Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
Avatar
SO. Oregon
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 687
Member Since:
June 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
July 14, 2017 - 2:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Comments please on the roll marking. Are they correct? attachment-3.jpegImage Enlarger

attachment-2.jpegImage Enlarger

attachment-5.jpegImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Vince
Southern Oregon
NRA member
Fraternal Order of Eagles

 “There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle.”

Teddy Roosevelt 

4029-1.jpg

Avatar
Location: 32000' +
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1928
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
July 14, 2017 - 8:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

They look correct to me.  There were several variations.  I am at the Cody show but will check my notes tonight to give you all the variations and dates of change.

Regards,

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

http://rimfirepublications.com/  

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 97
Member Since:
July 9, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
July 16, 2017 - 7:02 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Not to upstage JWA, who is the man when it comes to this sort of information.

Houze gives three variations of the inscription.

Standard

In 1905 the date Feb 15 1905 was included when Bennett’s patent for the extractor was granted.

In 1914 the chamber was changed so .22 ex long could be chambered and so marked.

So your rifle looks the goods to me, very hard to find one with a good barrel and only about 18,000 were made in your age group

Avatar
Location: 32000' +
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1928
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
July 17, 2017 - 3:19 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

ray said
Not to upstage JWA, who is the man when it comes to this sort of information.

Houze gives three variations of the inscription.

Standard

In 1905 the date Feb 15 1905 was included when Bennett’s patent for the extractor was granted.

In 1914 the chamber was changed so .22 ex long could be chambered and so marked.

So your rifle looks the goods to me, very hard to find one with a good barrel and only about 18,000 were made in your age group  

 

Hi Ray,

Thanks for jumping in and providing the info to Vince.  Sorry for the delay, I was having too much fun at the Cody Winchester show to sneak away and boot up my computer.  All of your information is correct except I have the patent date as February 14 (not 15).  There is one additional variation (if you want to call it that) that I have listed in my notes.  It was a reduced cost finish and looks a bit different than the variation 3 although the barrel marking is the same.

     Variation 1 (July 1904 – March 1905) Barrel Patent Date Aug. 29, 1899. Pat. Pend., Barrel Caliber Marking – 22 Short and Long

     Variation 2 (March 1905 – 1914) Barrel Patent Date Aug. 29, 1899 & Feb. 14, 1905, Barrel Caliber Marking – 22 Short and Long

     Variation 3 (1914 – September 1918) Barrel Date Aug. 29, 1899 & Feb. 14, 1905, Barrel Caliber Marking – 22 Short, Long or Ex. Long

     Variation 4 (September 1918 – May 1923) Reduced cost finish, Barrel Caliber Marking – 22 Short, Long or Ex. Long

 

Best Regards,

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

http://rimfirepublications.com/  

Avatar
SO. Oregon
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 687
Member Since:
June 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
July 17, 2017 - 2:14 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Ray,

I guess that would be the stock finish which appears different , rather than a difference in the bluing, correct?

Vince
Southern Oregon
NRA member
Fraternal Order of Eagles

 “There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle.”

Teddy Roosevelt 

4029-1.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 97
Member Since:
July 9, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
July 18, 2017 - 10:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Yes that date was the 14 Feb and the stock was not given it’s final polish as a cost saving device.

Well that is what Houze says, interestingly on the M.02 to cut prices after WW1 they dropped the final polish in both the stock and the steel finish.

Thing is after 99 years it would need a very good eye and a perfectly preserved rifle to be able to pick up any difference.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
1873man: 5326
clarence: 4841
TXGunNut: 4069
Chuck: 3812
steve004: 3413
twobit: 2891
Maverick: 2054
JWA: 1928
Big Larry: 1879
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 16
Topics: 10904
Posts: 94057

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1513
Members: 11886
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Navigation