Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Finally bit the bullet and got myself a Christmas present for a year of WACA! Been lurking a while, but now would like to do some research and deep dives.
I’m a newbie to collecting, if you can call it that. As a single father with two kids (in braces right now) budget is always a little tight.
My first rifle in 1986 was a very late (serial #828,XXX) Model 06. My dad bought the 06 and an 1890 in Long for my brother from a pawnshop in Castro Valley, CA in the late 60’s. We still have both of them.
I have an 1885 Low Wall in 22 Long on it’s way (should be here late next week for a better look.) I’ve attached a few photos and was hoping someone can tell me a bit more about it. Once it’s in my hands I’ll send in for the Cody letter (I have two more serials that I’d like to search as well.) I do believe it’s a #1 barrel (marked right before the forend bottom of barrel?) Otherwise it seems pretty basic.
The condition is pretty rough, and that’s ok, it’s the only way I can ever hope to have something so nice (once I’m done.) But it doesn’t look like anyone has ever touched the screws, or at least they’re not buggered up at all. The bore is supposed to be “excellent shape” but I’m not expecting that. I’m fairly sure this was orignally CCH reciever (if they followed the same schedule as the 1890s? – I do have Schwing’s books) but wanted to confirm. Some CCH is still barely noticeable on the breech block.
Like I said, it’s a little rough and likely has little to zero collector value, but I’d like to turn this into a shooter that I can enjoy shooting and make it a beautiful piece to look at. I will likely reline the barrel and chamber to 22LR (going to try and stop just short of the muzzle to preserve the look this time.) I will rust blue the barrel and likely send the receiver off to CCH but I’ll do all the prep work myself. (Or I would caustic blue or rust blue the receiver if that’s period correct.)
I know this isn’t a “collector” type of thing (I understand that original rifles are worth many times more than any rifle that’s been “refinished”), and if I had the beautiful specimens (and bank account, lol) that I see here I wouldn’t touch them either! This is just the only way I can have (what I think) is a really nice rifle that’s, IMHO, better than a new Miroku 1885, and attainable dollar-wise. Plus, I absolultely love to tinker and I’ve built quite the little shop in my garage, this is absolutely a project for me to enjoy the process. I’ve attached an 1890 I put together for an idea of what I like.
Also, what would be the period correct Lyman peep sight for this? (I’ve just ordered “Old Gunsights” for future reference.) I have an extra “WS” marked sight but wasn’t sure of compatibility.
Is there a reference book for the 1885’s like Schwing’s books for the 1890/1906s?
Serial # is 71,2** if that helps. That puts it at 1895 according to the site here. (Is it ok to list serials? I see this argued both ways. I’ll remove it if it’s a risk for me at all, or share it all if it’s not an issue.)
Thanks in advance and glad to be here to learn as much as I can.
Online
Welcome to WACA!
I think you will find a great bunch of people here, willing to share their knowledge most generously.
As far as books on the 1885, John Campbell has written two of them. Here is a link to the second of the two. They contain some very good information.
As far as restoring old beaters, you will find some here who hate the idea, and others who love it. To each his own. I have taken that route on a couple of basket-case Winchester rifles that would have only had value as a parts gun to purists, but they turned out to be breathtaking when restored. I will never try to pass them off as original, and meanwhile I derive plenty of joy in having them in my collection. Like you, that is about the only way I could have afforded something so nice.
I hope you will keep us all posted on the progress of your project. Again, welcome to WACA!
All the best—
BRP
November 7, 2015
Offline
Welcome to the asylum, Brian. I’m glad you could join us. You brought back some memories for me, I remember when Longs were cheaper than Long Rifle ammo at the local White’s Auto; fifty cents a box. I hope you still have a brick or two, they’ve gone up a bit. I like your Single Shot, hope you get the sight thing sorted out. Looks like fun!
Mike
‘
We highly encourage posting complete serial numbers, as they allow us to more accurately assess and comment on the Winchesters in question.
Single Shot s/n 71292 was manufactured in July 1895, but it was not received in the warehouse as a completely assembled ready to sell rifle until January 21, 1898. The factory records list it as a Plain Sporting Rifle, 22 Long, 26″ No. 1 octagon barrel, plain trigger.
Now, having stated that, the barrel that is currently on the rifle is not factory original. The patent markings on the barrel identify it as originally manufactured for a post-1907 production Take Down rifle. The receiver frame, lever, hammer, breech block, and butt plate were all originally case color finished. Only the barrel was rust blued.
Because the barrel is a fair bit newer than the rest of the rifle, it may indeed have a very good condition bore (not in need of relining).
The correct Lyman tang sight for a .22 rim fire Single Shot rifle has an “SB” application code. That stated, a “WS” coded sight will work perfectly fine.
What is the complete serial number on your Model 06 rifle?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
BRP – Thanks for the link! I’ll pick up those books, I’m a gen x’r so I do still appreciate physcial media. I
It’s good to see others who enjoy the same “pathway” to getting beautiful rifles. I’d love to see some of your rifles. I’ll never be as good as the Turnbull’s for example, but I’ve done about 5 rilfes now (not all Winchesters) and my last one I’m very proud of. To call myself a perfectionist would be an understatement. I resorted to making my own forearms for my 90/06 because the ones available via the “usual” places were just really bad and painfully obvious they weren’t clones even at a glance. (they don’t cut the grooves the correct width for example.) These are all for my own collection and if I ever did sell them I’m always very upfront about them not be original – it’s really frustrating that so many fakes now exist. I completely understand those who don’t like the idea of refinishing – but I promise I’m not starting with any gems, lol.
Mike – Fortunately I do have about 1,200 rounds of 22 Long – I remember buying boxes for $0.99 at the Yellow Front in my small town in SE AZ. I remember I was the only one in my group of friends who had a rifle (my Model 06) that would chamber all three types of them as my friends had 10/22s (and at the time I was so jealous of them, hah!) Luckily my local Scheels seems to have 22 Long in stock quite a bit at reasonable prices. So each time I make the trip I pick up a couple of them. I have both the CB Longs as well as the Targets.
Bert – I was really hoping you’d chime in. And you did not disappoint!!! Thank you for providing that info, it’s much of the fun – finding out a bit of its history. I completely missed the barrel markings vs serial dates (and feel less guilty for “molesting” the rifle, lol.) I’d love to find out how that rebarrel came about and why (worn out I’m guessing?) – no “P” marking so I’m guessing it was just a local gunsmith swapping parts? Who knows….. I’ve almost committed to memory the different 1890 barrel markings (from Schwings book) to make sure the 1890s I buy are “correct” but don’t know much about the 1885’s. I really need the books before making any other purchases.
That’s great to hear the barrel may be in legitimate good shape as described. I’ve got a borescope so I’ll be able to take a good look.
So the take-downs had different barrel markings? Or is it that post 1907 they were only made as take-downs? Curious how you know it’s a from a take-down vs non. And thanks again for all the info.
My Model 06 serial # is 826,091. How are you able to look them up? I’m planning to get at least two Cody Letters but wanted to wait until it made sense ($) to buy the membership.
Thanks again guys – really looking forward to learning as much as I can. I’ll keep you updated as I make progress.
azscooby said
Bert – I was really hoping you’d chime in. And you did not disappoint!!! Thank you for providing that info, it’s much of the fun – finding out a bit of its history. I completely missed the barrel markings vs serial dates (and feel less guilty for “molesting” the rifle, lol.) I’d love to find out how that rebarrel came about and why (worn out I’m guessing?) – no “P” marking so I’m guessing it was just a local gunsmith swapping parts? Who knows….. I’ve almost committed to memory the different 1890 barrel markings (from Schwings book) to make sure the 1890s I buy are “correct” but don’t know much about the 1885’s. I really need the books before making any other purchases.
That’s great to hear the barrel may be in legitimate good shape as described. I’ve got a borescope so I’ll be able to take a good look.
So the take-downs had different barrel markings? Or is it that post 1907 they were only made as take-downs? Curious how you know it’s a from a take-down vs non. And thanks again for all the info.
My Model 06 serial # is 826,091. How are you able to look them up? I’m planning to get at least two Cody Letters but wanted to wait until it made sense ($) to buy the membership.
Thanks again guys – really looking forward to learning as much as I can. I’ll keep you updated as I make progress.
Yes, the Take Down Single Shot barrels had a different marking. Specifically, the “MAY 28. 07.” patent date was only applied to the Take Down barrels. The solid frame rifles were marked as shown in the attached picture.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
azscooby said
My Model 06 serial # is 826,091. How are you able to look them up? I’m planning to get at least two Cody Letters but wanted to wait until it made sense ($) to buy the membership.
As good as Ned Schwing was, he somehow missed the late production Polishing Room serialization records for the Models 90 and 06 rifles. Per those records, s/n 826091 was manufactured on September 10th, 1930. I have an article ready to be published in the near future that discusses the late production Model 90 and 06 rifles. As a WACA member, you will receive a copy of it sometime in the new year.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert – that’s an interesting detail on the patent and I’m assuming the patent for 1907 was specifically for the “takedown” mechanism vs the 1879 patent from the original – ?
How are you able to get the serial # info? Is that due to your position here/Cody? Or is this something I can do myself? (I don’t want to ask for more info on my other 1890s/1906’s if this is something I can do. I also don’t want anyone to feel obligated to research on my behalf.)
I know that one of my 1890’s (and incoming 1885) should have letters, but my other 1890/1906s look to be SNA only. I plan to get the Cody letters for the ones that I can. Not sure if it’s worth it for just the SNA….?
azscooby said
Bert – that’s an interesting detail on the patent and I’m assuming the patent for 1907 was specifically for the “takedown” mechanism vs the 1879 patent from the original – ?How are you able to get the serial # info? Is that due to your position here/Cody? Or is this something I can do myself? (I don’t want to ask for more info on my other 1890s/1906’s if this is something I can do. I also don’t want anyone to feel obligated to research on my behalf.)
I know that one of my 1890’s (and incoming 1885) should have letters, but my other 1890/1906s look to be SNA only. I plan to get the Cody letters for the ones that I can. Not sure if it’s worth it for just the SNA….?
Yes, the May 1907 patent date is specific to the Take Down mechanism only.
Many years ago (nearly 20-years ago), I spent a considerable amount of time volunteering at the CFM records office for several years. During that time, I did a lot of digging through the available records (including the PR records). During one of my trips, I documented the month ending serial numbers for all of the models that the CFM had records for, and I noted that the records matched the information that Ned Schwing (and a few other authors) used in their respective reference books. I also realized that there were more records for the Model 90 that Ned did not find or include in his book covering the Model 1890 and 1906. With David Kennedy’s permission, I printed copies of the PR records for the late production serial numbers, and then later converted them to table form in an Excel spreadsheet. In my position as the WACA Historian, I provide whatever information I can as each question arises. I use that information and the data I collect in my research surveys to write the articles that appear in the Winchester Collector magazine.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
