Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I’m wondering if anyone is watching this one. I’d like to hear an assessment from the forum members.
Darrin
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
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
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
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.
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
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
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 Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Chuck said
Is the hammer correct for this early gun?
Bert H. said
CI 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
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
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 Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
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 guys
Darrin
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
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
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.
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.
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
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
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!
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.
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!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
We’re on the same page Michael. If you’re ever in Canada IPA’s are on me.
RickC
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.
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
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.
1 Guest(s)
