Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
James,
I understand exactly what your saying with regards to some barrels that are fractions of an inch longer or any basic variation from an exact rounded length. For the most part my argument above hinges on two points:
1) The fact that the front sight dovetail milling and spacing from the muzzle are standardized and always fall on center at 15/16" to 1" (0.951" to 0.990"). With this standardization for the front sight dovetail, a 20" barrel would show a portion of the dovetail on the muzzle face if it were cut to 19".
2) Standardized dimensions for dovetail milling and barrel dimensions for 20" takedown barrel (forearm tennon, mag retaining band, rear sight, front sight, barrel length, distance from chamber to forearm tenon, from tenon to retaining band, etc.).
Also, I think the short rifle I used in my example and lexington1’s are in fairly close serial number proximity.
I havent read through all of Mr. Renneberg’s book but I do remember reading in Madis years ago regarding the varying barrel lengths. I cant remember if they are time or SN range sensitive or not, or a generalization. Maybe someone can post the referenced language.
Maybe some of the folks that make these barrels to Winchester specs or have more knowledge than myself regarding bbl manufacturing steps can chime in and blow holes in my line of thinking.
Chris
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
James:
I only have 4 rifles that are considered 20" short rifles and they break down like this.
448457 = 19 15/16"
568173 = 20"
849277 = 19 15/16"
877932 = 20 1/16"
I thought that + or – 1/16" was pretty normal. The 1" back from the muzzle to the front sight has the same span.
Paul
[color=red:f08e11875d]" Barrels on some issues are from 1/4 to 5/16 inches longer than the designated dimension"__ from the Madis book on page 429 in the latest printing.[/color:f08e11875d]
Chris,
If a 20&1/8 barrel is out of the question, and from the responses, or lack thereof to this end, it appears that it is, then your idea is better than the 20 inch barrel one. Again, great work!
James
Just perusing and came upon this discussion. First of all clearly noted in the book is the difference between the muzzle distance for the retainer band on TD rifles VS a standard rifle.
Second is that Chris’ measurements affirm this. However, in two of his pix are TD rifles with retainers with holes for a pin – NOT TD retainers. TD rifle retainers had no pins for obvious reasons. I’m puzzled by that error and surprised no one picked up on it.
He does show the dimension differences correctly though, and this has been my finding regardless of barrel length. Relevant facts are on page 76.
Unfortunately, Lexington’s rifle is almost certainly not original.
Regards to all,
Bob
BOBR94,
You are correct regarding the magazine retaining band not being the correct one. I believe I mentioned in the text that I used it instead of the original retaining band to allow more precise measurements to the center of the dovetail. Maybe take a second read of the text.
Like anyone else, I am more than willing to learn, and to admit when I am wrong about something. I originally had my reservations but took the data I had and used it to come up with an explanation for the occurrence. So where did I go wrong if "Lexington’s rifle is almost certainly not original"?
Best,
Chris
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Bob
The band with the hole was explained in the text of his message. He used that one because it was easier to pinpoint the center for measuring the distance from the muzzle.
Paul
I need to learn to type faster 🙄
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/1894%20others/2-A_zps5b146958.jpg.html
[Image Can Not Be Found]
Sorry about missing the reference – you went wrong in seeing that the rifle in question undoubtedly has the band too close to the end of the tube and barrel (at least from what I can determine from the pic).
B
OK – you want an opinion, here it is.
This is a shortened 20" rifle.
A: The new retainer measurement is exactly 1" closer to the muzzle than original.
b lots of guns were shortened slightly due to muzzle damage.
C: They had to be careful to ONLY shorten it about 1" so the retainer dovetail would clear the TD lever and the original front sight dovetail would go unnoticed (difficult and a lot of luck – look carefully at the muzzle, but remember the retainer had at least a 1/16" leeway and so did the front sight – if lucky you could have about 1/8" to play with)
D: If it started out any longer nothing would line up.
E: It has the correct short forend with no issues.
F: The TD tube was shortened from the front (logical) so it could be installed with no problems and be virtually undetectable. Putting a new lever groove on the underside of the barrel is simple.
G: I’ll bet my last Oreo that the muzzle diameter is VERY SLIGHTLY larger than a proven 20."
H: I’ve had both 19" and 20" and they all had the 3.5+-" retainer location.
Being that this was originally a 20" – I don’t believe this was done to deceive but was a muzzle repair.
I believe in an article I wrote for the "Collector" I stated that the only really convincing shortening (muzzle diameter AGAIN gives it away) is a 20" to an 18" short magazine carbine and then the forend length would raise suspicion too. It could be done even more convincingly with a rebarrel and rewood.
Even Then it would have to be very carefully done unless you don’t heed my signature statement below.
I have to go finish that last Oreo now.
Bob.
Kudos Bob, eat your Oreos.
Im still a bit confused by you prior posts on this thread though, in light of your explanation above.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Pointing out barrel diameter, my question would be , do you have any of these measurements available?
448457 20" 1/2 OB, Dia. @ muzzle = 0.693" 0.704 @ 19" position
568173 20" RB Dia. @ muzzle = 0.720" 0.722 @ 19" position
849277 20" OB Dia. @ muzzle = 0.733" 0.738 @ 19" position
877932 20" RB Dia. @ muzzle = 0.720" 0.722 @ 19" position
137231 22" OB @ Muz. 0.738"_@ 21" 0.745"_@ 20" 0.745", @ 19" 0.752"
429267 22" RB @ Muz. 0.720"_@ 21" 0.726"_@ 20" 0.728", @ 19" 0.730"
146566 22" RB @ Muz. 0.703"_@ 21" 0.704"_@ 20" 0.711", @ 19" 0.717"
145028 22" RB @ Muz. 0.712"_@ 21" 0.718"_@ 20" 0.718", @ 19" 0.720"
621073 22" OB @ Muz. 0.724"_@ 21" 0.730"_@ 20" 0.732", @ 19" 0.736"
323976 22" RB @ Muz. 0.715"_@ 21" 0.720"_@ 20" 0.724", @ 19" 0.734"
769046 22" RB @ Muz. 0.717"_@ 21" 0.725"_@ 20" 0.734"_@ 19" 0.738"
229781 20" OB @ Muz. 0.741"_@ 19" 0.749"
424234 20" OB @ Muz. 0.719"_@ 19" 0.729"
437056 20" OB @ Muz. 0.721"_@ 19" 0.724"
599080 20" OB @ Muz. 0.735"_@ 19" 0.743"
829445 20" OB @ Muz. 0.757"_@ 19" 0.762"
858376 20" OB @ Muz. 0.728"_@ 19" 0.731"
All 20" rifles have the 8 3/8" forearm with no indication of any tampering .
Paul
Paul,
Are you sure on the 19" measurements for the last three rifles? You are indicating that no taper exists?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert
I will double check them but I am sure based on the cheap dial caliper that I have.
Paul
Looks like Paul has chimed in on this before I could get this out.
As for the barrel dimensions, on all the 20" short rifles I have measured, the bbl diameter at the front sight ranges from 0.724" to 0.762" with a mean of 0.738". Those same rifles measure 0.719" to 0.757" across the flats at the muzzle, with a mean of 0.740". This is to say, that if an original 20" barrel was cut to 19", the measurement across the flats would be inconsequential because they would both fall within acceptable ranges. If the barrel diameter dimensions fell outside the ranges shown above, then we would could point to other possibilities. Maybe Lexington1 can provide us with the barrel dimensions across the flats at the muzzle.
So our potential possibilities are, the barrel was:
1) shortened at the factory prior to shipping
2) returned to the factory and shortened
or
3) was shortened outside the factory
You seem to fancy the latter two?
Chris
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
As obviously this gun is far out of the norm considering the position of the mag retainer AND the fact that it obviously cannot letter, can it possibly warrant the discussions that have prevailed? I have been wrong and proven so, many times in my life. I admit my earlier statement regarding a 20" being NOT a host gun was given before I thought really carefully about manufacturing tolerances. After much thought (too much really) I gave my final opinion and argument regarding my findings. Further than that, and the opinions of everyone here, so what???? Maybe we should speculate that it is a one-of-a-kind factory anomaly and it’s worth at least 100K – the present owner is a truly lucky guy to have found it – now all he has to do is make a copy of this discussion thread, convince someone of it’s rarity, and sell it.
I do like Bert’s comment on zero taper though – that should stir up some neat speculation.
Being out of the norm of differing measurements does not come into play in this case (unlike my earlier kerfuffle) as I am "assuming" that the measurements that are the same at 20" and 19" position that are cited are on the same gun. That to me is a zero taper not a manufacturing anomaly. Sorry, I don’t think so.
Keep playing guys,
Bob
I have remeasured the barrels more carefully this time and will put the results in that previous post with some additional info. It will take me a little time because of my typing ability. Yes, there is some taper, from 0.002 to 0.010 range.
Paul
I have no luck trying to search for specific older post but, maybe someone else has the information. I believe it was Mike Hunter that had documentation with respect to the amount of taper on Winchester barrels or maybe it was just from working with them. Does anyone know what that rate of taper was and, was it the same for both round and octagon barrels?
Paul
Obviously all could see that the retaining band was in the wrong position from the get-go, the entire discussion by all was to prove/disprove how it came to be based on our observations instead of simply dismissing it. Maybe the whole exercise provided some good fodder for discussion or information others could use or consider in the future, maybe it was fruitless endeavor as you say. Either way, thanks for your comments Bob, I like you explanation.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
You do realize that you guys just spent about $ 10,000 worth of time and labor on deciding if a $1500 (on a good day) rifle is correct.
At any rate, even if it is as has been speculated several times, a "factory shortened" or "factory modified" or gunsmith reworked or whatever – you still have to convince a purchaser it is worth whatever you may be asking for it. It’s a "story" gun – and I think we all know that story guns are almost impossible to sell to anyone with a semblance of knowledge.
Many firearms reference books have been filled with tons of this kind of data and all have pretty much been ignored.
Rave on my friends.
B
Forensic matchup on the proofmarks – give me a break!!!! You guys are killin’ me.
I personally found this topic to be both interesting and enlightening. The theories and thoughts behind why it is the way it is were well thought out and discussed. I say "damn the torpedoes" and let’s keep charging forward!
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
