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
18" short rifle Model 94
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 81
Member Since:
November 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
41
August 12, 2013 - 4:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

AS for me I don’t doubt your word and by no means do I want you to
post a picture of the barrel with a tape. I did however think you should
measure the barrel in a correct way where there is no room for error in
adding or subtracting??

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 21
Member Since:
July 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
42
August 12, 2013 - 5:13 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Holy crap, Batman! Ok, I’ll get it back out and get a picture. I’ll even post a copy of todays newspaper with it, lol.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 21
Member Since:
July 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
44
August 12, 2013 - 6:23 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Lexington1
Great photos.
This should end that part of the debate.

http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/1894%20others/61212%20ramp%20sight/95_zpsd8c49385.jpg.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/1894%20others/61212%20ramp%20sight/100_zps2b2c0acf.jpg.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]

These are 2 rifles with short barrels and the magazine band is in the correct position on both the 18 and 19" guns. Note where the TD lever is in relation to the magazine band.

Paul

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 81
Member Since:
November 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
45
August 12, 2013 - 8:24 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Thank you Lexington1 for the pictures they do help a lot at times.
First: It has been thought the original barrel length to be 20"
That don’t work out with the average distance on a W. rifle from the end
of the muzzle to the center of the dovetail being around 15/16" your going
to have some of the dovetail showing. Look at the pictures and see for
yourself.

Second: It has been stated that the Magazine tube would have had to
be shortened from the Muzzle end.
If shortened from the muzzle end the tube location in the magazine
retaining ring Would Not Change. So the wear mark’s on the tube would not
change . The only way a different set of marks would appear would be if
the tube was shortened from the receiver end.

Third: 94Shorties posted some good pictures also. Clearly showing
and stating that the distance from the end of the muzzle to the center of
the magazine retaining ring being 3 3/4"
In Lexington1’s last pictures with the added help of a tape measure
one can clearly see the distance from his rifles muzzle to the center of the
magazine retaining ring is 3 1/2"
This presents a huge problem .
Example: If the gun (originally) had a 21" barrel and you removed 2"
according to 94 shorty’s measurements in his picture the measurement
on Lexington1’s rifle should be 2 3/4" not 2 1/2" as it clearly is.

IMHO your rifle may be original as to the configuration as it left the factory If not someone did a fine job of altering it. Either way it don’t
letter and I don’t think without seeing the gun in person and seeing some-
thing I have missed I going original I see the glass half full.
I know this is a long shot and I will be rebuked but what if and heven
forbid I am wrong but lets just say that the guy that was measuring and
marking the dovetail’s on this certain gun GOT IT WRONG I can’t beleave
I said that? Remember they weren’t equipped with computers and laser
machines back then they were just human as to error.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
46
August 13, 2013 - 5:17 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

quantrez
The mag tube: He already stated that the mag tube binds in 2 locations thus explaining the 2 sets of marks.

Your third thing: first, I said if it was a 22" rifle, not a 21". if we use your 21" example and you cut off 2" and the mag band was originally 3 1/2" back, it would now be 1 1/2" back from the muzzle not 2 1/2". Go back and look at the photo and the tape measure again and read your statement that it is clearly 3 1/2" back. In the photo, it is 2 1/2" back from the muzzle. On a 21" gun, 3 1/2" minus 2" = 1 1/2" back for the dovetail and the TD lever would be over top of the mag band.

If you use a 22" barrel and cut off 3", the mag band dovetail would now be 1/2" from the muzzle and it would still be there and show.

If you use a 20" barrel and cut off 1 5/32" ( to also remove sight dovetail ), the mag band dovetail would now be 2 11/32" back from the muzzle and the TD lever would clear the mag band by 11/32".

Paul

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 263
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
47
August 13, 2013 - 5:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The factory original blue and correct circular milling patterns in both the hanger dovetail and the front sight dovetail prove the barrel is factory shortened. It could be a special order from new or a factory rework. Impossible to tell which way it came to be. But it is factory work.

The rearward set of spin marks don’t really mean anything. I cannot think of a factory original configuration that would make spin marks in that position?

94shorties, Would you please post the details of how you think this rifle came to be manufacturing wise.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
48
August 13, 2013 - 5:49 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

CJS57
I agree that it probably was factory shortened after the fact. They left the mag dovetail and just redid the sight dovetail. This would be the quickest fix. If it was totally original, the mag band dovetail would be in the same place it is for all their rifles. Just look at any of the short rifles, whether it is 18, 19, 20 and even the full length 26" barrels. They are all in the same position for the mag band dovetail reguardless of barrel length.
I am just saying that it probably started out as a 20" short rifle. That is the only one that seem to make sense given the location of the dovetail.

Paul

94shorties, Would you please post the details of how you think this rifle came to be manufacturing wise.
CJS57
Not sure what you mean by this. Send an email or PM

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 183
Member Since:
April 30, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
49
August 13, 2013 - 6:39 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I wish I’d be around in another 50 years or so to see how all these theories work out then.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
50
August 13, 2013 - 6:56 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Are you still standing by your statement that it is an original 19" short rifle considering where the mag band is located and having one in your book?

Paul

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 263
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
51
August 13, 2013 - 7:43 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Perhaps Winchester created or shortened a rifle in this way to use a cosmetically rejected barrel from their bin. We know Winchester never threw away anything!

Secondly, Are the barrel and receiver proofmarks forensically matching to each other?

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
52
August 13, 2013 - 7:59 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

94shorties said
quantrez
The mag tube: He already stated that the mag tube binds in 2 locations thus explaining the 2 sets of marks.

Your third thing: first, I said if it was a 22" rifle, not a 21". if we use your 21" example and you cut off 2" and the mag band was originally 3 1/2" back, it would now be 1 1/2" back from the muzzle not 2 1/2". Go back and look at the photo and the tape measure again and read your statement that it is clearly 3 1/2" back. In the photo, it is 2 1/2" back from the muzzle. On a 21" gun, 3 1/2" minus 2" = 1 1/2" back for the dovetail and the TD lever would be over top of the mag band.

If you use a 22" barrel and cut off 3", the mag band dovetail would now be 1/2" from the muzzle and it would still be there and show.

If you use a 20" barrel and cut off 1 5/32" ( to also remove sight dovetail ), the mag band dovetail would now be 2 11/32" back from the muzzle and the TD lever would clear the mag band by 11/32".

Paul

This makes perfectly good sense.

James

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
53
August 13, 2013 - 8:01 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

That question would need an expert in metal science to answer and it would probably need to be put through some kind of tests. He doesn’t show the proof marks very clear. The caliber marking is the right style for the serial number range.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 21
Member Since:
July 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
54
August 13, 2013 - 8:36 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

What would I need to look for in the proof marks?

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 183
Member Since:
April 30, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
55
August 13, 2013 - 8:46 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

It is a 19" according to the barrel measurement methods that were implied and applied. To me, I would suspect a cut-off but definitely NOT from a 20. The original front dovetail would show. Muzzle diameter would be the best indicator.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 21
Member Since:
July 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 263
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
57
August 13, 2013 - 4:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Lexington, Yes those PW proofs do help but need to be bigger and sharper images. You can do it at home with a loop. You are looking to see if the same die stamp made both proofs. So we look for little details of the letters. For example I can see 1) the P has an extra long tail at the top left on both proofs. 2) I see that oval is flattened on both proofs at the 2 o’clock position. 3) I see the W is offset to the left on both proofs. So right there are 3 matching details that show the barrel and receiver were stamped at the same time and the barrel is original, not a replacement, and was on the gun when new.

I too think the 20" barrel cut down to 19" theory does not work because that would leave the original front sight dovetail still showing a bit as was said. So with no barrel length cut downs possible, that is why I proposed the rejected barrel theory.

Avatar
South Texas
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1042
Member Since:
March 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
58
August 14, 2013 - 9:21 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

This forum post has me puzzled regarding how the 19” barrel came to be, and from watching over the past few days it seems the same can be said of others who have posted. If you will indulge me I hope to maybe make a little sense of our dilemma. I have a 20” takedown short rifle that I will be using (in addition to other rifles) to make a comparison. The specs on my short rifle SN 599080 (in a similar range to lexingon1’s rifle based on the 1913 date given):
• Forearm Length: 8 3/8”
• Barrel length- muzzle to chamber end: Exactly 20”
• Receiver to center of rear sight dovetail: 4.008”
• Chamber to center of rear sight dovetail: 5.017”
• BBL Muzzle to center of magazine retaining band: 3.475”
• BBL diameter at center of front sight dovetail: 0.743”
• BBL diameter at muzzle: 0.735”
• BBL Muzzle to center of front sight dovetail: 15/16” or 0.951”

With regards to lexington1’s rifle barrel (based on descriptions and photographs):
• The barrel markings on the rifle look correct.
• Based on the location of the barrel markings at the receiver, the barrel was not cut from the chambered end after it left the factory (otherwise the caliber markings would be cut off and the distance between the center of the magazine retaining band and muzzle would comply with the standard 3 15/32 to 3 ½”spacing.
• The milling marks on the magazine tube retaining band dovetail are factory original, as is the milling for the takedown lever inlet.
• From what can be seen of the front sight dovetail, the spacing and milling look correct (although it’s hard to see the milling due to the grime in the dovetail).
• The barrel could not have been cut from a 20” barrel down to a 19” barrel. If the barrel was originally 20” and cut to exactly 19”, then you would see the distal edge of the front sight dovetail on the flat of the barrel muzzle because the distance from the muzzle to the distal edge of the front sight dovetail is exactly 1.158” or roughly 1 5/32” (See the second photo below). If a 20” barrel was cut by exactly 1” from the muzzle we would see the dovetail for the front sight, no way around it, otherwise the barrel would have to measure 18 27/32” instead of 19” overall as shown in lexington1’s photos
• If the barrel was originally 22” and cut to 19”, removal of 3” of barrel, the distance between the center of the magazine retaining band dovetail to the muzzle would be ½” from the muzzle which is not the case here. If it were originally a 21” barrel it would be 1 ½” on center from the muzzle. The spacing on a 20” barrel works, however, we still have to deal with the front sight dovetail showing up on the muzzle face as mentioned above.
• On a takedown frame, regardless of barrel length the distance between the center of the magazine tube retaining band dovetail to the muzzle is going to be 3.475 to 3.5 inches—3/8” shorter than that of a standard rifle. The 3/8” difference is accounted for by the 3/8” width of the takedown ring at the barrel. The difference between standard frame 3 13/16” and TD frame 3 15/32” is roughly 3/8”—right. Additionally, on a standard frame 20” rifle barrel the distance from the breech to the center of the magazine retaining band dovetail is 16 ¼” and on a 20” takedown barrel it is 16 5/8”—again, a difference of 3/8”. Incidentally, the spacing or distance between the center of the forearm cap screw (tenon screw) to the center of the magazine tube retaining band the spacing is 6 5/8” on each—as it likely should be a standardize factory milling dimension, both dovetails were likely cut at the same time or same jig. The photo of lexington1’s takedown with barrel appears to measure 6 5/8” as well (9 7/8” – 16 ½” based on the tape shown in the photo).
The photo below is of three 1894 rifles: a 26” takedown barrel, a 20” standard frame barrel, and a 20” takedown barrel to show the differences in magazine tube placement discussed above.

The photo below is of a 20” takedown barrel with marks in 1” increments from the muzzle to show that if lexington1’s rifle were originally a 20” barrel we would see some remnant of the front sight dovetail or the overall barrel length would be less than 19” (I know the magazine retaining band in the photo is not the right one, I used it to mark the center point of the retaining band).

The photo below shows where the center of the magazine tube retaining band dovetail would be located if the barrel had been cut from a barrel 22” in length, 21” in length, or 20” in length using the 3.475” spacing. With an original 20” barrel length, the location of the magazine retaining band falls exactly where it is shown in lexington1’s photos as mentioned by Paul.

I believe the barrel to be the original factory length of 19”. The barrel measures exactly 19” and there are no visible remnants of the front sight dovetail on the muzzle face from what can be seen in the photos posted. The milling marks on the magazine retaining band, front sight dovetails, and takedown inlet look original by all accounts. The spin marks are of no immediate consequence other than binding on the mag band.
So how did our barrel end up at 19” with spacing between the magazine retaining band and the muzzle come to be 2 ½ inches instead of 3 ½ inches? For one, the barrel didn’t get cut down after it left the factory the first time by Winchester or anyone else—the front sight dovetail would show at the muzzle. So, some guy places an order to Winchester for a pistol grip takedown frame rifle with 19” barrel. Winchester goes to their stock of odd ball 19” barrels and doesn’t have one. What would you do at this point to fill the order, make up a new 19” barrel? Maybe this is a rushed order, who knows. No, you would go to an existing stock of 20” barrels and find one that is in the stage of production where the forearm tenon and magazine tube retaining band dovetails have already been milled but not the sight dovetails. Take the 20” barrel, lop an inch off the end, then cut the dovetails for the sights. Your left with a factory 19” barrel that has odd-ball spacing between the mag tube band and the muzzle that has everyone scratching their head, but all the right millings and spacings as on everything else typical of Winchester.
Just a best guess.

DSC_0245-Copy-3.JPG

1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member

"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2289
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
59
August 15, 2013 - 4:18 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Chris,

Great work as usual. And it makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
60
August 15, 2013 - 10:10 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Chris,

Great analysis! Thank you.

My question at this point in time has to do with Winchester barrels being cut to exact lengths, and it might be a moot point which would support your position even more should ’94 barrel lengths that are not cut to "exact" lengths be a rarity. As I understand the results of your study, it is based upon the subject original barrel length being "exactly" 20 inches. I think this might be a very important point since we are dealing in fractions of an inch, probably less than 3/16ths of an inch, which appears to be a sufficient length to support the 20" idea.

With the above information in mind, refer to page 51 of Renneberg’s book "The Winchester Model 94" where it states that barrels may show a 1/4 inch to 5/16 inch difference in "exact" length…" – which is in agreement with Madis. This, plus the distance between the end of the magazine and the end of the barrel as shown in the pictures of Lexington1’s rifle, "appears" to be less than the norm in a typical ’94 rifle, as represented by your pictures, to include, the one 94 shorties has posted; here, again, if this is the case, as little as 1/16th of an inch could be critical to whether or not the rifle originally had a 20" barrel.

Whatever the case might be, Chris, your point is extremely well presented and might well be correct too!

James

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 98
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6280
TXGunNut: 4968
Chuck: 4566
1873man: 4280
steve004: 4160
Big Larry: 2323
twobit: 2289
TR: 1710
mrcvs: 1706
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12645
Posts: 109951

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1745
Members: 8789
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation