Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
1892 Rifle With Unusual Configuration
Avatar
Wincacher
New Mexico
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1167
Member Since:
December 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
June 6, 2016 - 5:42 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Saw this new listing on Mertz and was initially interested:  http://merzantiques.com/item/winchester-model-1892-special-order-rifle2.

Sent them an email inquiring about the “antique” classification since it is from 1900 per Cody and 1896 per Madis.  Asked about whether they require shipping to an FFL dealer or not, as I don’t have such a license.  But then, after re-looking at the listing it seems to me this is not such a unique specimen after all.  It appears the half octagon barrel is a later replacement, aside from the fact that the original semi-buckhorn sight has been removed.

I haven’t gotten a response yet but think I’ll pass on this one after all. Anyone spot any other irregularities?

1876-4-1.jpg

"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." 

Avatar
Mark Fischer
Montgomery, Texas (Birthplace of the Texas Flag)
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 114
Member Since:
August 11, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
June 6, 2016 - 6:51 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

only comment I would make is the Winchester proof mark on the barrel.  Don’t know if the picture is showing the remains of a proof mark on the receiver, but I am under the impression that both were stamped when manufactured.  Even if both are stamped, am also under the impression that the proof stamp was not standard until 1905, which would take it out of the official antique category of being built at or before 1898.

I have a couple of 1892’s in the antique category, and mine all have the same barrel/magazine finish as the receiver; the barrel/magazine on the questioned gun looks a lot better condition than the receiver.  Would make me think that in addition to the proof mark issue, perhaps it was a replacement barrel and magazine.

Should be able to run the serial number thru Cody which would tend to address some of the issues.

Regards

Avatar
twobit
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2514
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
June 6, 2016 - 9:04 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Wincacher,

The receiver was serialized during 1900.  The barrel is not original to the rifle.  You should REALLY have a Cody membership and have them run any pre 380000 serial number for you.  

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 4920
Currently Online: dane62
Guest(s) 585
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 7119
TXGunNut: 6570
Chuck: 5943
steve004: 5239
1873man: 4719
deerhunter: 2717
Big Larry: 2567
twobit: 2514
mrcvs: 2217
Maverick: 2043
Newest Members:
Trip
eddixon
Rifleman Rifle
tourman40
rifleman
Surfertim
6564yankees
Fox Creek
kellswater
Gary
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 18
Topics: 14892
Posts: 133469

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2057
Members: 10114
Moderators: 3
Admins: 4
Administrators: Mike Hager, Bert H., JWA, SethJ
Moderators: Rob Kassab, Brad Dunbar, Heather
Navigation