Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
Newbie looking for help with Model 61 Routledge
November 29, 2018
7:40 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
November 29, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I have recently acquired a Model 61 with what appears to be a Routledge smooth bore barrel. The serial number concerns me being that it is outside the range that I was under the impression that they were made between. Serial number 78186. Are there any tell tell signs to know for sure if it is original or has been rebarreld

November 30, 2018
2:45 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 122
Member Since:
December 14, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How big (diameter) is the muzzle end of the counter-bore? How deep from the muzzle end is the counter-bore? Is your receiver matted? Is the loading port triangular of normal? If possible, post some pictures.

November 30, 2018
5:21 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2200
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

benji@dnrarms.com said
I have recently acquired a Model 61 with what appears to be a Routledge smooth bore barrel. The serial number concerns me being that it is outside the range that I was under the impression that they were made between. Serial number 78186. Are there any tell tell signs to know for sure if it is original or has been rebarreld  

Hello,

You may have good reason to be concerned.  That SN is in the middle of a large batch of standard Short, Long, LR Model 61's.  Please do post photos or send them to me at 2bitrifles@gmail.com  

Renegade,  did you get my PM from a couple days ago?

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

November 30, 2018
6:08 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 122
Member Since:
December 14, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm wondering if he is using the term "Routledge" synonymous for smoothbore? His pictures will tell. I also have a smoothbore (not Routledge)  in that serial number range that was advertised as S,L, LR at auction by mistake, felt slightly guilty telling them they hadn't done their homework after I had successfully got it in my hands. Pictures told a different story.

December 2, 2018
3:41 am
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
November 29, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sorry for the delayed response. I am out of town but will post some pics when I return.

December 5, 2018
12:25 am
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
November 29, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This forum will not allow me to post pics but I have emailed some to Michael for review.

December 5, 2018
1:22 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2200
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here are the photos of the subject rifle.  It looks real to me.

barrel.jpgImage EnlargerLOAD.jpgImage Enlargerproofs.jpgImage Enlargerreceiver.jpgImage Enlargershort.jpgImage EnlargerSN.jpgImage Enlarger

Michael

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

December 5, 2018
9:53 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 122
Member Since:
December 14, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

twobit said
Here are the photos of the subject rifle.  It looks real to me.

barrel.jpgImage EnlargerLOAD.jpgImage Enlargerproofs.jpgImage Enlargerreceiver.jpgImage Enlargershort.jpgImage EnlargerSN.jpgImage Enlarger

Michael  

I have several concerns. It appears the Serial Number is #48160, NOT the #78186 as stated by the OP. #48160 would fall in the acceptable range. Secondly, we have to assume that the muzzle end has a #81 shotgun post bead sight (not shown), and thirdly, this sample does NOT have a "triangular" loading port that is present on a true Routledge. Lastly, the barrel proof stamp looks odd or off to me. I believe he has a true receiver, but possibly re-barreled, or at a minimum, a substitute ammo tube and loading port.

My 2 cents worth. Thanks for sharing the pictures.

December 5, 2018
10:19 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2200
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here are a few additional pics from the OP.   The receiver and barrel seem to have the same approximate wear on the them.  But the magazine tube is slightly better than either.

M

unnamed-1.jpgImage Enlargerunnamed-2-1.jpgImage Enlargerunnamed-3-1.jpgImage Enlargerunnamed-4.jpgImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

December 6, 2018
12:32 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 261
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is another case where forensically examination of PW proofs on the barrel/receiver could really help, to see if they are identical.

December 7, 2018
6:47 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 659
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

renegade and CJS57

You and CJS57 bring up an interesting point in reference to proof marks.  It's my understanding that each proof mark stamp is going to be somewhat different than the next, based on Schwing's information.  Is Schwing correct?  It is also my understanding that the barrels are proof marked prior to polishing and being sent to be blued, later assembled and sent to a test firing range, and once the firing is complete the receiver would be stamped with the proof mark.  What am I missing here, as I expect there to be some minute difference between each proof stamp and for more than one department to be involved with applying it?  

James

December 7, 2018
8:44 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 8730
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Based on every piece of information I have found thus far, Winchester did not apply the proof marks until after the rifle was fully assembled and test fired with the definitive proof load. The barrels and receivers finished (polished & blued) before final assembly.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

December 8, 2018
12:15 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 659
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert H. said
Based on every piece of information I have found thus far, Winchester did not apply the proof marks until after the rifle was fully assembled and test fired with the definitive proof load. The barrels and receivers finished (polished & blued) before final assembly.
Bert  

Thanks for the information, Bert.   However, I have no doubt that Schwing is correct in his statements regarding the 1890, in that the proof mark on the barrel of this model was applied before the barrel was polished and blued, while the one on the receiver was stamped after bluing creating the typical halo from the loss of bluing.  The same halo very often seen on other models like the 94.  Right?

James

December 8, 2018
1:05 am
Avatar
Location: 32000' +
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1131
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

James,

I have to agree with Bert, ALL of the documentation very clearly defines the test firing and proof firing and subsequent stamping of the firearm and the proof marks were applied to the assembled gun after the successful test firing.  That is the whole point of the definitive proof mark.

Additionally, the proof marks almost always have a raised ridge of displaced metal that would not be there if they were polished after they were stamped.

What page number are you referring to in Schwing so I can go find it and we can compare notes?

Best Regards,

WACA Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire

December 8, 2018
2:01 am
Avatar
Troutdale, OR
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 698
Member Since:
June 26, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The Summer 2018 Collector magazine has a great article covering this subject:

http://winchestercollector.org/magazines/201806/18/index.html

December 8, 2018
2:46 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 659
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

JWA said
James,

I have to agree with Bert, ALL of the documentation very clearly defines the test firing and proof firing and subsequent stamping of the firearm and the proof marks were applied to the assembled gun after the successful test firing.  That is the whole point of the definitive proof mark.

Additionally, the proof marks almost always have a raised ridge of displaced metal that would not be there is they were polished after they were stamped.

What page number are you referring to in Schwing so I can go find it and we can compare notes?

Best Regards,  

Hi JW,

During our one meeting together in Cody this is one of the many interesting things that came up.  I later sent you the reference or references via email as I recall, and the subject went by the wayside.  No big deal, but i's good that we have the opportunity to discuss this matter once again.  The important thing is to present statements of fact made by reliable sources, referencing those same citations.  In doing so we might learn the truth of the matter.  

Before I list certain references to this end, I'd like to hear what you and Bert have to say about what causes the halo, or loss of blue, on the receiver proof marks on the Model 1890 and some other models.  So, if each of you would please give me your take on this subject, it would not only be appreciated, but no doubt, educational.

Also, I am familiar with the raised metal around the proof marks.  As I recall the raised edge on the barrel marks of the 90 are not that pronounced, but I'd have to go to the back of the safe to conduct inspections on them to give a more detailed review.

On page 80 of Schwing's book on the 1890, he begins to discuss barrel making.  He explains on this page that the usual practice was to lock the barrel to a firing table and subject it to a powder charge twice as great as the normal load.  The same test was repeated after the barrel was rifled.  Does this sound as if these testings on the barrel alone were sufficient to deserve the Definitive Proof Mark?  I'd say yes it does.  After these tests and some other work, the barrels were polished and wiped clean, and the roll die inscription was added.  They were then sent to be rust blued, followed by more polishing, pg 81.  Point to be made here:  The roll die markings, as well as the caliber stampings on a model 90 are smooth...and not raised like the are on some models.  Like I said...the proof mark stamp on the barrels are rather smooth.  On page 54 is a prime example of what the typical proof marks look like on the 90...loss of bluing on the one on the receiver.  In the caption for this excellent picture, it reads, "A close up view of the hand-stamped Winchester Proof Marks.  Notice that the proof mark stamped on the receiver has lost some of its blue.  This is not an unusual occurrence due to the fact that the receiver was stamped after it was blued, causing some of the blue to flake.  The proof mark on the barrel was stamped before the barrel was blued giving  a more uniform appearance.

On page 36 of Schwing's book on the Model 61, he explains that, "The same careful steps that were used in producing the Model 1890 barrels were utilized on the model 61."  On page 56 in reference to the proof mark, "This proof mark was hand-stamped on the top of the barrel, before the barrel was blued."  

There you go, Jeff.  You and Bert let me know what specific references you have that state the proof marks on the barrel and the receiver was applied "after the rifles were blued and assembled".

I have no doubt tht I could also come up with other references that support Schwing's view as well, but I'm here to learn from you and Bert.

James

December 8, 2018
4:16 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 8730
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

James,

I am going to address just this comment of yours;

"On page 80 of Schwing's book on the 1890, he begins to discuss barrel making. He explains on this page that the usual practice was to lock the barrel to a firing table and subject it to a powder charge twice as great as the normal load. The same test was repeated after the barrel was rifled. Does this sound as if these testings on the barrel alone were sufficient to deserve the Definitive Proof Mark?"

The answer is a No, it was/is not. The testing procedure you refer to in Schwing's book is the procedure Winchester used (and clearly described in their literature) for the "VP" (Violent Proof) mark found on the bottom of the barrel. It has nothing to do with the Definitive Proof Mark that was first used in 1908 for the Model 1890. The Definitive Proof mark "WP" in an oval was in most cases a 130% proof load fired through the completely assembled rifle after final assembly.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

December 8, 2018
6:21 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 659
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert H. said
James,
I am going to address just this comment of yours;
"On page 80 of Schwing's book on the 1890, he begins to discuss barrel making. He explains on this page that the usual practice was to lock the barrel to a firing table and subject it to a powder charge twice as great as the normal load. The same test was repeated after the barrel was rifled. Does this sound as if these testings on the barrel alone were sufficient to deserve the Definitive Proof Mark?"
The answer is a No, it was/is not. The testing procedure you refer to in Schwing's book is the procedure Winchester used (and clearly described in their literature) for the "VP" (Violent Proof) mark found on the bottom of the barrel. It has nothing to do with the Definitive Proof Mark that was first used in 1908 for the Model 1890. The Definitive Proof mark "WP" in an oval was in most cases a 130% proof load fired through the completely assembled rifle after final assembly.
Bert  

Okay, Bert, I'm good with that as an answer to this point in time, but I have other questions that stem from your answer here and some of Schwing's information.  Maybe you can answer the ones that your answer regarding the violent proof brought to mind for me, first:  

Question:  What does the Definitive Proof Mark on the barrel signify?

Question:  What does the Definitive Proof Mark on the receiver signify?

James

 

  

December 8, 2018
1:17 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 261
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

As well as looking at written records of manufacturing sequences one can also just look at the guns themselves. Use a jewelers loop on Winchester receiver PW proofs from all era's and you will find raised edges on the proofs proving they were struck after bluing not before.

December 8, 2018
3:34 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 8730
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

jwm94 said

Okay, Bert, I'm good with that as an answer to this point in time, but I have other questions that stem from your answer here and some of Schwing's information.  Maybe you can answer the ones that your answer regarding the violent proof brought to mind for me, first:  

Question:  What does the Definitive Proof Mark on the barrel signify?

Question:  What does the Definitive Proof Mark on the receiver signify?

James    

The answer to both questions is identical... the firearm in question passed visual inspection after firing the designated proof load (in most cases, a 130% load).  The inspector struck both proof marks on the rifle immediately following his inspection.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: XLIV, Gregory, cranky2, Big Mac
60 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 15

Topics: 5534

Posts: 44190


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 711

Members: 7866

Moderators: 3

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 3597

twobit: 2200

win38-55: 1923

TXGunNut: 1792

Maverick: 1311

Big Larry: 1216

Wincacher: 1179

JWA: 1131

Brad Dunbar: 1018

Matt74: 834

Navigation