Log In
September 28, 2016
Offline
To bad the original owner-owners couldn’t quite figure out what they wanted for sights. I’m going to guess it sells for slightly north of $800 with all the extra holes included. Anybody else want to speculate?
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/763067892
Erin
March 20, 2009
Offline
Erin Grivicich said
To bad the original owner-owners couldn’t quite figure out what they wanted for sights. I’m going to guess it sells for slightly north of $800 with all the extra holes included. Anybody else want to speculate?
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/763067892
Erin
Erin,
It was in the “acceptable old shooter” category until that pic with the extra hole in the tang popped up! Still pretty cool looking and classy old rifle.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
April 15, 2005
Offline
Erin,
The A5 Telescope & mounts are worth at least $800 all by themself… that would make the rest of the rifle Free. I think $1K would be a reasonable price tag.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said
Erin,
The A5 Telescope & mounts are worth at least $800 all by themself…
Bert, Take a closer look at the junk mounts–they’re the pot-metal mounts first offered on Lyman’s 438 scope. Finding the correct mounts wouldn’t be easy or cheap.
September 28, 2016
Offline
Bert H. said
Erin,
The A5 Telescope & mounts are worth at least $800 all by themself… that would make the rest of the rifle Free. I think $1K would be a reasonable price tag.
Bert
One never knows, I picked up a 52B bull gun last summer with a 12X Unertyl and the additional 6x eyepiece and both front and rear Vaver sights for $1300.
The rifle is not of collector quality, just a shooter but I figured the rifle was free after subtracting the sight package. The rifle has a very heavy duty after market adjustable butt plate that was installed by “Bubba” and the stock was also checkered, a respectable job but not professional. I wanted it just for removing Starlings off the wife’s bird feeder. 
That was my story to her and I’m sticking with it!
Best,
Erin
July 21, 2010
Offline
twobit said
Erin,
It was in the “acceptable old shooter” category until that pic with the extra hole in the tang popped up! Still pretty cool looking and classy old rifle.
Michael
It’s all of that as well as being another late production rifle for the survey.
January 27, 1992
Offline
Found a Model 1890 on an auction awhile back with great sights and reasonably good finish, so I went for it. Not enough time left on the auction to check with Cody. Ended up right at $1,100 which I figured was justified because of the Winchester Vernier tang sight I was after. Imagine my surprise when Cody verified the sights as original to the little W.R.F. Needless to say I was happy to discover a very good bore (not perfect!). It shoots very well and I have abandoned any thoughts of removing the sights! Sooooo…. it’s ok to buy a gun to get the sights or scope or….
September 28, 2016
Offline
Nice clean second model Roger! Congrats. on the nice surprise from Cody.
Best,
Erin
January 26, 2011
Offline
Roger,
That is a fantastic piece. I would have never guessed an 1890 might letter with that set of sights………. wish I had that one.
~Gary~
March 20, 2009
Offline
Super nice find!! Congrats!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
May 24, 2012
Offline
The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver. What interests me at this time would be the distance between centers of the blocks. I have witnessed two or three model 90’s that had a distance of, as I recall, 5 and 3/16ths or 5& 5/16ths instead of the typical 7 and3/16ths, but they had the offset proof mark. Still, the 5 inch measurements matched as I remember and that’s intriguing to me.
James
November 1, 2013
Offline
jwm94 said
The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver.
Well, that’s true, but such a mismatch demonstrates for sure that it’s no factory job! My hunch is that blocks had been previously attached–either for a Win. scope, or some other–but that first scope had been separated from the rifle. Then some later owner found a Win. scope lacking mounts, along with these mounts (which often show up on ebay, shows, etc.) and put this mismatch together. In fact, when Gil Parsons bought out Lyman’s remaining inventory of scope parts in the ’70s, a large quantity of these mounts, out of production for decades, was part of the deal, and for several years afterwards, he sold them cheap.
May 24, 2012
Offline
clarence said
jwm94 said
The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver.Well, that’s true, but such a mismatch demonstrates for sure that it’s no factory job! My hunch is that blocks had been previously attached–either for a Win. scope, or some other–but that first scope had been separated from the rifle. Then some later owner found a Win. scope lacking mounts, along with these mounts (which often show up on ebay, shows, etc.) and put this mismatch together. In fact, when Gil Parsons bought out Lyman’s remaining inventory of scope parts in the ’70s, a large quantity of these mounts, out of production for decades, was part of the deal, and for several years afterwards, he sold them cheap.
Agree with the factory-job bit. I addressed the scope block placement for a specific reason and that is help educate people like us that Winchester might very well have scoped some model 90’s with the five+ inch distance between centers of blocks. This is what I hope is not lost on people that might say, “Hey! Winchester would not have done that,” without at least offering up some testimony to support such a tired old response. That and anyone interested in a rifle with blocks at this distance when all else looks good does not shy away from it buy such a retort.
You might be right in the remainder of your estimation too, but by the same token…the mounts, scope, and DOM of the rifle’s receiver match up extremely well for period purposes.
James
November 1, 2013
Offline
jwm94 said
I addressed the scope block placement for a specific reason and that is help educate people like us that Winchester might very well have scoped some model 90’s with the five+ inch distance between centers of blocks. This is what I hope is not lost on people that might say, “Hey! Winchester would not have done that,”
James
Hey, Winchester would have done anything (within reason!) that a customer asked for & paid for. Nothing magical about the two “official” spacing distances, 7-3/16 & 6 in.–they were used merely for the convenience of calculating point of impact changes at specified distances, using the catalog range chart. Only practical problem arising from a 5″ spacing is that fine changes in POI would be more difficult to make.
I’ve mounted many blocks, mainly on Stevens & other single shots, never giving a hoot about the supposedly “correct” spacing, because the MOST important consideration is avoiding the cardinal sin of defacing factory markings. Winchester brls. are by far the most difficult to mount blocks on because the factory markings are spread out over so much of the top flat; in fact, it’s often impossible. That could have been a reason (and a justifiable one) for the 5″ spacing.
May 24, 2012
Offline
Great info, Clarence! Something that all of us should try to remember.
James
July 17, 2012
Offline
jwm94 said
The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver. What interests me at this time would be the distance between centers of the blocks. I have witnessed two or three model 90’s that had a distance of, as I recall, 5 and 3/16ths or 5& 5/16ths instead of the typical 7 and3/16ths, but they had the offset proof mark. Still, the 5 inch measurements matched as I remember and that’s intriguing to me.James
James,
Many of the Winchester .22 models used a 5+ inch base spacing so it would not be that unusual on a Model 90.
Here is the similar factory base spacing on a few other .22 models;
Model 61 (some) – 5.375″
Model 67 and 677 (some) – 5.33″
Model 74 – 5.50″
Model 75 Sporter (some) – 5.00″
The base spacing was generally dictated by the length of the scope (and eye relief) and the available space around the open sights. Higher power scopes used a wider base spacing. On some rifles an even closer spacing of the blocks was used such as 4.19″ on the Model 72 (with no open sights) and 4.41″ on the Model 63. You will notice the base spacing is somewhat unique to each rifle model so although the distances were dictated by the length of the scope and eye relief, they were adjusted to accommodate the specific rifle. As Clarence suggested, this was likely done to avoid the roll-markings and existing open sights/dovetail. Hope that helps.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
May 24, 2012
Offline
JWA said
jwm94 said
The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver. What interests me at this time would be the distance between centers of the blocks. I have witnessed two or three model 90’s that had a distance of, as I recall, 5 and 3/16ths or 5& 5/16ths instead of the typical 7 and3/16ths, but they had the offset proof mark. Still, the 5 inch measurements matched as I remember and that’s intriguing to me.James
James,
Many of the Winchester .22 models used a 5+ inch base spacing so it would not be that unusual on a Model 90.
Here is the similar factory base spacing on a few other .22 models;
Model 61 (some) – 5.375″
Model 67 and 677 (some) – 5.33″
Model 74 – 5.50″
Model 75 Sporter (some) – 5.00″
The base spacing was generally dictated by the length of the scope (and eye relief) and the available space around the open sights. Higher power scopes used a wider base spacing. On some rifles an even closer spacing of the blocks was used such as 4.19″ on the Model 72 (with no open sights) and 4.41″ on the Model 63. You will notice the base spacing is somewhat unique to each rifle model so although the distances were dictated by the length of the scope and eye relief, they were adjusted to accommodate the specific rifle. As Clarence suggested, this was likely done to avoid the roll-markings and existing open sights/dovetail. Hope that helps.
Best Regards,
Hi Jeff!
I have saved the info in your post since information like this is interesting to lots of people.
I agree with the information you’ve noted about base-spacing, too, and it will greatly help those people that seek out these sort of details and why they exist, to include, help with determining the possibility of originality in a lot of cases. The 7.2 spacing for dope changes in clicks that represent a half or quarter minute change, to POI per hundred yards like Clarence alluded to, will help with determining the possibility of originality in a lot of cases, as will other spacing’s that do not relate to such a doping system based in part on era.
Have a great day!
James
September 28, 2016
Offline
Bert H. said
Erin,
The A5 Telescope & mounts are worth at least $800 all by themself… that would make the rest of the rifle Free. I think $1K would be a reasonable price tag.
Bert
Well, Ya nailed it Bert, it ended up selling for $1050 I didn’t think it would go that high. Ya just never know how much somebody will pay for the “neat” factor. Even with the three extra holes……………
Best,
Erin
November 1, 2013
Offline
Erin Grivicich said
Ya just never know how much somebody will pay for the “neat” factor.
Guess I don’t understand “neat.” A stupidly mismatched scope & mounts, slapped on a messed-up gun? High prices paid for “damaged goods,” or faked items, is not a fluke–it happens ALL the time, if you observe on-line auction results. I’d bet the selling price of this tarted-up gun that the buyer has never owned or even seen a correct Winchester scope.
1 Guest(s)
