Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have a Winchester factory print for a barrel hand stamp for the model 1892. The odd thing about it is the caliber on the stamp shows to be .225 W.C.F. Has anyone ever heard of a 92 in this caliber or have any idea what it could be? The .225 was not a standard for the 92 so it has me stumped.
The .225 was introduced by Winchester in 1964 and perhaps it was just a proposal to include the mod 92, before it was decided only bolt guns would be offered in 225. After all, lots of decisions were made in 64, most of which they came to regret.
Also not the ’64 in the upper right edge in pencil.
Vince
Southern Oregon
NRA member
Fraternal Order of Eagles
“There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle.”
Teddy Roosevelt
The .225 Winchester cartridge is way too long to ever fit through a Model 92 action. Additionally, it was way too hot of a cartridge. Only the Model 70 or a converted Model 1885 high-wall action is stout enough for the pressures generated by the .225 Winchester.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I agree with Bert I don’t think it has to do with the .225 Winchester as it is to big for a 92 and wasn’t released till 1964. This is dated July 1911 at the bottom. Maybe it was an experimental cartridge for the 92? Such as the .310 and .46 W.C.F. In the model 1886? I also have the print for making a roll die for the 1894 being “extra steel barrel especially for smokeless powder” . It is dated July off 1912 at the bottom of it.
Could it be that somewhere along the line communication went astray and it was supposed to say 25-20 W.C.F.? One would think that the stamp would have been ordered quite late in the cycle of an experimental cartridge. You can also speculate many reasons for the Model 94 roll die. I guess the truth is we never know the real reasons for these drawings.
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
Yes it could a mistake as they do happen. I have seen this stamp on 94’s before and if the Madis book is correct it was used on guns in the 45,000-75,000 as an experimental steel trying to find an easier to machine and such, but found it eroded to fast and went back to steel with higher nickel content. So the 45,000-75,000 range would put it well before the July 1912 date that’s on that print. You maybe correct and we will never know the reasons for them and being dated so late.
Going out on a limb here with speculation…………..Possibly a pre designation for what became the 218 Bee ???
Erin
Now that’s a interesting thought Erin. They did prove they wanted a .22 caliber in the 92
Erin Grivicich said
Going out on a limb here with speculation…………..Possibly a pre designation for what became the 218 Bee ???
Erin
I am kind of leaning this way also. If you necked down the 25-20 brass just a bit more and use a slightly larger .22 LR bullet that is 1/1000th of an inch wider you would end up with a .225 WCF cartridge. It is interesting that the Model designation is a “92” which did not come into use until 1920. Certainly could have been an experimental cartridge but I have never seen nor heard of it prior to this.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Matt Cox said
I agree with Bert I don’t think it has to do with the .225 Winchester as it is to big for a 92 and wasn’t released till 1964. This is dated July 1911 at the bottom. Maybe it was an experimental cartridge for the 92? Such as the .310 and .46 W.C.F. In the model 1886? I also have the print for making a roll die for the 1894 being “extra steel barrel especially for smokeless powder” . It is dated July off 1912 at the bottom of it.
The “Extra Steel” barrel marking print is interesting… I would appreciate having a copy of it.
In regards to the Extra Steel barrels, I have surveyed (4) of them, with the earliest being serial number 57337 (July 1899), two in the 63000 – 66000 range (also 1899), and most recent was serial number 406695 (July 1908). Based on the total number of Model 1894s I have surveyed thus far, the Extra Steel barrels are rare.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert I’ll attach a picture of it for now and I’ll try to get you a scanned copy of it. I also have a 
print of the 1897 takedown design. It is a prototype design as I don’t think it was ever in production. Last time I was at Cody Museum I do believe I saw one built like it tho. It’s a much larger print than the other two.
Michael I thought the same ting on the model designation. The 1894 one is marked 1894.
Matt Cox said
Bert I’ll attach a picture of it for now and I’ll try to get you a scanned copy of it. I also have aMichael I thought the same ting on the model designation. The 1894 one is marked 1894.
Matt,
Thanks! A scanned copy is much appreciated.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Matt Cox said
I received the VERY interesting material and information from Dan Shuey of WCF Publications regarding the work done by Winchester while developing a .225 WCF cartridge for use in the Model 1892 rifles. Apparently there is always something new to learn!! More research time to be spent at Cody in an attempt to flesh out this interesting new info.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Ah, it looks to me that developmentally, there had been an earlier (shorter version) of the .225 on the drawing board. What made it off the drawing board was a fairly different cartridge. I suspect they were after a modernized version of the .22 WCF. Eventually, they did something like this with the M94 (i.e. in the M64) when they came out with the .219 Zipper. And of course, they did chamber the .218 Bee in the M65 (and a few in the M1892). Savage chambered a fair number of 1899’s and 99’s in the .22 HP, so there had been a history of interest in .22 caliber lever action repeaters.
I always thought the .225 made no sense. Why bring out a semi-rimmed cartridge exclusively for a bolt action rifle with an action that is long enough to handle any high velocity cartridge out there? And it certainly didn’t out perform the .220 Swift. Why go backwards in performance? It’s not like a semi-rimmed cartridge is the idea choice for a bolt action magazine fed repeating rifle. Had they been making a single-shot to chamber it in, I would have been on board.
1 Guest(s)
