Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 103
Member Since:
December 12, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
March 1, 2014 - 6:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I have a 1892 in 38-40. It has a 24" Oct. barrel. The serial # is 194828. The Winchester book says it was made in 1902 but I know the dates are off. I,m guessing more like 1904. Anybody know D.o.m?

Avatar
Wyoming - Gods Country
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1277
Member Since:
January 26, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
March 1, 2014 - 8:01 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

From the PR dates in the Red Book, it is 1902……probably around July.

                                                                               ~Gary~

                                                                                                                                                                              94-SRR.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2326
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
March 1, 2014 - 8:35 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hello,

Yes it is definitely a 1902 rifle. The Cody Firearms Museum will be able to tell you the exact date it was serialized and when it entered and left the warehouse. Could you use the reference material in this link to tell me the exact tang stamp and barrel address found on your rifle? I would like to enter your rifle into a research survey I am working on. Let me know if you have any specific questions about the rifle. http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=606355

Thanks
Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 103
Member Since:
December 12, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
March 2, 2014 - 4:57 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Here are the details"24"oct. barrel, full mag, crescent butt, solid frame, caliber is marked on top, type 1 barrel address, type 1B tang, standard #21 front sight with a buckhorn rear (with serrations). There are proof stamps on the top as well, which seems to be odd as it is 1902 according to you, and I thought they were proofed after 1905. By the way the rifle is in very fine to excellent condition!

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
March 2, 2014 - 6:37 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

About the proof marks. I only have a small amount of data on the 1892’s but, for the 1894’s, the earliest proof marked one I have come across is serial number 225480 from June of 1904. I would have assumed that they started proofing all models about the same time. This may be wrong. I am curious to see what the other members who specialize in the 1892’s have to say. I bet they will want photos of all the markings on that rifle.

Paul

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2326
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
March 2, 2014 - 7:54 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hello,

Winchester did not start the consistent application of proof marks until right around the 300,000 SN range, circa 1905, on the 1892’s. It is possible that your rifle went back to Winchester for Repair work and the barrel was stamped then. Based in your description of the stamp styles and locations the rifle is correct and the barrel is original. Your rifle is close to the end of the Type 1 barrel address use. If I can get a series of photos of the rifle I would appreciate it.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Wyoming - Gods Country
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1277
Member Since:
January 26, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
March 2, 2014 - 8:08 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

94shorties said
About the proof marks. I only have a small amount of data on the 1892’s but, for the 1894’s, the earliest proof marked one I have come across is serial number 225480 from June of 1904. I would have assumed that they started proofing all models about the same time. This may be wrong. I am curious to see what the other members who specialize in the 1892’s have to say. I bet they will want photos of all the markings on that rifle.

Paul

Paul,
A little off topic, but with regards to proof marks showing up on various models. There definitely are different time frames for different models when they started showing up. Last weekend I was looking at an 1890 sn 375000 with a PR date from May 1908 with no proof marks. I was suspicious until I looked in the Schwing book and saw that the barrels on them weren’t proofed until July 1908 and the receivers were Oct. 1908. Maybe the lever guns landed closer together and the .22’s were later. It might be a good survey to start in another post to narrow it down on various models.

                                                                               ~Gary~

                                                                                                                                                                              94-SRR.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
March 2, 2014 - 9:02 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

twobit said
Hello,

Winchester did not start the consistent application of proof marks until right around the 300,000 SN range, circa 1905, on the 1892’s. It is possible that your rifle went back to Winchester for Repair work and the barrel was stamped then. Based in your description of the stamp styles and locations the rifle is correct and the barrel is original. Your rifle is close to the end of the Type 1 barrel address use. If I can get a series of photos of the rifle I would appreciate it.

Michael

Michael
Based on your info on the 92’s, I would say that Winchester did the same thing with the 94’s. After s/n 271164 on the 94’s, ( 6-6-1905 ) proof marks showed up almost totally with only 1 exception that I have recorded and that is s/n 308134 from May of 1906 in 32-40. This is the highest s/n I have come across with no proofs to date.

Paul

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11096
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
March 2, 2014 - 6:17 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

In my Model 1894 research survey, the serial number range for when Winchester began proofing marking them is as follows;

255051 – No – 2/8/1905
255480 – Yes
255646 – No
257759 – No
258622 – No
260389 – No
260973 – No
264188 – Yes
264538 – No
265126 – No
266595 – Yes
266596 – Yes
266781 – Yes
267161 – No
268528 – No
268745 – No
270110 – Yes
270212 – No – 5/29/1905
270738 – Yes

With one single exception, everything after 270212 has proof marks on it.

For the Model 1885 Single Shot, proof marks became standard in May of 1905.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
"road king"
Guest
WACA Guest
10
March 5, 2014 - 3:51 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

What do we think about the proof marks on this early gun? Done on a R&R?

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=398014949

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2326
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
March 9, 2014 - 9:23 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Road King wrote:

What do we think about the proof marks on this early gun? Done on a R&R?

The placement of the proof stamp on that rifle is consistent with what I would expect for a rifle that manufactured before the application of proof stamps and was then R&R for work that did not include the replacement of the barrel after mid 1905. Apparently the R&R was not noted in the ledgers. This rifle was discussed in detail at the Rim Fire Central forum. http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=539466

The problem, for lack of a better term, with jschaal’s rifle is that it also apparently has an unlisted R&R and the barrel proof is located in a very inappropriate position. When Winchester first started applying proof stamps to their rifles they positioned the barrel proof "above" or to the left of the caliber stamp which was at that time located on the top flat or surface of the barrel. The caliber stamp was eventually rotated to the left side of the barrel during 1908, thought the change is drawn out over a long span of the almost 57,500 rifles produced that year. I have cataloged approximately 650 rifles within the 1905 to 1908 time span and none of them have the barrel proof stamp located between the caliber stamp and the receiver face. There are many, and consistent, examples on the SRC guns where the barrel proof was moved forward of the rear sight in order to not impinge on the caliber stamp. You can see examples of these in this link: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=606355 It seems that Winchester went to great lengths to not cover the caliber stamp in any way.
894e599e-9008-4c96-a3b5-f19ed6236425_zps8bc3403c.jpgImage Enlarger

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
March 9, 2014 - 10:03 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

These are 1894’s but, the location of the proofs is as Michael mentioned in his post. The 1892 and 1894 started getting proofed about the same time.
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/1894%20others/Caliber%20marking%20photos/2_zps126cfc7f.jpg.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]

http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/1894%20others/2_zps9dbcc551.jpg.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/1894%20others/7_zpsc76a4bf1.jpg.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]

Paul

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 103
Member Since:
December 12, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
March 9, 2014 - 11:58 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I noticed the stamp when I first looked at the rifle and had never seen one with that placement, it looked wrong-sloppy. That being said the rifle is in great condition with an excellent bore. The proof marks look factory to me, just not in the ideal place.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: JWA, TR, JComer, bryan fleck, Robert Drummond Jr, cnascar
Guest(s) 132
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6637
TXGunNut: 5269
Chuck: 4733
steve004: 4401
1873man: 4364
Big Larry: 2380
twobit: 2326
mrcvs: 1803
TR: 1739
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 13035
Posts: 114006

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1820
Members: 9005
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation