re:  # 919549 .      I nave to call this a Model 92/65.     The receiver and stock appear to be correct for a rifle with that S/N ;   proper upper tang, straight grip of plain wood, and crescent buttplate.

However, it has a Model 65 barrel, forend, and button mag.     I am curious about one thing.     The “65” was peened down (not ground off) and the number 92 stamped in it’s place.     There was enough of the old number visible to tell that it wasn’t a 53.     The barrel is stamped  – 32 W.C.F. – in the correct location, and there is a proof mark on the top of the barrel directly in front of the one on the receiver.     The style (font ?) of the numerals in the 92 stamping is like those of the receiver S/N rather than the 32 in the caliber stamping.     The stampings on the under side of the barrel are :   32 WCF, the triangle inspection mark, and the number 38 (the year the barrel was made ?).

Is it possible that the original 92 rifle needed a new barrel but the factory only had Model 65 parts ?     Could the factory have done the restamping, or would they have just sent the barrel and mag., if that is what happened ?     If the barrel was shipped as a 65,  I wonder why the person who bought it would go through the trouble of remarking it ?     The barrel is in excellent condition and the receiver/stock  appears to have been restored at some time (well done), so it is an attractive looking gun, despite having no collector value.

Any thoughts or opinions about this from Forumers would be appreciated.     Thanks.