JEREMY S. said
just a friendly note.  The lower tang on the 1894 is removable. many other models are as well 1886, 1892 etc. thus if one swapped the lower tang as well  when they swapped wood then checking the assembly numbers would not validate a swapped butt stock as they would match. 

  

I thought the assembly numbers were stamped on the upper tang on 1894’s.  Am I correct or no?  The original receiver that the stocks were attached to did not have a set trigger so the lower tang came from a different gun anyway–whether originally connected to the current receiver or not.

the assembly numbers etc. are stamped on lower left tang in all but very rare cases.  depending on model and serial range some standard guns were marked. I was simply stating for those that are reading this thread  that going by the lower tang assembly numbers to match wood is not  a fool proof way to tell if wood was swapped.   I was not referring to Henry’s rifle specifically where we can obviously see it now has double set triggers but the last frame/lower tang did not. 

JEREMY S. said
the assembly numbers etc. are stamped on lower left tang in all but very rare cases.  depending on model and serial range some standard guns were marked. I was simply stating for those that are reading this thread  that going by the lower tang assembly numbers to match wood is not  a fool proof way to tell if wood was swapped.   I was not referring to Henry’s rifle specifically where we can obviously see it now has double set triggers but the last frame/lower tang did not. 

  

Thanks for clarifying that Jeremy.  I honestly have never removed the buttstock from any of my Winchesters.  They are all high condition guns and have been too afraid of messing up the wood.  I’ve seen way too many with slivers missing around the tang from mishaps.

Don

 The sad truth on this subject, it happens a lot with non-letterable 1894s and goes back for years. Wood and metal parts are made to such close tolerance during that time period that many times parts are interchangeable without any fitting. The use of donor guns is common, mix and match to get a increase in it’s value.  It is common to upgrade the condition of a deluxe.

 You can’t rely on assembly numbers because they are removed and or added to wood. The same books you and I look at to tell if a gun is right is read by the person swapping parts. You have to hope the guy doing the upgrades is not good at it. The first step to prevent being taken is to understand what can be done. The second step is looking very close and yes you might have to use a screwdriver. I do it on most of the Winchesters and all the Colts I buy. T/R   

steve004 said

mrcvs said

deerhunter said

Beautiful and rare rifle, but parts of it look awfully familiar.  I hate being a bearer of any bad news so hoping I’m wrong. See link below.

https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/rare-1894-on-gunbroker/

Don

  

If it wasn’t for Don’s great detective work, would there have been ANY indication, using the photographs provided, that the rifle Henry purchased wasn’t the real deal?

This is rather disturbing and makes you wonder how many Winchester rifles in the non letterable range are complete fabrications.

  

I too, agree it is disturbing.  I wonder how big the iceberg really is out there?  As most of us noted, this gun looked completely legit.  And in a way, it is legit – no parts have been faked or fabricated.  It is all Winchester.  This iceberg of course is how many rifles like this are out there.  With a rifle like this, it can sit in someone’s collection for years as a pride and joy piece.  Lots of other highly knowledgeable collectors visiting could hold it in their hands and all agree the piece is both wonderful, possibly one of a kind, and right as rain.  And then, someone happens to discover it previously existed in a different configuration.  What do you then?  For me, I’m going to feel a whole lot different about it.  True, the rifle still has a lot going for it.  But I won’t feel the same.  And what do I do with it?  My best guess is it would be resold as a completely original piece.  No, I’m not saying I would resell it as such.  The likely scenario is it would sit in my safe until I expire and my estate would ship it (and others) off to an auction house.  It would arrive there, they would write up a description and it would likely sell for very high dollars.  The auction house wouldn’t detect anything out of place.  This is an example of the many pieces get recirculated.  The auction houses are filled with them.  For me, it serves as a reinforcement to caveat emptor when it comes to pieces not in the letterable range.  As has been suggested here, the practice of swapping parts to upgrade has long been in place and only escalating as more money becomes involved. 

I’m pondering, “caveat emptor” when it comes to this piece.  I don’t know how that would have been helpful for any of us in Henry’s spot.  Sure – look it over very carefully – and it likely would have passed the test for all of us.  It’s not been masterfully refinished.  It’s all Winchester! 

  

This is a prime example of the benefits of those conducting the research surveys.  Look at how many altered1892’s Michael (twobit) has discovered and shared.  Don’t even get him started on model 61’s….Unfortunately for Henry with the case of the two 1894’s involved, neither of the serial numbers were documented in any surveys yet to detect the fraud, but they are now.

Don

I’m getting more and more uncomfortable the more I read these kinds of threads. I just looked and I have 11 1894s outside the letterable range, with 7 of them being take-downs. Takedowns can certainly be mix and matched much easier than solid frames. Of those 11, four are deluxes, and one is even a matted barrel. Makes me wonder what I really have some days.

As for the examples that are put together not matching their original configuration, I agree with what many of you are alluding to. Most of them will never be proven incorrect or even suspected as such unless they are surveyed (twice) or just happen to be a topic on one of these forums. Henrys example really blows my mind that it was just discussed on here a few months ago and is already morphed into something different (better) today. I like assembly numbers, and certainly look at them on everything special order that I own but as TR mentioned the numbers in the wood can be modified fairly easy. Also, on my back in time wish list is – it sure would have been beneficial to have numbers on the takedown extension to match receiver …… and while they were at it, add that number to the barrels too. Ok, back to reality …… we don’t have any of that. Good luck out there, guys. 

Oh, the possibilities they have …. one piece at a time. 

Johnny Cash – One Piece at a Time (Official Audio) – Bing video

Many of the guns that have slivers missing are not from taking them apart but from impact on a very thin part of the wood.  If you grab the stock just behind the tang and wiggle it up and down slightly while pulling straight back they will eventually break loose.  Don’t ever force it and I don’t put pressure on the sides of the inletting.  I’ve never owned a Winchester that I haven’t pulled the stock.  When I can I pull the stock on deluxe guns before I pay big bucks.

Word to the wise…

Given how much these rifles are being monkeyed with, maybe it’s best to present a prospective purchase to forum members BEFORE any money exchanges hands…and we’ll let you know our collective opinion.

Yes, there is always the risk we decide it’s pretty good, and swipe it ourselves, but with the high dollars involved, this is unlikely.  Plus, this “risk” is far lesser than the possibility of being snookered.

I’m amazed at the detective work deerhunter did.  I certainly would have been fooled by this one as well.  But I wouldn’t have been snookered, as the damage to the stock would have scared me away long before reaching for my wallet.  Unless the price was ridiculously low.  In which case the discount for not being original wouldn’t really matter.