Tony. R said
Bert H. said
I am of the belief that the barrel was ordered and replaced by somebody other than Winchester.
Bert
Bert, is the replacement barrel within the accepted range of the serial number or well out of sequence .379614A
The serial number identifies it as a June 1908 production rifle. Winchester did not begin manufacturing Model 1890 rifles in 22 Long Rifle until late 1918. So No, the barrel is not in the accepted range for the serial number. There is a strong possibility that the barrel on that rifle has a 2-digit year number stamped on the bottom of it… that would give you an idea of when it was installed.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Tony,
I am in disagreement with my esteemed colleagues.
Your rifle is chambered in .22 Long, not Long Rifle as Bert suggested.
Also, it has a Winchester Proof “WP” in front of the mail order “P” marking on the barrel indicating it was test fired. While many may disagree, I believe this proof test firing and subsequent WP in an oval proof mark was performed AT THE FACTORY. When Winchester replaced barrels on some of the .22 models they sometimes simply pulled a “mail order” marked barrel from stock if there were none for that model or chambering in current production. These were installed and then proof-fired and proof-stamped (in front of the mail order “P”) per the normal protocol.
I can’t quite make out the proof mark either, but it looks like an English (London) “Final Proof” as used from 1868-1925. There should also have been proofs on the side of the barrel near the receiver but those would have been lost when the barrel was replaced, leaving the single final proof on the receiver.
It also appears as if there is a small proof mark on top of the bolt on the front left which would also be in accordance with English proofing procedures.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Also, it has a Winchester Proof “WP” in front of the mail order “P” marking indicating it was test fired. While many may disagree, I believe this test firing and subsequent WP in an oval proof mark was performed AT THE FACTORY. When Winchester replaced barrels on some of the .22 models they sometimes simply pulled a “mail order” marked barrel from stock if there were none in current production. These were installed and then proof-fired and proof-stamped (in front of the mail order “P” per the normal protocol.
Makes sense, but would anyone overseas return gun to factory to be re-barreled if a mail-order brl was available locally? Maybe work was done before gun reached Australia.
Since the rifle is missing the English proof marks on the barrel the replacement was done after it was proofed in England but probably before it went to Australia but we will never know for sure.
I can give you an example of the wanderings of a .22 rifle. Many personal rifles were “donated” to the British by Americans during WWII (a famous one being Major Hession’s Match rifle). In some cases they were English proofed before being placed into UK service. At the end of the war a few rifles were returned to the U.S. (not many but a couple). The owner may then have had the rifle returned to Winchester to be “refreshed” and then subsequently taken to Australia where it remained. I am not implying that is what occurred since the English proof is pre-1926 but is certainly one, of several, plausible explanations for the travels and refurbishment of a rifle. For more info on the donation of rifles to the British refer to Malcom Atkin’s excellent book “To the Last Man”.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Thanks JW, This makes sence. i took some better picks, also picks of my english proof 1906, which shows the stamps on both sides of the barrel, and the 1890 is missing the barrel proofs, the 90 does have the same stamp as the (the Lion on top) but a little different below the Lion, I remember reading some where it was Australia that insisted on the 22s being proofed, am I correct
Also because it is 22 long and not long rifle where does it put the barrel in relation to the serial number, as Bert missed it being a 22 Long
Hi Tony,
Your rifle would have originally had the the ’06 patent date at the end of the line, like so;
MANUFACTURED BY THE WINCHESTER REPEATING ARMS CO.
NEW HAVEN. CONN. U.S.A. PAT.JUNE 26.88.DEC.6.92.NOV.27.06
Ned Schwing calls that a type “90-4”. Your replacement barrel is a type 90-5 which was used approximately from serial numbers 430,000-690,000 so it is later than your rifle. Also, the “mail order” “P” in a circle marking was not instituted until 1913 so your barrel was replaced after that date.
Yes, it was Australia that required proofs however after some back and forth correspondence, they accepted the Winchester Definitive Proof “WP” in an oval with no additional proof testing required if it had the WP so the English proof is superfluous.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Hi Tony,Your rifle would have originally had the the ’06 patent date at the end of the line, like so;
MANUFACTURED BY THE WINCHESTER REPEATING ARMS CO.
NEW HAVEN. CONN. U.S.A. PAT.JUNE 26.88.DEC.6.92.NOV.27.06
Ned Schwing calls that a type “90-4”. Your replacement barrel is a type 90-5 which was used approximately from serial numbers 430,000-690,000 so it is later than your rifle.
Yes, it was Australia that required proofs however after some back and forth correspondence, they accepted the Winchester Definitive Proof “WP” in an oval with no additional proof testing required if it had the WP so the English proof is superfluous.
Also, the “mail order” “P” in a circle marking was not instituted until 1913 so your barrel was replaced after that date.
Best Regards,
Thanks great thanks very much. Tony
Cheers, always happy to help!
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Since the rifle is missing the English proof marks on the barrel the replacement was done after it was proofed in England but probably before it went to Australia but we will never know for sure.I can give you an example of the wanderings of a .22 rifle. Many personal rifles were “donated” to the British by Americans during WWII (a famous one being Major Hession’s Match rifle). In some cases they were English proofed before being placed into UK service. At the end of the war a few rifles were returned to the U.S. (not many but a couple). The owner may then have had the rifle returned to Winchester to be “refreshed” and then subsequently taken to Australia where it remained. I am not implying that is what occurred since the English proof is pre-1926 but is certainly one, of several, plausible explanations for the travels and refurbishment of a rifle. For more info on the donation of rifles to the British refer to Malcom Atkin’s excellent book “To the Last Man”.
Best Regards,
My friend in Alabama has Hessions 1903. Got it from Col. Brophy before he died. It is fully documented. Big Larry
Big Larry said My friend in Alabama has Hessions 1903. Got it from Col. Brophy before he died. It is fully documented. Big Larry
That is AWESOME, I am a big Hession fan, in addition to being a world class rifleman, he did a LOT for marksmanship training in the U.S. and then went on to represent Winchester.
You will be happy to know there is mention of him in the upcoming book on the Model 75 and, I have a crate of Winchester Match ammo that was delivered to him pre-WWII at Camp Perry.
I think we all have the same heroes….
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Tony,I am in disagreement with my esteemed colleagues.
Your rifle is chambered in .22 Long, not Long Rifle as Bert suggested.
Also, it has a Winchester Proof “WP” in front of the mail order “P” marking on the barrel indicating it was test fired. While many may disagree, I believe this proof test firing and subsequent WP in an oval proof mark was performed AT THE FACTORY. When Winchester replaced barrels on some of the .22 models they sometimes simply pulled a “mail order” marked barrel from stock if there were none for that model or chambering in current production. These were installed and then proof-fired and proof-stamped (in front of the mail order “P”) per the normal protocol.
I can’t quite make out the proof mark either, but it looks like an English (London) “Final Proof” as used from 1868-1925. There should also have been proofs on the side of the barrel near the receiver but those would have been lost when the barrel was replaced, leaving the single final proof on the receiver.
It also appears as if there is a small proof mark on top of the bolt on the front left which would also be in accordance with English proofing procedures.
Best Regards,
Thanks for your insight, JW. so if im reading this right, the gun left the factory in ? chambering, went to Pommy Land, found its way back to the US, back to the factory sometime after 1913, because of the (P), rechambered in 22 long shipped out to customer ? and some how found its way to OZ
makes sence to me.
tony
JWA said
rechambered in 22 long shipped out to customer ? Tony. R said
No reason to think Long wasn’t original chambering, as changing to anything else required changing or modifying lifter. Will LR rounds cycle through the action? I was delighted to find one I once had marked Long would do so. Requires only a little filing work on lifter to permit this, as Long chambers usually accept LR rounds.
clarence said
JWA said
rechambered in 22 long shipped out to customer ? Tony. R said
No reason to think Long wasn’t original chambering, as changing to anything else required changing or modifying lifter. Will LR rounds cycle through the action? I was delighted to find one I once had marked Long would do so. Requires only a little filing work on lifter to permit this, as Long chambers usually accept LR rounds.
No Long Rifle wont chamber just a tad to short for the end of the bullet to lift up into the chamber
1 Guest(s)
