Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I see a lot of the 1882 Winchesters converted to a 218 Bee. Most that I have seen us a model 65 barrer or just claim it was a 218 to start with. I was wondering how they convert the elevator to work with a 218 round as I know the elevator for any other caliber will not work. I have been in the market to find a model 65 to complete my collection of 65’s but the last two had 65 barrels but apparently who ever added the barrel to more than likely a 32-20 did not change the elevator so they would not cycle the 218 round. I have a 43 218 but would like to add a lever gun. I also have a high grade Browning 65 218 but it is to pretty to shoot.
What is the serial number of your 92? I have one of the 218 BEE Model 92’s that Bert has inspected. I think about 5 have been verified and they have modified Model 43 barrels. My serial number is 999935. Unless I am mistaken, 25-20, 32-20 and 218 Bee all use the same lifter and guides. RDB
Rodger,
For the Model 65, the cartridge guide is apparently different for the 218 Bee than it is for the 32-20. Jerry is referring to a pair of Model 65 rifles that he found (and temporarily purchased) that were purportedly 218 Bee, but neither of them would properly cycle a 218 Bee cartridge into the chamber. Both the rifles he found were equipped with a standard barrel mounted rear sight versus a No. 98C bolt peep sight, which is a “red flag” in regards to their originality. One of those rifles he found also had a “P” mail order proof mark on the barrel, indicating that somebody “upgraded” it.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Thank you Bert. I have only owned one 32-20 Model 92 and I never shot it. I used it for trade on another 25-20. I wasn’t aware the cartridge guides or lifters were different. I keep learning. Now if only I can remember! 
RDB
I do not own a 92 that has been modified for the 218. I am going to wait a while for a 65 to complete my set but if that does not happen I might try and find a nice 92. I would have no indead what to look for if one of the uncommon real 92 218 would show up so I would just consider one that I buy to be a conversion and might get lucky and get a real one. I guess most use the 65 or 43 barrels. As I have told Bert I will have a couple 218’s in my pocket before I buy anything that should shoot the 218.
Here’s another hard one to find too. It’s the only one I have ever seen. And yes it seems to be refinished. RDB
rogertherelic said
Here’s another hard one to find too. It’s the only one I have ever seen. And yes it seems to be refinished.
Roger,
What is the serial number on that Model 53? Is it a late rifle in the Model 92 serial number range?
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I wish it was. The serial number is 933650. That is about a 1927 production serial number and no where near when the cartridge was introduced in 1938. When I purchased it I was told it was a parts clean up gun and refinished due to the flaking receiver problem. Who would have thought that wasn’t true? It cycles smoothly and is accurate, I will say that. Not a model 65 style pistol grip either. I have several unusual guns, but that’s what I was looking for. Not having proper guidance in my purchases I have made a few errors along the way. I still like the little rifle. RDB
Roger,
S/N 933650 was/is a Model 92, and it was manufactured in the year 1924 versus 1927. I assumed (a bad thing to do) that with a Model 53 marked barrel, that it was a Model 53. The earliest verified Model 53 rifle that was serialized in the Model 92 S/N range is 962189 which was late December 1927.
Have you checked the bottom of the barrel for the 2-digit year number and the caliber marking ?
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Larry Shennum’s “RED BOOK” put the serial number about 1921. I have no clue where I came up with 1927 receiver production date. Just looked at the bottom of the barrel and there are no markings at all. No caliber, no date. This must be a “PROTO TYPE”! 
Fits right into my expertise. Wanna be collectors like me must irritate you to no end. The proverbial “burr under the saddle”. I apologize to you and to the collectors that have the knowledge I lack. Someday, I hope, we can have a good laugh at ignorance and misinformation. At the same time, shame on the dealers that misrepresent their wares. RDB
P.S. In my defense, I do have a real Model 53 T/D serial #995387 25/20 with a “STAINLESS STEEL” barrel.
My favorite 53 is my 44-40 take down. I purchased my 25-20 from a fellow in Utah and in our coversation me memtioned he had the 44-40, short story is we were soon making a deal on two guns. Don’t feel bad Roger, Bert more than likely hears from me more than he does you
Thank you Jerry. I won’t get into all the guns I have sold and should have kept (53 T/D and solid frame in 44 WCF, 2 1892 , Oct. T/D 1/2 mag. 44 WCF rifles, etc.) Sometimes it appears I sold the best and kept the rest. Just using this as a learning experience, grin and move on. RDB
rogertherelic said
Larry Shennum’s “RED BOOK” put the serial number about 1921. I have no clue where I came up with 1927 receiver production date. Just looked at the bottom of the barrel and there are no markings at all. No caliber, no date. This must be a “PROTO TYPE”!P.S. In my defense, I do have a real Model 53 T/D serial #995387 25/20 with a “STAINLESS STEEL” barrel.
Roger,
The DOM tables in the Red Book are not accurate for the years 1921 – 1926 (Cody does not have the records for those years), and the information is accordingly not in bold italics. In the years following the publication of the Red Book, I have acquired verified DOM information for individual S/Ns within that span of years, and will update the DOM tables in Chapter 8 before publishing the 5th edition. S/N 933650 was most likely manufactured in the latter half of the year 1924.
And No, collectors like you do not irritate me in the slightest… because you are willing to both ask questions, and to listen & learn from the answers. The only people that truly “irritate” me are those “know-it-all” dealers & collectors out there that refuse to accept (or learn) the hard facts that have been uncovered through the research efforts of the past 20-years.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
rogertherelic said
P.S. In my defense, I do have a real Model 53 T/D serial #995387 25/20 with a “STAINLESS STEEL” barrel.
Roger,
We have S/N 995587 listed in the survey as a Take Down 25-20 Stainless Steel barrel… did we get the number wrong? Currently, we have (20) Model 53 rifles in the survey with Stainless Steel barrels.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
995387 is the correct number. Perhaps my original input was incorrect. “53” is it’s middle number. My typing hasn’t improved much. “So hard to get good help these days”. RDB
rogertherelic said
995387 is the correct number. Perhaps my original input was incorrect. “53” is it’s middle number. My typing hasn’t improved much. “So hard to get good help these days”. RDB
Thanks… are you able to verify the 2-digit year number on the bottom of the barrel? It should look similar to the picture below;
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Wow, I don’t believe the forend wood had ever been removed before. The magazine connector (or whatever it is called) does not have the notch that the 44 caliber has. Very difficult to make out the number. I think it is “24”. RDB
Rodger,
It is the Take Down extension ring, and yes, they are slightly different for the small bore calibers versus the large bore (44 WCF). The picture I posted is a 44 WCF.
The barrel date on your Take Down w/Stainless barrel cannot be “24”. Winchester did not start making Stainless barrel until 1926. The trick to seeing the date is to use an LED flashlight on one side and a small inspection mirror on the opposite side to view the number.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Correct as usual Bert. 1926 date if you look just right. Upside down and backwards with the mirror and light. RDB
1 Guest(s)
