Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
November 7, 2015
Offline
steve004 said
And it’s even a, “pre-64” model!
What I do find interesting is that it is pistol-grip, uncheckered.
And it’s a 32WS!
Mike
TXGunNut said
And it’s a 32WS!
Mike
Mike has of course made the most important point 
January 26, 2011
Offline
deerhunter said
Here’s another for the survey:https://www.gunbroker.com/item/902704943
Don
I had this one in the survey already but I added a note that its the ultra-rare Pre-64 variant. Its the first one I’ve found so far, and so scarce I don’t even think I will add another column in the spreadsheet for them. Surely one of one.
All kidding aside, the Plain PG stocks are cool.
~Gary~
Hi Gary,
Just came across this one this morning. It’s listed incorrectly as “carbine.” Looks like serial number 1050593. Are the barrel markings correct for this timeframe? Or has the barrel been replaced?
Don
January 26, 2011
Offline
Good morning Don
A new entry for the survey, and a very late one. I think the barrel markings are right for a piece that late but wont bet the farm on it. It it weren’t for the short sight spacing, I suppose the caliber/model marking might be slid back towards the receiver. Honestly, I don’t study the markings as closely as I should, and there’s only 28 short rifles in the survey out past 1926. They seem to drop off rapidly after about 1918.
Also, the front sight in interesting. Do you recognize that type? Not sure if I like it or not, kind of bulky and obnoxious looking.
~Gary~
pdog72 said
Good morning DonA new entry for the survey, and a very late one. I think the barrel markings are right for a piece that late but wont bet the farm on it. It it weren’t for the short sight spacing, I suppose the caliber/model marking might be slid back towards the receiver. Honestly, I don’t study the markings as closely as I should, and there’s only 28 short rifles in the survey out past 1926. They seem to drop off rapidly after about 1918.
Also, the front sight in interesting. Do you recognize that type? Not sure if I like it or not, kind of bulky and obnoxious looking.
Interesting stats. I don’t recognize that sight and don’t care much for it either. It seems that blocky of a sight would hinder your view of the target to some degree.
Don
pdog72 said
Good morning DonA new entry for the survey, and a very late one. I think the barrel markings are right for a piece that late but wont bet the farm on it. It it weren’t for the short sight spacing, I suppose the caliber/model marking might be slid back towards the receiver. Honestly, I don’t study the markings as closely as I should, and there’s only 28 short rifles in the survey out past 1926. They seem to drop off rapidly after about 1918.
Also, the front sight in interesting. Do you recognize that type? Not sure if I like it or not, kind of bulky and obnoxious looking.
Gary,
We apparently need to compare our surveys… I have considerably more post-1918 production short rifles in my survey than you have. For instance, you show significantly fewer than (10) for the year 1920, whereas I have (11) of them documented for that year.
Don,
Of interest, S/N 1050645 is identically configured to the subject rifle, and both were manufactured on 7/8/1929.
Bert
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
January 26, 2011
Offline
Thanks Don, a new one. A $4500 bargain!
~Gary~
pdog72 said
Thanks Don, a new one. A $4500 bargain!
No kidding! It’s located only about an hour away from me so I wouldn’t even have to pay for shipping…
Hi Gary,
Found this one on Gunbroker. It’s a little rough but it is a 32-40:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/912203664
Don
January 26, 2011
Offline
deerhunter said
Hi Gary,Found this one on Gunbroker. It’s a little rough but it is a 32-40:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/912203664
Don
22″ w/ long wood …….. is that what you are seeing Don? A new entry and yes, a bit on the rough side. Great caliber though.
~Gary~
January 26, 2011
Offline
deerhunter said
Found another one:https://www.gunbroker.com/item/912623100
Don
A new entry ….. thx.
~Gary~
January 26, 2011
Offline
deerhunter said
And another:
Another interesting one to add … thx.
~Gary~
pdog72 said
22″ w/ long wood …….. is that what you are seeing Don? A new entry and yes, a bit on the rough side. Great caliber though.
Hi Gary,
It looks like the long forearm to me as well.
Don
Question for Gary (pdog72),
How many full octagon extra lights do you have in your 1894 short rifle survey compared to round and half-octagon? It seems the full octagon extra light barrels are much harder to come by. In particular, I’m looking at a 24-inch full octagon extra light, full magazine, takedown, set trigger 1894.
Don
January 26, 2011
Offline
deerhunter said
Question for Gary (pdog72),How many full octagon extra lights do you have in your 1894 short rifle survey compared to round and half-octagon? It seems the full octagon extra light barrels are much harder to come by. In particular, I’m looking at a 24-inch full octagon extra light, full magazine, takedown, set trigger 1894.
Don
Hi Don,
You are correct. The octagon ELW’s are fairly scarce.
Out of 689 rifles I have logged, there are:
- 194 total ELWs
- 151 are round
- 22 are 1/2 octagon
- 19 are octagon – Of which I own two of them. I had a third one but traded it off.
Four of those 19 are 24″. As you know, the round barrel ELWs have a ramp sight, with the exception of a few early ones. All of the OB ELW’s are dovetailed front sights and they are paper thin between the sight and the bore, especially the 38-55’s. That is one interesting (and scary) detail that goes along with this variation. I’m very fond of them myself. The rifle you describe above would definitely be a rarity.
~Gary~
1 Guest(s)
