Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
For those of you who would like to check out what I believe to be one of the top ten best 92 rifles out there check out the 92 deluxe on gun broker started tonight. I held this rifle and it’s awesome….the two guys that own and operate ironmenarms in Pa really have some great guns.
I can’t seem to find anything matching that description that was posted tonight.
I found it here http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=384909919 Sounds like you knew it was going to be posted before it was actually posted. If you are selling that rifle, you could list it in the ‘Swap Meet’ sub-form.
I frequent this shop weekly in central Pa and this gun was being listed today when I stopped in….I thought it was a very exciting rifle and wanted to share it here….sure wish I could afford it! What’s your opinion?
I do not know the Model 1892’s of that period well enough to be able to comment on the details of its authenticity, but it is a gorgeous looking rifle.
Hello,
Dang it!!! The fat guy in the red suit with reindeer was supposed to deliver that already to my house.
Everything is correct for it’s serial number range. WOW! My guess it is going to get painfully expensive before it is all done.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
This is the same seller that just sold an 1894 for $15,525.00
Here is that rifle in case you missed seeing it.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=380380382
Very nice 92, I’ve go it’s twin, but In 38 cal.
The Take down magazine plug/lever looks unique to me, looks like the screw location for the screw holding the plug to the mag tube is 90 deg off. Usually they are at the 6 O-Clock position, this one is at the 3 O-Clock position. Has anyone seen this before?
The mag tube looks to be a little long in relation to the barrel, generally they are 1/8 – 1/4 inch shorter to the barrel, In the pics the mag tube looks to be as long as or even slightly proud of the barrel.
Or, it might be just the way the pic was taken
V/R
Mike
That’s an interesting observation Mike and you are correct by the TD lever screws on the rifles I have. I looked through BR’s book and all the TD tubes in it are as you say they should be although on 94”s. What does an oddity (if it is one) do to a rifle like that? Is something like that enough to call a gun like that into question?
Gene
😕
Mike Hunter said
The mag tube looks to be a little long in relation to the barrel, generally they are 1/8 – 1/4 inch shorter to the barrel, In the pics the mag tube looks to be as long as or even slightly proud of the barrel.
The mag tube may not have been screwed in all the way after doing so and before taking the muzzle shot. That would explain the length of the tube as well as the unusual location of the takedown lever.
Mike, if you have its twin in 38 WCF, you are a very fortunate man.
Yes, that can explain the mag length, but not the screw location. The screw holding the mag plug in place should be at the 6 O-Clock position, and hidden under the lever when the lever is closed.
That magazine tube has been modified, now he question becomes, why was the magazine tube modified? 90% of the time its because the barrel has been shortened.
Looking at photos #13 and #25, there are screws at both the 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions. Is that normal? I only have one TD, a Model 1894 shipped in 1903 and there is only a single screw at the 6 o’clock position that is hidden by the lever when it is closed.
Also, looking at helical rub marks in photo #13 it appears that the mag tube is fully screwed in, in which case should not the lever be high on the left side just below the barrel instead of at the bottom? Looking at photo #1, the length of the barrel looks approximately the right length and the distance of the front sight dovetail from the muzzle looks approximately right as well. The letter does not state the barrel length so I would assume it was the standard 24". If the barrel were shortened by 1/8" due to muzzle damage, there would be no need to modify the mag tube. One would only need to modify the tube and end cap/lever assembly if the barrel was shortened by at least 1 & 1/4" to get behind the original front sight dovetail, but then the mag tube hanger would be obviously too close the muzzle which it does not seem to be. When all is said and done, I tend to doubt the barrel was shortened, but the mag tube and TD lever assembly does seem odd, as Mike has pointed out.
There are two screws in a takedown magazine plug assembly.
The first (from muzzle) is the lever retaining/pivot screw. That screw enters the mag plug assy at the 3 O-clock position and goes completely thru the mag plug, with a corresponding hole at the 9 O-clock position.
The second screw holds the magazine plug to the magazine tube. That screw should be at the 6 O clock position, it’s a short screw that does not go all the way thru the plug, so only the head is visible, and is normally covered by the magazine lever when the lever is in the full closed position.
I just finished measuring a TD 92, the distance between the end of the mag tube and end of barrel is .068 or roughly 1/16th of an inch shorter than the barrel.
So hypothetically if the barrel were shortened say 1/8th of an inch; which most folks wouldn’t notice, he magazine tube would be 1/16th of an inch proud of the barrel. That’s something a collector would immediately notice.
I suspect that the muzzle end was trimmed, then they had to adjust the magazine tube to fit the barrel, unfortunately TD mag tube can’t be shortened and expect everything to line up without first doing the math.
So once the shortened the mag tube from the breech end, they had an “oh Shxt” moment, and decided to drill and tap a new hole in the magazine plug……hoping that no one would notice.
Looking at where the hole lined up; and doing some simple math my guess is that the barrel was shortened approximately .156 or 5/32nds of an inch.
Now I could be completely wrong, but something aint right there.
I wanted to comment further on some of the post I’ve seen here recently on the 1892 deluxe…..after reading a couple of the post and doing some investigating….I have found differences in the takedown levers and cap…..the differences being between the larger and smaller caliber’s in the 92 IE: 44-40 38-40 versus 32-20 and 25-20 also the larger caliber 92’s are like the 94’s, please feel free to do your own investigating and tell me what you think.
A few more examples from a quick search. Same screws on these small caliber examples. Looks right to me. For your consideration:
http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/view_lot_info.asp?lot=1026-331
http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/view_lot_info.asp?lot=1025-331
http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/view_lot_info.asp?lot=1063-331
http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/view_lot_info.asp?lot=1283-327
Matt
Matt and 94buff
I stand corrected, and extremely embarrassed.
For a small caliber that magazine tube/takedown assy is absolutely correct. I just went out to the shop and took a look at about a dozen small cal TD magazine plugs; they are all set up that way.
My apologies to all;
V/R
Mike Hunter
Mike,
No need to apologize nor be embarrassed. I did not know if it was right or not at first, I have nowhere near the experience / knowledge some of you folks have on here. Just that since I started collecting high condition 94 TD rifles, I have started following the auction sites pretty closely, and just thought I might have remembered seeing 1892 TDs that looked similar to this, so took a look back. It is not easy keeping up with all the intricacies of all the different models of old rifles.
That said, be interesting to see how high the gun goes. If I collected 1892s (that said I would like one high condition 1892 TD rifle), this sure would be on my Christmas list!
Matt
Mike Hunter wrote:
I stand corrected, and extremely embarrassed.
Last I checked most of us are all human. Look at it this way Mike, you got the mistake for 2014 out of the way early. Thanks for all of your highly valuable input to the forum.
I had been checking out a few of my T/D 1892’s last night while waiting to go out to dinner and noticed the difference between the large and small caliber example that I have. I would be interested in what you think the advantage or need for the difference would be.
Happy New Year
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
January 26, 2011
Offline
"Now I could be completely wrong, but something aint right there" _________________
Mike Hunter
Not a problem Mike, you left yourself an out, rather than stating the information as matter of fact, case closed. I agree with Michael and appreciate your technical expertise you offer here on the forum. As long as everyone, even the experts, present their information leaving the possibility that they could have missed something, or new facts may surface at a later date, we can all respect that.
Cheers and Happy New Year 🙂
~Gary~
1 Guest(s)
