-35 W.C.F. | 32-40 | 38-55 |
Total |
|
1927 |
153 | 65 | 8 | 1 | 6 |
233 |
|
1928 |
252 | 94 | 21 | 7 | 7 | 381 |
| 1929 | 219 | 60 | 27 | 8 | 11 |
325 |
|
1930 |
86 | 41 | 14 | 1 | 2 |
144 |
|
1931 |
62 | 31 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 98 |
| 1932 | 72 | 32 | 7 | 2 | 1 |
114 |
|
1933 |
8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
13 |
|
1934 |
9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 |
| 1935 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
5 |
|
1936 |
156 | 22 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 185 |
| 1937 | 254 | 121 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
380 |
|
Totals |
1,275 | 472 | 83 | 21 | 39 |
1,890 |
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
That’s very neat Bert; thanks, I’ll file that away. Is there a comprehensive production data resource available anywhere? I know with Dan Wessons, all the records went to the BATFE upon change of ownership and they won’t release the information.
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
rwsem said
That’s very neat Bert; thanks, I’ll file that away. Is there a comprehensive production data resource available anywhere? I know with Dan Wessons, all the records went to the BATFE upon change of ownership and they won’t release the information.
No, at least none that I am aware of. I started a detailed survey of the pre-64 Model 94s back in late 2005. Thus far, I have surveyed nearly 15,000 of them in the 354,000 – 2,600,011 serial range. From that survey, I am able to provide the numbers in the table I posted, and to extrapolate what the total production may have been. I use a specially built Excel spreadsheet to automatically calculate the production numbers for the Model 1894/94, 55, 64, 65, 71, 43, 1893, 1897, and a few other models. I have also assisted several other fellows who are actively surveying the Models 53, 56 and 57. If it were not for the sheer size of the survey documents, I would post them in their entirety here on the WACA website.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
That’s quite an undertaking that I can appreciate. Thanks.
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
Bert H. said I have also assisted several other fellows who are actively surveying the Models 53, 56 and 57. If it were not for the sheer size of the survey documents, I would post them in their entirety here on the WACA website.
Bert
Yep, thanks again for cleaning up my crude Excel spreadsheet and continuing to feed me serial numbers!
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Just an “atta-boy” to Bert concerning the Red Book! I am not a big time collector by any means, nor into obtaining firearms for investments, but I do like to collect “certain” Winchesters from “certain” eras. All I can say IS, there is no other publication that can give information and such on Pre-64 Winchester’s like The Red Book! I’m a numbers guy in a sense and I like things to be organized and easy to use and Bert has knocked this out of the park! So, if you are on the fence on this purchase, do yourself a favor cause as somebody else stated, 60-70 on insurance to help you “know” what you are getting into in a firearms transaction can make a world of difference. Also, the fact that the Blue Books although a nice reference has no bearing to the folks that get into the nitty gritty about Pre-64 Winchester’s! Just my opinion and thoughts! Have a blessed day everyone!
Dave
WACA #10119
NRA Member
Bert H. said
rwsem said
I was looking through the 1894s over the years and am confused as to why the 38-55 would have gained in value more so than the other calibers. Do you suppose it has to do with shear volume of that caliber and therefore a larger sample selection of prices?During the later production years (post WW I), the 38-55 (and 32-40) were very scarce before being discontinued in late 1937. In my research survey, from January 1927 – December 1938, the caliber production breaks down as follows;
Caliber Production Totals by Year for the Model 94 Year
30 W.C.F. 32 W.S. 25-35 W.C.F. 32-40 38-55 Total
1927
153 65 8 1 6 233
1928
252 94 21 7 7 381 1929 219 60 27 8 11 325
1930
86 41 14 1 2 144
1931
62 31 1 1 3 98 1932 72 32 7 2 1 114
1933
8 4 0 0 1 13
1934
9 2 0 0 1 12 1935 4 0 1 0 0 5
1936
156 22 2 1 4 185 1937 254 121 2 0 3 380
Totals
1,275 472 83 21 39 1,890
Cool survey. I have a SRC in 38-55 with a Gumwood stock, # 1004027, PR 7-14-27. Would be near mint but for some receiver flaking. Paid a lot for it, so I am glad to see, it is rather scarce. Big Larry
January 26, 2011
Offline
Since we are talking about calibers……………Just for comparison, here are the calibers I have noted in my miniscule 1894 short rifle survey (compared to Bert’s 15,000 guns). Keep in mind, the short rifles in my survey are primarily from 1894 through 1920 with a few examples found later. I think the 32 WS count would be higher, but 34% of my survey has resulted in ELW rifles, and there were no extra lightweights produced in 32 WS, nor have I stumbled upon any anomalies to this. I’m still on the hunt for a nice, correct, 32-40 1894 short rifle.
| Total 25-35 | 21 | 5.88% |
| Total 30 WCF | 244 | 68.35% |
| Total 32 WS | 46 | 12.89% |
| Total 32-40 | 12 | 3.36% |
| Total 38-55 | 34 | 9.52% |
~Gary~
1 Guest(s)
