Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
1892 full fancy deluxe
January 1, 2014
10:28 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
June 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I am relieved that the 1892 under discussion is correct.

January 1, 2014
10:41 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 141
Member Since:
January 24, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ok, so after having my own “oh Shxt” moment here on the forum; here is why I believe Winchester did what they did

Two questions:

a). Why did Winchester change the screw location on the small cal 92s when they had a proven design that they had been using on the 1886, 1894 and large cal 1892s?

b). Why did they see the need for a screw that went completely thru the magazine and magazine plug when a ½ screw would work as on the above mentioned models?

Here is what I found, to answer a. The small cal mag plug is approximately .100 smaller in diameter than the 92/94 TD mag plugs. The length of a standard mag plug retaing screw under the head is .331, so if Winchester had put the hole in the same location as the larger calibers and used the standard screw, the screw would protrude into the plunger hole approximately .030, slightly crushing the plunger spring and blocking the hole to the point that the plunger could not properly retract.

For b. Why did Winchester use a thru screw? Even after changing the location of the screw, the screw hole still breaks into the plunger hole approximately .015, my guess is that Winchester decided to use a thru screw so that the spring and plunger would ride over an unthreaded portion of the screw giving it a smother surface area.

Bottom line is that with the smaller calibers, Winchester was running out of room.

V/R

Mike

January 1, 2014
11:35 am
Avatar
Wyoming - Gods Country
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1024
Member Since:
January 26, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Not sure if this will aid with the discussion, but are some example pics.

From the bottom up:
M53 in 25-20
M1892 in 38 WCF
M1894 in 25-35

DSCF2575.jpgImage Enlarger
DSCF2578.jpgImage Enlarger
DSCF2579.jpgImage Enlarger
DSCF2591.jpgImage Enlarger

~Gary~

1894-Deluxe-Avatar.jpg

January 1, 2014
1:27 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 148
Member Since:
August 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mike,
Thanks to you introducing this topic I know I have been motivated to research and learn more about the TD feature of Winchesters. Thanks again to you and all the others that contributed to the thread. I think most of us will be looking at large and small caliber cranks not only for scallops but screw placement in the future. Interesting, keep questioning, it invites comment and the knowledge that flows from it.
Thanks again, Gene
😀

January 1, 2014
2:57 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6
Member Since:
October 9, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I really appreciate everyone's feedback, and I have definitely learned something in the last two days......that's what makes this forum great....I'd like to wish everyone a very happy new year!

January 1, 2014
3:19 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 71
Member Since:
May 4, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

beautiful !! What do you think this will eventually go for. I am looking on line at all the usual suspects but cant find one similar as a comparison.

January 12, 2014
7:04 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
June 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

$22,525 final bid

January 12, 2014
7:16 pm
Avatar
"road king"
Guests

Hard to improve on. There was 3 bidders that were serious about getting it.

January 13, 2014
4:26 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2647
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Definitely some serious money. But an extremely nice rifle for sure.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

January 13, 2014
5:15 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 879
Member Since:
September 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Win38-55 said
$22,525 final bid

Granted, without a doubt, this seems like a nice rifle. However, the final price seems steep to me, especially as it is not in .44-40. I would have thought that even if in .44-40, this would be high. I have this rifle's twin, as far as condition and features, except mine is in .25-20 and lacks walnut quite as fancy (and mine does have a level with the bubble in the rear sight slot and a tang sight that is rare -- I have forgotten what it is, but it is likely original to the gun, maybe a Vernier?). However, I know what I paid for mine 15 years ago, and, even counting, for substantial appreciation, and discounting for the above, as described, it seems hard to believe mine could be worth what it is. I swore I would never start talking about what things used to cost, as that was then, and this is now, so maybe this now makes me officially an old geezer.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: Bert H., JWA, Bill Hanzel, TR
65 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 8364

Posts: 71396


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1132

Members: 10029

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 4697

TXGunNut: 2907

twobit: 2647

clarence: 2576

Chuck: 2448

steve004: 1901

Maverick: 1701

Big Larry: 1516

JWA: 1488

jwm94: 1230