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
Newbie looking for help with Model 61 Routledge
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
21
December 8, 2018 - 9:20 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert, CJS57,

You guys have had me working!  Be back after Army-Navy game!

James

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
22
December 9, 2018 - 12:17 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert H. said

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  

Bert,

Thank you for clarifying your answer about the definitive Proof Mark. Winchester records taken from a 1904 testing catalog noted in Schwing’s book describes the firing of the assembled rifles as, “The finished Winchester gun is fired six to ten times in testing the action.  For this purpose a suitable room connected with our assembling room is provided, where the guns may be fired in the hands of skillful men.  In this room the guns have a special action bursting test.  The bullets and shot are caught in a sand target, and the smoke removed by air blast.  This work furnishes employment to five men.”

Your latter statement that “The inspector struck both proof marks on the rifle immediately following his inspection.” is exactly the type of statement that I cannot find in Schwing’s book, nor do I recall seeing such proof anywhere else.   Please identify the Winchester catalog for me so that I might purchase a copy…that is unless you, Jeff, or anyone else would be kind enough to “quote” this information from your copy(ies) in this forum for my benefit and, perhaps, the benefit of someone else.  Thank you.

Thanks for bearing with me on this issue.  It seems as if you and Jeff and, no doubt other members here are apparently in disagreement with Schwing and his belief as to when the definitive Proof Marks were stamped on the barrel and receiver of the 1890, for one…and I am attempting to get there, however, I had always believed that Schwing was correct on these issues.  His book is after all, supposedly, the Bible for slide action Winchesters.  Again, each of you bear with me as I am attempting to get where you folks are already at.

James

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10725
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
23
December 9, 2018 - 2:01 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

James,

If you read the article in the WACA Collector magazine written by Dan Shuey (Don provided the link to it earlier in this topic string), I am positive most if not all of your questions regarding the various Winchester proof methods and markings will be answered. And Yes, I do not agree with everything Ned Schwing wrote in his otherwise superb books on the Winchester .22 caliber Slide-action rifles. The vast majority of his work is truly excellent, but there are a few areas (this topic being one of them) that he did not get quite right. Dan Shuey’s research on this very topic is absolutely top-notch!

Bert

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

Avatar
Location: 32000' +
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 2110
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
24
December 9, 2018 - 2:10 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I also highly recommend reading Dan’s work in the WACA Summer 2018 issue on the proofing and marking process.  He already references all the Winchester documentation and internal procedures I was going to dig out for you.

Also, keep in mind that in most cases the proof on the barrel and receiver are in alignment and if the mark is skewed it is skewed similarly on both components.  That alone should be a hint that WP was stamped at the same time on both components.

I spot-checked a dozen 1890’s today that I could lay my hands on and all of the ones that had proof marks had displaced metal surrounding the mark.

Best Regards,

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

http://rimfirepublications.com/  

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
25
December 9, 2018 - 3:25 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

CJS57, Bert, and JWA,

Thanks for the notes.

CJS57 and JWA…I have two high condition 90’s that have proof marks on them, and they are all original. Bert viewed a lot of pictures of one of them about 10 years ago on ATE at GB…and had nothing but good to say about it. It’s an extremely nice piece. I have another all original 90 in LR that is in VG+ condition with high quality bluing as well. The barrel proof marks on these two have somewhat less pronounced ridges and sharp edges on them as compared to the PMs on the receivers. This is unlike the typical PMs on the 94’s, 64’s, etc., where the marks are very similar in this respect. So, what was it that created this slightly noticeable difference – it is there, and it’s likely to be there on most all 90’s in high condition? It wasn’t wear that caused it, and they are not restored. It might have to do with the quality of manufacturing that the 1890/90’s received as compared to most other models. Anyway, it’s clear that you and other members believe Schwing to be wrong about his statements to this end, and I am looking forward to learning more about Dan’s article.

Jeff, I agree with what you say about the angle of the PMs. And upon close examination one can pick out some slight differences on the struck images, but upon closer examination the vast majority of these differences have to do, not so much with the angle of the images lining-up, but by being struck with an uneven level of force somewhere on the head of the stamp.

Were any of the 1890’s you examined today in high condition? And, did you use a loop? I spent several hours this AM going over about 9 rifles, and all the proof marks on the other ones were similar in nature where sharp and pronounced ridges were concerned, except for the two 90’s I just mentioned.   Also take a look at the photo on page 53 of Schwing’s book on the 90, and one can easily see the sharp edges on the receiver proof mark while the edges of the PM on the barrel is quite obviously less pronounced – fact is, it’s typical IMO.  Your thoughts, again, please.

Lastly, on another subject that we discussed in Cody while we were on the many issues of PM’s of all sorts and models. You mentioned something about the Proof Mark stamp’s size. Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t you say that it was about 1/2 inch across? My point in asking this has to do with my response to you about the PM on the 90’s being roughly 3/16ths of an inch from the receiver, some even less. This same problem exists on some 94’s with as little as 1/16th of an inch, give or take a hair. Given this information, if the PM stamp is 1/2 inch or so across, how could the stamp be applied so close to the receiver, in your opinion?

James

Avatar
Location: 32000' +
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 2110
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
26
December 9, 2018 - 5:28 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Hi James,

The rifles I was able to access easily today were not high condition, most were between 50%-75% and I used a magnifying glass.  I need to buy a loupe one of these days.

Also, you mentioned the 1904 procedure that Schwing references and I just wanted to make sure you knew that was an 1890 barrel procedure that was followed before the WP marks were even implemented on the 1890.  They did not actually start using the WP on the barrel and receiver for the .22 rifles until later.

The last time we discussed this at Cody I mentioned that the stamp was approximately 1/2″x 1/2″ square stock, I did not mean the actual marking was 1/2″.  Here is a photo of the WP mark being applied to a Model 21 at Winchester circa 1957.  Note the size of the shank and the reduced tapered area where the proof stamp is cut.  From what I recall, Winchester made these proof stamps in-house.  The hammer used to apply the stamp is lying next to it. 

Best Regards,

Proof-Mark-being-applied.jpgImage Enlarger

Photo courtesy of the Winchester Division of Olin

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

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

http://rimfirepublications.com/  

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
27
December 10, 2018 - 6:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

JWA said
Hi James,

The rifles I was able to access easily today were not high condition, most were between 50%-75% and I used a magnifying glass.  I need to buy a loupe one of these days.

Also, you mentioned the 1904 procedure that Schwing references and I just wanted to make sure you knew that was an 1890 barrel procedure that was followed before the WP marks were even implemented on the 1890.  They did not actually start using the WP on the barrel and receiver for the .22 rifles until later.

The last time we discussed this at Cody I mentioned that the stamp was approximately 1/2″x 1/2″ square stock, I did not mean the actual marking was 1/2″.  Here is a photo of the WP mark being applied to a Model 21 at Winchester circa 1957.  Note the size of the shank and the reduced tapered area where the proof stamp is cut.  From what I recall, Winchester made these proof stamps in-house.  The hammer used to apply the stamp is lying next to it. 

Best Regards,

Proof-Mark-being-applied.jpgImage Enlarger

Photo courtesy of the Winchester Division of Olin  

Hi Jeff,

In ref to the 1904 comment:  Yes, it was a third bursting or violent-type test for the barrel, and the first testing of the action (receiver) once the gun was assembled, as I understand it.

My dues have lapsed and I am going to renew online and check out Dan’s article as advised.

Until then I have a comment to make about special ordered Winchester heavy barrels for the type 1 and 2 sniper rifles.  These barrels were ordered by individuals and by people like Sedgley who customized guns.  These barrels do not have any identifying Winchester markings on them whatsoever, other than the VP and other numbers, letters, etc., on the underside and, in my belief, their definitive proof mark “WP in an oval” that would have been offset to the left side near the breech.  Does this make sense to you, assuming of course that one believes that Winchester actually did sell these heavy barrels to Sedgley and to individuals that ordered them, or would Winchester sell barrels to the public without any company identifying marks at all?

Thanks for taking the time to present the picture and information about the Definitive Proof Mark…and Laugh no,  I did not think you meant that the image was 1/2 inch across. Kiss… appreciate it Bud!

James

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
28
December 11, 2018 - 12:01 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Just finished a brief, initial study of Dan Shuey’s superb article, “Winchester’s Provisional and Definitive Proof.”

Bert, thanks for mentioning Dan’s article that Don had provided a link to earlier in this thread. And, the praise that you extend to Schwing is well deserved. Jeff, thanks for recommending the same article to me. I thoroughly enjoyed viewing it…although I had to spend 50 bucks to read it! FrownLaugh

Apparently Schwing was on the verge of unlocking this mystery, himself. For example, the six-cuts (pictures and text), of Winchester records, pages 83-85 of his book on the 90, are described as being taken from “Winchester’s 1904 Testing catalog”, that mentions the final bursting-test, but stops right there without any further notes regarding when the WP stamp was applied.  Shuey has two of these same cuts in his work, with an attributable date of 1903, attributed to Parker’s notes and booklet. However, what makes Shuey’s explanation very creditable to the subject end, regards his reference to the 1910 First International Congress of Proof Houses, pages 18 and 20, supported by his Endnote No. 18, i.e. Memo from Robinson to Pugsley, intra-factory document dated in 1948. Now I can rest well on what step in the usual Winchester gun making process that the DWP was applied, because it was described in a definitive manner that would greatly expedite one’s research should they need it!

James

Avatar
MountainCur
Guest
WACA Guest
29
December 29, 2018 - 3:25 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

All the Original 77  Routledge Bores were all serial numbered in the 46000 to 47000 that Fred Routledge Developed. After that Winchester broke the Patent and developed their own and that’s what You have.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: Tom D, freebird1968
Guest(s) 172
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6281
TXGunNut: 4970
Chuck: 4571
1873man: 4282
steve004: 4160
Big Larry: 2324
twobit: 2291
TR: 1710
mrcvs: 1706
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12650
Posts: 109995

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1745
Members: 8791
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation