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 SRC for Export
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 197
Member Since:
January 28, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
November 13, 2023 - 5:43 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

I have a 1892 src with the “model 1892” marking sideways just behind the hammer. I understand guns  marked this way were intended for export. Did the guns that were actually exported receive any other export/import markings? Does anyone have photos of such markings?

 

20231112-064959-1.jpgImage Enlarger

 

Thanks

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 79
Member Since:
November 13, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
November 14, 2023 - 12:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

mark minnillo said
I have a 1892 src with the “model 1892” marking sideways just behind the hammer. I understand guns  marked this way were intended for export. Did the guns that were actually exported receive any other export/import markings? Does anyone have photos of such markings?

 

20231112-064959-1.jpgImage Enlarger

 

Thanks

  

In canada I have observed about a dozen of these over the past 28 years . None of the ones I seen had any other markings. 

Jeremy Scott.

WACA LIFE MEMBER, CFM MEMBER, ABKA MEMBER, JSSC MEMBER, MNO HISTORIAN 

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
November 14, 2023 - 5:08 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

mark minnillo said
I have a 1892 src with the “model 1892” marking sideways just behind the hammer. I understand guns  marked this way were intended for export. Did the guns that were actually exported receive any other export/import markings? Does anyone have photos of such markings?

20231112-064959-1.jpgImage Enlarger

Thanks

  

Mi Mark,

.   The tang stamp style on your rifle, with or without the small “MOD 1892” stamped across the tang, is found between SN 476000 and 502000.  Roughly 25,000 rifles This corresponds to production from 1909 for the Model 1892.  The earlier guns with the style do not have any MOD 1892 added to the tang whereas the later examples in this range do have it.  Those early gun are indeed lacking any Model designation on them.  The majority of the rifle in this range are sporting rifles in 25-20 WCF caliber.   I highly doubt that Winchester would have only planned to export small caliber rifles and not larger caliber configurations.  I have catalogued right at 200 rifles with this tang stamp style and not a single one has any foreign proof stamps!  I know Madis claims the tang style was used for export guns but the data does not support that claim.   

It is interesting to note also that during 1909 this identical tang stamp style was begun to be used on the Model 1890 slide action .22 caliber rifles.  Those rifles already had the Model designation being applied to the barrel so there were no Model 1890 rifles produced without model designations.  This style was used until 1915 for the Model 1890’s.  Certainly, Winchester did not intend to export the entirety of 6 years worth of 1890 production.

It is my belief that the use of this tang stamp style on the Model 1892 rifles was a production error.  I will be the first to admit that 25,000 rifles with an “error” is a bit hard to believe but the export idea does not make sense either.

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 197
Member Since:
January 28, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
November 14, 2023 - 6:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

twobit said

mark minnillo said

I have a 1892 src with the “model 1892” marking sideways just behind the hammer. I understand guns  marked this way were intended for export. Did the guns that were actually exported receive any other export/import markings? Does anyone have photos of such markings?

20231112-064959-1.jpgImage Enlarger

Thanks

  

Mi Mark,

.   The tang stamp style on your rifle, with or without the small “MOD 1892” stamped across the tang, is found between SN 476000 and 502000.  Roughly 25,000 rifles This corresponds to production from 1909 for the Model 1892.  The earlier guns with the style do not have any MOD 1892 added to the tang whereas the later examples in this range do have it.  Those early gun are indeed lacking any Model designation on them.  The majority of the rifle in this range are sporting rifles in 25-20 WCF caliber.   I highly doubt that Winchester would have only planned to export small caliber rifles and not larger caliber configurations.  I have catalogued right at 200 rifles with this tang stamp style and not a single one has any foreign proof stamps!  I know Madis claims the tang style was used for export guns but the data does not support that claim.   

It is interesting to note also that during 1909 this identical tang stamp style was begun to be used on the Model 1890 slide action .22 caliber rifles.  Those rifles already had the Model designation being applied to the barrel so there were no Model 1890 rifles produced without model designations.  This style was used until 1915 for the Model 1890’s.  Certainly, Winchester did not intend to export the entirety of 6 years worth of 1890 production.

It is my belief that the use of this tang stamp style on the Model 1892 rifles was a production error.  I will be the first to admit that 25,000 rifles with an “error” is a bit hard to believe but the export idea does not make sense either.

  

I guess this is just another one of those “odd” things found in the production of the older guns Winchester produced.  I agree that, without any guns having been found with export/import marks, the export theory does not make sense.  But, why would Madis have made it a point to mention this in his Winchester book?  I can’t believe one would state the marking was for guns intended for export with no data or information to back this up.  Errors in production dates and the like I can understand but to make up a story about exported guns?  Hard to believe.  I will agree with you that 25k rifles with an error marking is hard to believe.

Avatar
Sydney Australia
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 180
Member Since:
July 16, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
December 10, 2023 - 1:07 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

twobit said

mark minnillo said

I have a 1892 src with the “model 1892” marking sideways just behind the hammer. I understand guns  marked this way were intended for export. Did the guns that were actually exported receive any other export/import markings? Does anyone have photos of such markings?

20231112-064959-1.jpgImage Enlarger

Thanks

  

Mi Mark,

.   The tang stamp style on your rifle, with or without the small “MOD 1892” stamped across the tang, is found between SN 476000 and 502000.  Roughly 25,000 rifles This corresponds to production from 1909 for the Model 1892.  The earlier guns with the style do not have any MOD 1892 added to the tang whereas the later examples in this range do have it.  Those early gun are indeed lacking any Model designation on them.  The majority of the rifle in this range are sporting rifles in 25-20 WCF caliber.   I highly doubt that Winchester would have only planned to export small caliber rifles and not larger caliber configurations.  I have catalogued right at 200 rifles with this tang stamp style and not a single one has any foreign proof stamps!  I know Madis claims the tang style was used for export guns but the data does not support that claim.   

It is interesting to note also that during 1909 this identical tang stamp style was begun to be used on the Model 1890 slide action .22 caliber rifles.  Those rifles already had the Model designation being applied to the barrel so there were no Model 1890 rifles produced without model designations.  This style was used until 1915 for the Model 1890’s.  Certainly, Winchester did not intend to export the entirety of 6 years worth of 1890 production.

It is my belief that the use of this tang stamp style on the Model 1892 rifles was a production error.  I will be the first to admit that 25,000 rifles with an “error” is a bit hard to believe but the export idea does not make sense either.

  

I have owned 2 model 92s with the export mark, and both had british proofs. and both were 32 wcf with shotgun butts.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2284
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
December 10, 2023 - 1:01 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Tony. R said

twobit said

mark minnillo said

I have a 1892 src with the “model 1892” marking sideways just behind the hammer. I understand guns  marked this way were intended for export. Did the guns that were actually exported receive any other export/import markings? Does anyone have photos of such markings?

20231112-064959-1.jpgImage Enlarger

Thanks

Mi Mark,

.   The tang stamp style on your rifle, with or without the small “MOD 1892” stamped across the tang, is found between SN 476000 and 502000.  Roughly 25,000 rifles This corresponds to production from 1909 for the Model 1892.  The earlier guns with the style do not have any MOD 1892 added to the tang whereas the later examples in this range do have it.  Those early gun are indeed lacking any Model designation on them.  The majority of the rifle in this range are sporting rifles in 25-20 WCF caliber.   I highly doubt that Winchester would have only planned to export small caliber rifles and not larger caliber configurations.  I have catalogued right at 200 rifles with this tang stamp style and not a single one has any foreign proof stamps!  I know Madis claims the tang style was used for export guns but the data does not support that claim.   

It is interesting to note also that during 1909 this identical tang stamp style was begun to be used on the Model 1890 slide action .22 caliber rifles.  Those rifles already had the Model designation being applied to the barrel so there were no Model 1890 rifles produced without model designations.  This style was used until 1915 for the Model 1890’s.  Certainly, Winchester did not intend to export the entirety of 6 years worth of 1890 production.

It is my belief that the use of this tang stamp style on the Model 1892 rifles was a production error.  I will be the first to admit that 25,000 rifles with an “error” is a bit hard to believe but the export idea does not make sense either.

I have owned 2 model 92s with the export mark, and both had british proofs. and both were 32 wcf with shotgun butts.

 

Tony,

Can you please send me some info (serial number, and photos) on the rifles please?

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Sydney Australia
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 180
Member Since:
July 16, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
December 11, 2023 - 12:17 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Michael, I  didnt like the ugly pommy proof marks on them so i sold both to a collector yrs ago, ill try and track him down and get the numbers for you. quiet a few of them have passed through my hands in the past, they do pop up from time to time.

tony

as a foot note, i believe because they lacked any model names in that time frame, some of the English Country’s asked for a model stamp, as such the tiny mod 1892 stamp behind the hammer.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 197
Member Since:
January 28, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
December 12, 2023 - 10:04 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Tony. R said
Michael, I  didnt like the ugly pommy proof marks on them so i sold both to a collector yrs ago, ill try and track him down and get the numbers for you. quiet a few of them have passed through my hands in the past, they do pop up from time to time.

tony

as a foot note, i believe because they lacked any model names in that time frame, some of the English Country’s asked for a model stamp, as such the tiny mod 1892 stamp behind the hammer.

  

Tony,

Fantastic information!  This is more along the lines of how the marking was described by Madis and how I have always considered it.  Perhaps my gun is one that was marked as such but was just never exported.  I would really be interested to know the serial number range of the 2 guns.  Hopefully you will have some look tracking this info down.  Thanks for your input on this thread.

Mark

Avatar
Sydney Australia
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 180
Member Since:
July 16, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
December 13, 2023 - 5:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

mark minnillo said

Tony. R said

Michael, I  didnt like the ugly pommy proof marks on them so i sold both to a collector yrs ago, ill try and track him down and get the numbers for you. quiet a few of them have passed through my hands in the past, they do pop up from time to time.

tony

as a foot note, i believe because they lacked any model names in that time frame, some of the English Country’s asked for a model stamp, as such the tiny mod 1892 stamp behind the hammer.

  

Tony,

Fantastic information!  This is more along the lines of how the marking was described by Madis and how I have always considered it.  Perhaps my gun is one that was marked as such but was just never exported.  I would really be interested to know the serial number range of the 2 guns.  Hopefully you will have some look tracking this info down.  Thanks for your input on this thread.

Mark

  

From memory the were both in the high 400,000 range but not 500,000, 480,000 rings a bell.

Bear in mind also Mark, dealers hear in Australia have been taking winchesters not found in the US, back for a lot of yrs now, much to our disappointment

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6150
TXGunNut: 4865
Chuck: 4517
1873man: 4259
steve004: 4097
Big Larry: 2290
twobit: 2284
TR: 1690
mrcvs: 1656
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12500
Posts: 108515

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1727
Members: 8717
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation