Register
Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
The ordinance markings don’t look right to me–flaming bomb looks incorrect, supposed to be no periods between the “U” and “S” right?
http://www.rarewinchesters.com/forsale/1894%20784029%20Slideshow.pdf
Don
These are the markings on my Spruce Gun, for comparison:
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
supergimp said
These are the markings on my Spruce Gun, for comparison:
Steve
The markings on your carbine look absolutely correct. Quite different than the carbine in the link I posted.
Don
deerhunter said
The ordinance markings don’t look right to me–flaming bomb looks incorrect, supposed to be no periods between the “U” and “S” right?http://www.rarewinchesters.com/forsale/1894%20784029%20Slideshow.pdf
Don
Correct, and it is one of (18) known faked Spruce Guns. In addition to the incorrect ordnance markings, the serial number is well outside of the accepted/correct range. The PR date for that Model 1894 SRC was 6/22/1915.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
So it begs the question, since I joined WACA (one of the best investments I have made in my small collection) I have basically come to the conclusion that Madis (who “validated” this particular firearm) was either confused, fraudulent or downright delusional. Is this the case? Or is it simply a case of we have learned so much since Madis published The Winchester Handbook that we should discount him as an expert?
I don’t mean to disrespect anyone here, but I ask an honest question.
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
Steve,
Confused… maybe. Fraudulent or delusional… very doubtful. Yes, we have learned a tremendous amount in the past 30 or so years (after George Madis published the last edition of his books). I do not believe that he should be discounted as an expert, but a fair amount of the statistical information he published for many models should be.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
Bert H. said
Steve,
Confused… maybe. Fraudulent or delusional… very doubtful. Yes, we have learned a tremendous amount in the past 30 or so years (after George Madis published the last edition of his books). I do not believe that he should be discounted as an expert, but a fair amount of the statistical information he published for many models should be.
Bert
I suppose you have to take in all the info you can and weigh it case by case. That said, this forum has saved me from a lot of poor decisions more than Madis did before I joined.
Of course, now I’m terrified to purchase anything…haha.
patrick tompkins said
How many known real ones? And what is the correct serial number block.
Patrick,
There is an excellent article in the Summer 2005 issue of The Winchester Collector.
Interestingly enough, Bert, that article lists SN 621776 (noted as maybe 821776 – I assume due to wear obfuscating the SN) as the earliest, but 784029 (the gun in question in this thread) is the second on the list. More evidence that we learn more information comes to light.
There are 115 on that list. 114 if you discount this one. Mine is 846719 and not on that list…so back to 115.
But I’m sure Bert has a better idea.
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
Currently, there are (210) verified Spruce Guns, (5) that are suspect/unknown, and (18) that are fakes. With very few exceptions, the Spruce Guns are found in the 834000 – 855000 serial number range.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
For us neophytes out here – can someone give us a short briefing on the U.S. “bomb-marked” Spruce Guns?
Thanks
War Eagle said
For us neophytes out here – can someone give us a short briefing on the U.S. “bomb-marked” Spruce Guns?
Thanks
Have you read the article that Rick Hill wrote about the Spruce Guns?
I simply do not have the time to write a “briefing” on this topic, and it would be easier for me to answer a specific question(s).
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
November 7, 2015
Offline
Be careful in the archives, War Eagle. I can get lost for hours in there, maybe days. 
Mike
Online
That little Ord. bomb has to be one of the most faked stamps of all time. You find them faked on the Spruce Guns, the M1903 22 Auto, the M1897 Trenchguns, the M1885’s, and most often the M97 Riot and Trenchguns from WW2. Generally, a good eye can spot the fakes as they are never like the originals. I collected US Militaria for years and have seen my share of these and cartouches in general. Probably be sorry some day, but I sold my Spruce gun when I sold off my US collection. The one I really regret selling was my martially marked M1903. Big Larry
The ordnance bomb type is one of the easier identifiers for determining if a specific gun is original or faked. Of interest, after examining dozens of Spruce Guns made in 1917, and hundreds of the Winder Muskets made in 1918 & 1919, I discovered that they all have identical martial markings (the “U S” and the flaming bomb). I am relatively certain that the government acceptance inspector was the same person during those years.
Often times, the person who attempts to fake the ordnance markings uses an incorrect style bomb (as was the case on the Model 1894 that Don asked about), using a more common WW II style marking versus the type used during WW I . Another mistake is the use of periods after the letters “U” and “S”. For the WW I era government purchased and inspected firearms, the martial markings were individually hand stamped, and never with a “period” dot after the letter. The WW II martial markings typically did have the “period” after the “U” and “S”, but they were machine stamped.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
Bert H. said
The ordnance bomb type is one of the easier identifiers for determining if a specific gun is original or faked. Of interest, after examining dozens of Spruce Guns made in 1917, and hundreds of the Winder Muskets made in 1918 & 1919, I discovered that they all have identical martial markings (the “U S” and the flaming bomb). I am relatively certain that the government acceptance inspector was the same person during those years.Often times, the person who attempts to fake the ordnance markings uses an incorrect style bomb (as was the case on the Model 1894 that Don asked about), using a more common WW II style marking versus the type used during WW I . Another mistake is the use of periods after the letters “U” and “S”. For the WW I era government purchased and inspected firearms, the martial markings were individually hand stamped, and never with a “period” dot after the letter. The WW II martial markings typically did have the “period” after the “U” and “S”, but they were machine stamped.
Bert
The markings are the same on the M1897 WW1 Trenchgun. Many were unmarked so the fakers made up fake dies and stamped them ruining a nice M1897 Trenchgun. I don’t have it any longer, but I believe the stamps are the same for the Martially marked M1903 as well as the super rare US M1890. The stamp on the M10 Remington is completely different. Another thing, the US was handstamped as Bert said and the letters are never on line. Big Larry
1 Guest(s)
