Log In
July 9, 2011
Offline
Very questionable tang marking and serial number. Anomaly or faked? I’m not sure it’s even a real pistol grip tang.
November 1, 2013
Offline
Looks right to me. Won’t sell cheap.
April 15, 2005
Online
rustyjack said
Very questionable tang marking and serial number. Anomaly or faked? I’m not sure it’s even a real pistol grip tang.https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/995848479
I agree.
The upper tang marking is definitely not correct for the serial number. The barrel marking is correct though. Winchester stopped marking the upper tang with the Model designation relatively early in the production run, and never marked the tang “1890” while marking the barrel “90”.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
Was this gun in Cody? LS&B was there.
I looked at the antique 1897 they had. The wood was from a checkered gun and not original to this gun.
September 21, 2016
Offline
How about the hammer checkering pattern…? I’m away from my schwing book, but wonder if this style is correct for the serial number range.
I do like the condition of this one and have always had an appreciation for wear from use, as long as the rifle is “correct”.
November 1, 2013
Offline
jsgwoodsman said
I do like the condition of this one and have always had an appreciation for wear from use, as long as the rifle is “correct”.
I love the cond, & doesn’t bother me in the least if brl has been replaced, as most ’90s shot with corrosive ammo ended up with sewer bores. And I’d rather have a replacement LR brl than an original Short or Long unless the gun was in “too good to shoot” cond, in which case I’d have NO use for it whatever. If the present brl was made by WRA, that’s “correct” enough for me.
September 21, 2016
Offline
clarence said
I love the cond, & doesn’t bother me in the least if brl has been replaced, as most ’90s shot with corrosive ammo ended up with sewer bores. And I’d rather have a replacement LR brl than an original Short or Long unless the gun was in “too good to shoot” cond, in which case I’d have NO use for it whatever. If the present brl was made by WRA, that’s “correct” enough for me.
I couldn’t agree more!
I have one high condition 1890 deluxe, but the others are of various stages of wear and tear:
April 15, 2005
Online
jsgwoodsman said
How about the hammer checkering pattern…? I’m away from my schwing book, but wonder if this style is correct for the serial number range.
I do like the condition of this one and have always had an appreciation for wear from use, as long as the rifle is “correct”.
It appears to be the correct hammer knurling type based on the serial number (which indicates a March 1923 manufacture date). Everything on that rifle appears to be correct for the date of manufacture except the upper tang marking. The Winchester address and caliber marking on the barrel match the serial number, and the rest of the rifle looks correct.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 1, 2013
Offline
jsgwoodsman said
I couldn’t agree more!
I have one high condition 1890 deluxe, but the others are of various stages of wear and tear:
FOUR of them! Holy Smoke!
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said Everything on that rifle appears to be correct for the date of manufacture except the upper tang marking. The Winchester address and caliber marking on the barrel match the serial number, and the rest of the rifle looks correct.
We all know the factory never scrapped any potentially usable part, even if obsolete. Who’s to say this trigger guard wasn’t dug out of the bottom of the parts bin & mated with the newer brl?
1 Guest(s)
