Log In
Hi Folks!
Over at Rimfire Central, RayfromNZ suggested that I post here about this new-to-me 1885 chambered in 22 short:
It’s an early production model (4621) with a Winchester number 2 barrel and (working!) set triggers. My questions are about the accessory bits … I’m 98 percent sure the lever knob isn’t original, even though it makes the lever much more pleasant to operate. I suspect the Swiss-style buttplate isn’t original, and I’m just not sure about the front sight and rear tang sight.
Any thoughts?
Thanks!
Dave
April 15, 2005
Offline
Dave,
Almost none of your Model 1885 low-wall rifle is original.
1. The Schuetzen double set trigger was not ever available on a low-wall rifle (single set trigger only).
2. The receiver frame and the breech block are not original to the serial number. Specifically, serial number 4621 was a “First” variation with a panel-side receiver and a full height breech block, whereas your rifle has the “Second” variation flat-sided receiver and the contoured breech block.
3. The butt stock and butt plate are not original.
4. The barrel is not original (serial number 4621 was equipped with a 24-inch No. 1 barrel).
5. The forend stock is not original
6. The lever is not original.
7. Neither of the sights are original.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
July 19, 2013
Offline
Dave ,
Some may call that a highly customized, personalized rifle for optimal shooting.
Enjoy it and good shooting !
Bill
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said
1. The Schuetzen double set trigger was not ever available on a low-wall rifle (single set trigger only).
Would be interesting to know who fitted the double-sets, & most importantly, how they work; if they work well, I wouldn’t mind their non-originality. However, I had one of those Rice close-coupled triggers installed on a LW, & it never worked right, despite returning it too him for adjustment.
Bert H. said
Dave,
Almost none of your Model 1885 low-wall rifle is original.
Hi Bert!
Thanks! And no worries, I knew the gun wasn’t going to pass the purity test when I bought it, but … wow. It’s so far off that I thought maybe I read the serial number wrong. Here it is:
No, it’s definitely 4621. So the next question becomes … Why? Why would someone go to so much trouble to create this gun?
Thanks again!
Dave
Blueliner said
Some may call that a highly customized, personalized rifle for optimal shooting.
I will 
And to the extent I can tell with 62-year-old eyes and iron sights, it does shoot well. I only have a bit of experience with set triggers, but these do work as expected … that is, pulling the rear trigger sets the front for a very, very light release. If you pull the front only, you get a light release.
Enjoy!
Dave
May 2, 2009
Offline
Bert, I’m no expert on 85’s but would Winchester stamp a serial number jumping a hole or was there a digit there ? The hole looks to be off center as well.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
April 15, 2005
Offline
[email protected] said
Bert H. said
Dave,
Almost none of your Model 1885 low-wall rifle is original.Hi Bert!
Thanks! And no worries, I knew the gun wasn’t going to pass the purity test when I bought it, but … wow. It’s so far off that I thought maybe I read the serial number wrong. Here it is:
No, it’s definitely 4621. So the next question becomes … Why? Why would someone go to so much trouble to create this gun?
Thanks again!
Dave
Dave,
The original serial number was not 4621. Instead, it was 4?641. The second digit was completely removed by the added screw hole (no doubt for the set trigger alteration).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
April 15, 2005
Offline
1873man said
Bert, I’m no expert on 85’s but would Winchester stamp a serial number jumping a hole or was there a digit there ? The hole looks to be off center as well.Bob
Bob,
No, Winchester would not have stamped a serial number spacing it over a drilled hole. The screw hole cut the serial number digit completely out.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Dave,
The original serial number was not 4621. Instead, it was 4?641. The second digit was completely removed by the added screw hole (no doubt for the set trigger alteration).
Bert
Gaaaaaaa! My apologies for sending you down the wrong road!
Dave
April 15, 2005
Offline
[email protected] said
Gaaaaaaa! My apologies for sending you down the wrong road!
Dave
No problem. The good news is that the receiver frame and breech block are most likely original, as a serial number in the 40,000 range would have been a Second variation low-wall. Consequently, the barrel could also be original.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
No problem. The good news is that the receiver frame and breech block are most likely original, as a serial number in the 40,000 range would have been a Second variation low-wall. Consequently, the barrel could also be original.
Bert
Sigh, I still feel like an idiot. I noticed the bolt between the “4” and the “6” but didn’t see any remnants of a number in between. So I dismissed the idea.
Within the bounds of your patience, is it possible to determine how many, if any, of these 1885s were chambered in 22 Short:
40641
41641
42641
43641
44641
45641
46641
47641
48641
49641
Thanks!
Dave
Bert H. said
The second digit was completely removed by the added screw hole (no doubt for the set trigger alteration).
Anyone happen to have an image of a “0” in a serial number of the same vintage? Thanks!
April 15, 2005
Offline
[email protected] said
Bert H. said
The second digit was completely removed by the added screw hole (no doubt for the set trigger alteration).Anyone happen to have an image of a “0” in a serial number of the same vintage? Thanks!
Yes…
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
April 15, 2005
Offline
[email protected] said
Sigh, I still feel like an idiot. I noticed the bolt between the “4” and the “6” but didn’t see any remnants of a number in between. So I dismissed the idea.
Within the bounds of your patience, is it possible to determine how many, if any, of these 1885s were chambered in 22 Short:
40641
41641
42641
43641
44641
45641
46641
47641
48641
49641Thanks!
Dave
That will take sometime, but it is within my capability.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
April 15, 2005
Offline
40641 – 22 Short (26-inch No. 1 barrel, which does not match your rifle).
41641 – 40-82 WCF
42641 – 22 Long
43641 – 22 Long
44641 – 25-20 S.S.
45641 – 22 Ex Long
46641 – 45-70
47641 – 32 Long
48641 – 22 WCF
49641 – 32 WCF
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
40641 – 22 Short (26-inch No. 1 barrel, which does not match your rifle).41641 – 40-82 WCF
42641 – 22 Long
43641 – 22 Long
44641 – 25-20 S.S.
45641 – 22 Ex Long
46641 – 45-70
47641 – 32 Long
48641 – 22 WCF
49641 – 32 WCF
Bert
Thanks! That’s fascinating. The barrel is Winchester roll stamped. Did Winchester sell barrels for third party installation?
Thanks again!
Dave
June 26, 2013
Online
I hate to tell you this, but looking at the photo of the lower tang, I think the correct serial number sequence is actually 4?621.
April 15, 2005
Offline
[email protected] said
Thanks! That’s fascinating. The barrel is Winchester roll stamped. Did Winchester sell barrels for third party installation?
Thanks again!
Dave
Winchester did sell barrels, but I doubt that was the case with this rifle.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
April 15, 2005
Offline
deerhunter said
I hate to tell you this, but looking at the photo of the lower tang, I think the correct serial number sequence is actually 4?621.
Don,
You are correct, and I should have caught that.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
