Register
Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
It is not my belief that Winchester would repair a broken tang. Instead, they would have fixed the problem with a whole new receiver frame. Further, Winchester did not over-stamp their own serial numbers with “WRA”.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
The repair is perfectly fitted and finished and neatly pinned in place, carefully fitted to stop just before the tang marking.
I can not find the picture you are talking about in my Winchester Book by Madis dated 1985? Are you talking about another book or maybe an earlier version?
I agree, a new frame could be used, but a repair would be a much cheaper option if available.
wolfbait said
Just found this. https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/wraco-stamped-model-1892s/
Madis says the WRACO stamp over the serial number area was used when the gun was returned to Winchester and the serial number was worn or removed. That is why I thought my tang repair may be factory.
Madis was wrong about that. The “WRACo” over stamp was done by Sears & Roebuck.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
wolfbait said
My first first 9 and last 3 are light but clear. Not a very good job of removing a serial number. With all the Winchester markings on the 1898 gun, Sears certainly was not fooling anyone with the identity of the gun. I would think Winchester would have an issue with Sears partially removing serial numbers and stamping WRACO. I could see removing the serial number, an easy job. But why would Sears stamp WRACO over partial numbers?
I will suggest that you read the book written by Harlod F. Williamson – “Winchester: The Gun That Won The West” published in 1952. And Yes, Winchester did have an issue with it, and they took Sear’s off of the their authorized dealer’s list, refusing to sell them new firearms.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
1 Guest(s)
