Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Model 1890 restored to look just as it did when it left the factory?
Avatar
rick schreiber
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
March 31, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
March 24, 2016 - 10:08 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I am looking at what otherwise appears to be a beautifully restored Model 1890 in the 621,000 serial number range that is being touted as having been restored to look just like it did when it left the Winchester factory nearly 100 years ago. However, for the reasons noted below, I question whether the restorer has not mis-marked the stamping on its barrel with the consequence that it has not been restored to look just like it did when it left the factory. I would appreciate your input in this regard.

What troubles me is that in, pertinent part, the left flat of this gun’s barrel is marked: “-MOD.1890.-22 SHORT.”  

Reading Ned Schwing’s book at pp. 104-05 and what he describes as the “sixth barrel marking” and depicts as “barrel marking 90-5” that he says appeared on Model 1890s between as early as serial number 430,000 and as late as serial number 690,000, it appears to me that the barrel marking on this restored 1890 is incorrect and not just like when it left the factory.

Based on my reading of Schwing, the barrel marking error appears to be twofold: (1) a period (“.”) should not appear after “1890”; and (2) “-22 SHORT” should not appear immediately after the period, but much further down the barrel close to the receiver.  

Did someone, after going to all the work of restoring the subject 1890, stamp its barrel incorrectly, or am I  just mistaken in my reading of Schwing and the barrel of this gun is correctly marked? Thanks for your expert input.

 

Rick Schreiber

Avatar
rustyjack
So.VT
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 116
Member Since:
July 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
March 25, 2016 - 6:13 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

That barrel marking is correct, but just one of the finer details missed in Ned Schwing’s book. Here it is on rifle serial no. 639066.

before and after.

<img alt="" src="http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee394/Rustyjack52/Before%20and%20after%20third%20model%20restored/DSCF0301_zps1b8b1272.jpg” />

<img alt="" src="http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee394/Rustyjack52/Before%20and%20after%20third%20model%20restored/pix234173855_zpse2773bc7.jpg” />

<img alt="" src="http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee394/Rustyjack52/Before%20and%20after%20third%20model%20restored/DSCF0292_zps6269eb37.jpg” />

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 4623
Currently Online: winchester73, mrcvs, pine_worker, bhutch, TXGunNut, Bill Hanzel, Terry Roepke
Guest(s) 126
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 7119
TXGunNut: 6419
Chuck: 5826
steve004: 5183
1873man: 4701
deerhunter: 2701
Big Larry: 2550
twobit: 2497
mrcvs: 2199
Maverick: 2036
Newest Members:
Habeas
Davecrum65
Janusdbm
AndrewC63
schmoopy
Mpowered94
kalli
JSB
Long Ridge
Harrytheman
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 18
Topics: 14761
Posts: 131967

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2057
Members: 10010
Moderators: 3
Admins: 4
Administrators: Mike Hager, Bert H., JWA, SethJ
Moderators: Rob Kassab, Brad Dunbar, Heather
Navigation