Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
1892 short rifle
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Central Kansas
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 192
Member Since:
March 21, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
September 29, 2021 - 11:08 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I’m wondering if anyone is watching this one. I’d like to hear an assessment from the forum members. 

Darrin

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/911519406

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
September 29, 2021 - 12:11 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Good morning Darrin,

The rifle is 100% original and correct for a 20 inch sporting rifle.  It has the short fore end wood and the rear sight is moved closer to the receiver face than on a standard length version.  This is why the caliber stamp has been positioned on the left side of the barrel so that the rear sight elevator will not obstruct it.  The condition is obviously on the low side and the wood does not appear to have been sanded or refinished.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Central Kansas
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 192
Member Since:
March 21, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
September 29, 2021 - 3:23 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Thank you Michael, 

I wonder about the rear sight as it doesn’t match the condition. Sellers 7/10 bore condition differs from mine, I see 5/10 or less at best. I’m sure this one is headed to the G.B. stratosphere. Cool configuration though.

Darrin

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
September 29, 2021 - 3:37 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Darrin,

Glad to help any time.  I feel that the rear sight is most likely original to the gun.  IT is the correct early style with the non thumbprint elevator.  IT also looks as if the elevator has never been moved!  Trying to rate the condition of the bore on the one photo is definitely impossible to do.  The rifle doesn’t look like it has been “used to death” implying it has seen 30,000 rounds of ammo shot through it.  I would bet it will shoot just fine.  The bluing is gone but there are no signs of abuse or having spent a large period of time rolling around in the bed of a truck.  A few screws are slightly messed so one might say it has been taken apart and cleaned at least once in its life.Laugh  I am not certain that it will hit the stratosphere of bidding but there is always a couple guys who might REALLY want it and will easily sell around $3000 by my estimate.  How much further is all up to those two guys.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4524
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
September 29, 2021 - 5:07 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Is the hammer correct for this early gun?

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10636
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
September 29, 2021 - 6:05 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

C

Chuck said
Is the hammer correct for this early gun?  

I am with you on this Chuck… it should have a Type 1 hammer with the widows peak knurled design.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
September 29, 2021 - 7:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Chuck said
Is the hammer correct for this early gun?  

Bert H. said
C

I am with you on this Chuck… it should have a Type 1 hammer with the widows peak knurled design.

Bert  

Not so fast guys.  On the Model 1892’s this gun is in the transition of when the widow’s peak style was being replaced with the hammer style on this rifle.  The last consistent “batch” of widow peak hammer guns is a group of 400 hundred guns in the 71700 SN range.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10636
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
September 29, 2021 - 8:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The transition must have occurred much earlier on the Model 1892 than it did on the Model 1894.  Based on my research survey of the Model 1894, the  hammer type transition occurred in the March – June 1903 in the 175500 – 183700 serial number range.  I would have expected (apparently wrongly) that the Model 1892 hammer type change occurred at or very near the same time as the Model 1894.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Central Kansas
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 192
Member Since:
March 21, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
September 30, 2021 - 1:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Thanks for your input gentlemen. The information you share is invaluable to the collector community. As cool as it is, rest assured, if it sells for $3,000 I won’t be one of the two guysLaugh

Darrin

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
September 30, 2021 - 1:45 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert H. said
The transition must have occurred much earlier on the Model 1892 than it did on the Model 1894.  Based on my research survey of the Model 1894, the  hammer type transition occurred in the March – June 1903 in the 175500 – 183700 serial number range.  I would have expected (apparently wrongly) that the Model 1892 hammer type change occurred at or very near the same time as the Model 1894.

Bert  

It is rather interesting that the style of hammer would be different between the two Models and change at such different time periods.  The change for the Model 1892 occurred during 1897 some 6 years before the Model 1894.  I feel at times that Winchester was a model of inconsistency in the manufacture process.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4108
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
September 30, 2021 - 4:45 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

twobit said

It is rather interesting that the style of hammer would be different between the two Models and change at such different time periods.  The change for the Model 1892 occurred during 1897 some 6 years before the Model 1894.  I feel at times that Winchester was a model of inconsistency in the manufacture process.

Michael  

There’s an explanation here.  Perhaps quite trivial.  But still, I would like to know what it was.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4524
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
September 30, 2021 - 7:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

According to Pirkle’s book the transition for the 1892 was around 200,000, 1902.  Take a look at the left side of the receiver and the screws.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
September 30, 2021 - 7:18 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Chuck said
According to Pirkle’s book the transition for the 1892 was around 200,000, 1902.  Take a look at the left side of the receiver and the screws.  

Hello Chuck,

Pirkle tended to cut and paste a lot of the information that is contained in Madis’s work.  Neither of those sources are extremely accurate based on the data I have collected as a result of viewing some 16,000 Model 1892 rifles in my survey.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4524
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
September 30, 2021 - 7:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

That is good information to know.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4108
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
September 30, 2021 - 9:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Chuck said
That is good information to know.  

Michael’s survey data is as good as it gets.  Factory ledgers have their place but even they don’t specify details like what style hammer, barrel address, tang markings and so on.  Plus, only about a third of the 1892’s made are noted in the factory ledgers. Michael’s survey data spans the entire range of production.  Again, let me express my thanks to Michael for doing what he does.  And all the other guys putting their time and effort into surveys!

Avatar
RickC
Guest
WACA Guest
16
October 1, 2021 - 12:45 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

steve004 said

Michael’s survey data is as good as it gets.  Factory ledgers have their place but even they don’t specify details like what style hammer, barrel address, tang markings and so on.  Plus, only about a third of the 1892’s made are noted in the factory ledgers. Michael’s survey data spans the entire range of production.  Again, let me express my thanks to Michael for doing what he does.  And all the other guys putting their time and effort into surveys!  

I agree 100% Steve. Good points about what’s in the surveys versus what’s available from the ledgers. Michael has always answered my emails and passed on his expertise & knowledge. I can say the same for Bert, Bob, & others here. Much appreciated an a huge asset to all of us.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
October 1, 2021 - 11:05 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

RickC said

I agree 100% Steve. Good points about what’s in the surveys versus what’s available from the ledgers. Michael has always answered my emails and passed on his expertise & knowledge. I can say the same for Bert, Bob, & others here. Much appreciated an a huge asset to all of us.  

steve004 said

Michael’s survey data is as good as it gets.  Factory ledgers have their place but even they don’t specify details like what style hammer, barrel address, tang markings and so on.  Plus, only about a third of the 1892’s made are noted in the factory ledgers. Michael’s survey data spans the entire range of production.  Again, let me express my thanks to Michael for doing what he does.  And all the other guys putting their time and effort into surveys!  

Aw shucks guys!  Stop it.  You are making me feel good!  Six packs of good IPA beer are always acceptable tokens of appreciation!  Laugh

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
RickC
Guest
WACA Guest
18
October 1, 2021 - 11:22 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

We’re on the same page Michael. If you’re ever in Canada IPA’s are on me.

RickC

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
October 1, 2021 - 12:34 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

RickC said
We’re on the same page Michael. If you’re ever in Canada IPA’s are on me.

RickC  

What part of Canada.  I hear it a big place!! 🙂 My mom was from Windsor/Amherstburg area in Ontario.

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1058
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
October 1, 2021 - 1:54 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Michael, Your Father was a lucky fella to capture a gal from the Amherstburg area. There is a lot of Canada/U.S. history in that area, also French/English/ Indian  history. About 2 hrs. south of Me as the crow flys.

W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: 1892takedown, antler1, Tedk, rogertherelic, TXGunNut, TR, Jeremy P
Guest(s) 41
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6166
TXGunNut: 4885
Chuck: 4524
1873man: 4268
steve004: 4108
Big Larry: 2297
twobit: 2284
TR: 1697
mrcvs: 1670
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12526
Posts: 108791

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1731
Members: 8735
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation