Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Does the lightweight and extra light mean the same on the model of 1886? I have one from 1901 that blue-book describes as lightweight but the Cody museum letter uses the term extra light. Also on the lightweight or extra light models are they all blued including hammer and lever I seem to find info that says yes and no? My rifles configuration is 45-70 with a 22 inch round barrel, button mag shotgun butt and Lyman front hunting sight. Any info would be great. Thanks!
Kash,
Winchester never used the term “lightweight” for their Model 1886. They only catalogued the Extra Light Weight. The pre-1902 Extra Light Weight rifles should have case color finished levers and hammers.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
There was an excellent Model 1886 display at Cody two years ago. The owner of the display had Cody letters for each rifle if they were available, and went as far as to have a booklet printed with photos of the rifles next to the factory letters. I believe at least two listed “light weight” rather than “extra light” (sorry if the terms are not exactly verbatim). I think we had some discussion as to whether this was actually a listed configuration or was used as an adjective, but “light weight” without the “extra” was in the letters at least. I took special interest in this since the subject comes up every once and awhile. Maybe someone with the John Madl book would also have some information also? Like Bert is saying, I don’t think it was configuration that was in the catalogs specifically, but if the term is found in the records it could be partially responsible for the it being used by Model 1886 collectors. I have the booklet that was available to the judges to take, but I let another collector borrow it and if I get it back I’ll scan the letters. Bert may have a copy also.
Folks,
I have my copy of the handout that Brad refers to in the above. Indeed there are two factory letters that refer to the weights as “Light weight”. The rest either refer to the rifles as “extra light weight” or do not state the weight at all. The first rifle so referred is a 40/82 with 24 inch, round barrel, plain trigger, 1/2 magazine, shotgun butt rubber, light weight, then addresses sights. Received in warehouse Dec 17, 1895, so it is not a late use of the term.
Second rifle is a 50/100, 24 inch round barrel, set trigger, Lyman rear sight, taken from returned gun , 1/2 magazine, shotgun butt, rubber butt plate, light weight, received in warehouse Apr 11, 1896.
Those rifles with the “extra light” designation were received in the warehouse on Apr 25, 1898; Apr 25, 1898; Jan 21, 1905; Nov 10, 1897; Jan 23, 1907; Oct 18, 1902; Sep 30, 1902;Mar 22, 1905; Jul 29, 1904;Jun 15, 1905; Oct 1, 1900; Mar 20,1895; Sep 8, 1896; Nov 9, 1908; Oct 25, 1900. Folks interpreting and signing the letters vary from across the boards over some period of time. The letters with the “light weight” designation were signed by folks who also had signed letters stating “extra light weight”. Thus it appears to NOT be a researcher’s foible as to the term used.
I would have to conclude that whomever entered the data in the factory ledger may have had some confusion of terms, which thus tends to confuse us. It is rather obvious the prevailing term is “extra light weight” however.
I just love throwing gasoline on the fire!
Tim Tomlinson
Hey Tim
Isn’t that a neat little book? Thanks for having your copy handy with that information.
Brad
One more question on the 1886, are button mags rare or normal on the extra light models? This 1886 has one.
Thanks
Kash
More often than not, the Extra Light Weight rifles will have a 1/2 mag.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Brad Dunbar said
There was an excellent Model 1886 display at Cody two years ago. The owner of the display had Cody letters for each rifle if they were available, and went as far as to have a booklet printed with photos of the rifles next to the factory letters. I believe at least two listed “light weight” rather than “extra light” (sorry if the terms are not exactly verbatim). I think we had some discussion as to whether this was actually a listed configuration or was used as an adjective, but “light weight” without the “extra” was in the letters at least. I took special interest in this since the subject comes up every once and awhile. Maybe someone with the John Madl book would also have some information also? Like Bert is saying, I don’t think it was configuration that was in the catalogs specifically, but if the term is found in the records it could be partially responsible for the it being used by Model 1886 collectors. I have the booklet that was available to the judges to take, but I let another collector borrow it and if I get it back I’ll scan the letters. Bert may have a copy also.
tim tomlinson said
Folks,I have my copy of the handout that Brad refers to in the above. Indeed there are two factory letters that refer to the weights as “Light weight”. The rest either refer to the rifles as “extra light weight” or do not state the weight at all. The first rifle so referred is a 40/82 with 24 inch, round barrel, plain trigger, 1/2 magazine, shotgun butt rubber, light weight, then addresses sights. Received in warehouse Dec 17, 1895, so it is not a late use of the term.
Second rifle is a 50/100, 24 inch round barrel, set trigger, Lyman rear sight, taken from returned gun , 1/2 magazine, shotgun butt, rubber butt plate, light weight, received in warehouse Apr 11, 1896.
Those rifles with the “extra light” designation were received in the warehouse on Apr 25, 1898; Apr 25, 1898; Jan 21, 1905; Nov 10, 1897; Jan 23, 1907; Oct 18, 1902; Sep 30, 1902;Mar 22, 1905; Jul 29, 1904;Jun 15, 1905; Oct 1, 1900; Mar 20,1895; Sep 8, 1896; Nov 9, 1908; Oct 25, 1900. Folks interpreting and signing the letters vary from across the boards over some period of time. The letters with the “light weight” designation were signed by folks who also had signed letters stating “extra light weight”. Thus it appears to NOT be a researcher’s foible as to the term used.
I would have to conclude that whomever entered the data in the factory ledger may have had some confusion of terms, which thus tends to confuse us. It is rather obvious the prevailing term is “extra light weight” however.
I just love throwing gasoline on the fire!
Tim Tomlinson
An old thread here but here’s another that excluded the word “Extra” and only says Light weight. It is within the same time(3 days) in 1898 that Tim mentioned above.
Rick C
Rick,
The term “light weight” as written in the factory ledger records and on the CFM factory letter you posted denotes an Extra Light Weight rifle. There is no doubt that “light weight” was written in the ledger records, but that the rifle in question was actually an Extra Light Weight (as in the case for s/n 116919).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Rick C said
Brad Dunbar said
There was an excellent Model 1886 display at Cody two years ago. The owner of the display had Cody letters for each rifle if they were available, and went as far as to have a booklet printed with photos of the rifles next to the factory letters. I believe at least two listed “light weight” rather than “extra light” (sorry if the terms are not exactly verbatim). I think we had some discussion as to whether this was actually a listed configuration or was used as an adjective, but “light weight” without the “extra” was in the letters at least. I took special interest in this since the subject comes up every once and awhile. Maybe someone with the John Madl book would also have some information also? Like Bert is saying, I don’t think it was configuration that was in the catalogs specifically, but if the term is found in the records it could be partially responsible for the it being used by Model 1886 collectors. I have the booklet that was available to the judges to take, but I let another collector borrow it and if I get it back I’ll scan the letters. Bert may have a copy also.
tim tomlinson said
Folks,
I have my copy of the handout that Brad refers to in the above. Indeed there are two factory letters that refer to the weights as “Light weight”. The rest either refer to the rifles as “extra light weight” or do not state the weight at all. The first rifle so referred is a 40/82 with 24 inch, round barrel, plain trigger, 1/2 magazine, shotgun butt rubber, light weight, then addresses sights. Received in warehouse Dec 17, 1895, so it is not a late use of the term.
Second rifle is a 50/100, 24 inch round barrel, set trigger, Lyman rear sight, taken from returned gun , 1/2 magazine, shotgun butt, rubber butt plate, light weight, received in warehouse Apr 11, 1896.
Those rifles with the “extra light” designation were received in the warehouse on Apr 25, 1898; Apr 25, 1898; Jan 21, 1905; Nov 10, 1897; Jan 23, 1907; Oct 18, 1902; Sep 30, 1902;Mar 22, 1905; Jul 29, 1904;Jun 15, 1905; Oct 1, 1900; Mar 20,1895; Sep 8, 1896; Nov 9, 1908; Oct 25, 1900. Folks interpreting and signing the letters vary from across the boards over some period of time. The letters with the “light weight” designation were signed by folks who also had signed letters stating “extra light weight”. Thus it appears to NOT be a researcher’s foible as to the term used.
I would have to conclude that whomever entered the data in the factory ledger may have had some confusion of terms, which thus tends to confuse us. It is rather obvious the prevailing term is “extra light weight” however.
I just love throwing gasoline on the fire!
Tim Tomlinson
An old thread here but here’s another that excluded the word “Extra” and only says Light weight. It is within the same time(3 days) in 1898 that Tim mentioned above.
I would love to examine this rifle. Better yet, have it in my safe.
Online
Steve,
Are you holding out on us, again? 
Pictures of this one would be great!!! 
Anthony
I have THREE 1886 Rifles which may or may not be considered extra lightweight, but using the letters, only one is listed as extra lightweight. I think the criteria is it must have the shortest possible magazine, given the circumstances.
#1. 45-70, takedown, listed as 1/2 magazine, not the shortest possible, as it has the takedown feature, but letter states extra lightweight;
#2. .33 Winchester, solid frame, does not list as extra lightweight, has 2/3 magazine, something that took 3 1/2 decades of ownership to realize despite stating that in the letter. 1/2 magazine can make this lighter.
#3. .33 Winchester, solid frame, full magazine. Lighter than the bulkier full magazine octagon barrel rifles, but still not lightest possible due to full magazine.
All are round barreled rifles.
Anthony said
Steve,Are you holding out on us, again?
Pictures of this one would be great!!!
Anthony
Tony –
This is my only contribution. I sure wish it was an ELW .50-100!
Anthony said
Steve,That’s a great contribution!
Thanks for sharing!
Tony
Thanks Tony!
Sometimes I reflect on my collecting focus over the decades. I suspect most that know me would respond “what focus?” In hindsight, I think about what I might have chosen as a focus. High on the list could have been just ’86 Winchesters. Within ’86 Winchesters, some collectors focus on 26 inch octagon barrel, full magazine, crescent butt rifles. I might have focused just on ELW’s. Boring? Not when you consider there are ELW’s in .50-100, .50-110, .45-90 .40-82, .38-70’s and other examples extant. Even the .33 WCF ELW isn’t all that easy to find 🙂 A collector could spend a lifetime searching out the very uncommon chamberings. Add in fancy and engraved versions and you are really having fun. I’ll bet Tom is on board with this.
mrcvs said
I have THREE 1886 Rifles which may or may not be considered extra lightweight, but using the letters, only one is listed as extra lightweight. I think the criteria is it must have the shortest possible magazine, given the circumstances.#1. 45-70, takedown, listed as 1/2 magazine, not the shortest possible, as it has the takedown feature, but letter states extra lightweight;
#2. .33 Winchester, solid frame, does not list as extra lightweight, has 2/3 magazine, something that took 3 1/2 decades of ownership to realize despite stating that in the letter. 1/2 magazine can make this lighter.
#3. .33 Winchester, solid frame, full magazine. Lighter than the bulkier full magazine octagon barrel rifles, but still not lightest possible due to full magazine.
All are round barreled rifles.
Ian,
I have stated this in previous topics… It is the barrel length that defines what is (or is not) an Extra Light Weight rifle, not the magazine length. All of the Model 1886 ELW rifles have a 22-inch barrel. The 33 WCF rifles were standard with a 24-inch barrel and therefore are not “ELW” or “lightweight” rifles.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
mrcvs said
I have THREE 1886 Rifles which may or may not be considered extra lightweight, but using the letters, only one is listed as extra lightweight. I think the criteria is it must have the shortest possible magazine, given the circumstances.
#1. 45-70, takedown, listed as 1/2 magazine, not the shortest possible, as it has the takedown feature, but letter states extra lightweight;
#2. .33 Winchester, solid frame, does not list as extra lightweight, has 2/3 magazine, something that took 3 1/2 decades of ownership to realize despite stating that in the letter. 1/2 magazine can make this lighter.
#3. .33 Winchester, solid frame, full magazine. Lighter than the bulkier full magazine octagon barrel rifles, but still not lightest possible due to full magazine.
All are round barreled rifles.
Ian,
I have stated this in previous topics… It is the barrel length that defines what is (or is not) an Extra Light Weight rifle, not the magazine length. All of the Model 1886 ELW rifles have a 22-inch barrel. The 33 WCF rifles were standard with a 24-inch barrel and therefore are not “ELW” or “lightweight” rifles.
Bert
Bert –
I think your touching on here one of the enjoyable reasons for collecting old Winchesters: the exceptions to the rule
I was just staring at the front cover of the Fall, 2020 Winchester Collector Magazine. Shown on that cover is a M1886 .38-70 with an octagon barrel. It letters as an ELW. Sadly, despite there being a full page article on that rifle, no where is the barrel length mentioned. But to me, it sure looks longer than 22 inches. In fact, to me, it looks like 26 inches.
Also, in an earlier post in this thread, there is a reference to a .40-82 and a .50-100 that have 24 inch barrels and letter as lightweights. I assume what qualified these rifles as lightweights is the weight of the barrel?
By the way, I never heard of a .33 with a 24 inch barrel lettering as a lightweight. But I believe a member here has a .33 with a 20 inch barrel that letters as an ELW?
Bert H. said
mrcvs said
I have THREE 1886 Rifles which may or may not be considered extra lightweight, but using the letters, only one is listed as extra lightweight. I think the criteria is it must have the shortest possible magazine, given the circumstances.
#1. 45-70, takedown, listed as 1/2 magazine, not the shortest possible, as it has the takedown feature, but letter states extra lightweight;
#2. .33 Winchester, solid frame, does not list as extra lightweight, has 2/3 magazine, something that took 3 1/2 decades of ownership to realize despite stating that in the letter. 1/2 magazine can make this lighter.
#3. .33 Winchester, solid frame, full magazine. Lighter than the bulkier full magazine octagon barrel rifles, but still not lightest possible due to full magazine.
All are round barreled rifles.
Ian,
I have stated this in previous topics… It is the barrel length that defines what is (or is not) an Extra Light Weight rifle, not the magazine length. All of the Model 1886 ELW rifles have a 22-inch barrel. The 33 WCF rifles were standard with a 24-inch barrel and therefore are not “ELW” or “lightweight” rifles.
Bert
Thank you for reminding me of this—I get it wrong every time.
Steve,
There are a very small number of 33 WCF rifles with 22″, 20″ and even and 18″ barrel. While I have not examined what was written in the ledger records for each of them, the two factory letters I reviewed for the 22″ rifles did list them as Extra Light Weights.
As for the non-standard caliber “ELW” rifles, almost anything could be possible and recorded in the ledger records. I consider them as “special order” rifles versus true ELWs. When the Winchester employee entered them in the ledger records, he/she likely used them term “lightweight” to describe a rifle with a shorter than standard barrel length, or a specially ordered smaller diameter barrel.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
