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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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