Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I am looking to buy a beautiful 1894 SRC in .30-30 calibre #832220 with probaby better than 90% bright bluing and unmarked gum wood stock. What is intriguing is that the stock and foreend which are gumwood have what appears to be factory checking which is very fine as well. The owner has no letter from Cody and told me that the files for this gun do not exist as they were burned. What interests me besides the beautiful condition of the carbine is that it would be ordered with checkering on gumwood and not walnut. I suspect if this is original it would be quite rare? What are your thoughts?
As far as I know (and I’m not an expert on 1894’s or 94’s) carbines were not checkered, only rifles. So I’m puzzled about the combination of gumwood and checkering. Per the serial number, the gun was made in 1916, which is within the range for gumwood stocks being used. The reason for the gumwood use was WWI whose demand for shoulder arms made walnut stock wood scarce, hence the use of gumwood stocks on Winchester carbines of the period. I would think it highly unusual for someone to special order a 94 carbine in 1916 and request checkering on it, especially if they couldn’t get a walnut stock.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
FYI, there are 3 checkered src’s on the following webpage. Don’t know about gumwood, but seems unlikely.
http://www.rarewinchesters.com/gunroom/1894/model_94.shtml
Bill
Online
I have serious doubts about Winchester checkering gumwood stocks. That stated, Winchester did on special order, checker walnut stocks on SRCs.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Thanks for the replies. I am very suspicious as well although whoever did the checkering did a nice job if not Winchester. There is no definitive provenance on the gun only hearsay that it was once owned by George Madis and he stated it was original and that about 7 gumwood checkered stocks on carbines were made. How he would have known this if records for many guns in this time period do not exist. Not a story that I would believe without some written proof.
I can send photos to anyone who would be willing to examine them and express an opinion.
Clipper47 said
Thanks for the replies. I am very suspicious as well although whoever did the checkering did a nice job if not Winchester. There is no definitive provenance on the gun only hearsay that it was once owned by George Madis and he stated it was original and that about 7 gumwood checkered stocks on carbines were made. How he would have known this if records for many guns in this time period do not exist. Not a story that I would believe without some written proof.I can send photos to anyone who would be willing to examine them and express an opinion.
Please send the pictures to me – [email protected]
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Hi
As I recall reading in the Madis book, gum wood is to soft for checkering.
Walter
Walter, That’s my feeling also but I only have seen the gun in photos and I am sure the stock is gum wood. If the gun was owned by Madis and if he knew only a few were checkered one would think a comment or photos would have appeared in The Winchester book which I have a copy.
There is no conceivable reason why one would checker a gumwood stock during production. Gumwood was utilized during WWI due to scarcity of walnut. It was scarce, but not non-existent. If funds were expended on a special order firearm during that era, it would have been fitted with a walnut stock, especially if it was to be checkered. No matter the quality of the checkering, if it exists on a gumwood stock, it is non-factory. Period.
wallyb said
HiAs I recall reading in the Madis book, gum wood is to soft for checkering.
Walter
Clipper47 said
Thanks for the replies. I am very suspicious as well although whoever did the checkering did a nice job if not Winchester. There is no definitive provenance on the gun only hearsay that it was once owned by George Madis and he stated it was original and that about 7 gumwood checkered stocks on carbines were made. How he would have known this if records for many guns in this time period do not exist. Not a story that I would believe without some written proof.I can send photos to anyone who would be willing to examine them and express an opinion.
That’s what I would think, however we must be wrong considering the above example of one done well.
Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886
I based my opinion on it being very nice checkering but Im not qualified to determine whether or not it was a Winchester factory job. Maybe once I have a chance to get the photos to Bert H. I will have a better idea as to its authenticity.
I once was teaching myself checkering on an old broken Winchester gumwood stock. Granted I’m a complete novice, but the wood was just too soft to hold a good pattern and when I did get a result, it wasn’t very durable. In fact, I thought I was doing something wrong until I tried on a better piece of hardwood.
I’m sure the pros could do a much better job, but I question the logic of checkering gumwood just from a practicality standpoint.
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
I would enjoy seeing a picture of this carbine. It is an interesting quandary, if the wood is indeed gumwood. I say that because we have heard how gumwood and checkering don’t go together, yet from the seller’s report, this example appears to be nicely checkered. My gut tells me this checkering job was done after the piece left the factory but I also would not be surprised with all the pieces Winchester turned out, a handful of gumwood stocks ended up (for whatever reason) with checkering.
When I get home (in the hospital for a few days) I willl download the photos, email them to Bert and perhaps he can post them here. They are very high quality photos.
I will indeed post them once they have been received.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
OK, here are the pictures. Definitely gumwood, and not factory original checkering, but high quality work. I informed Clipper47 as to why it is not factory work. Let see if you guys can identify what is not correct.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Let see if you guys can identify what is not correct.
I think it would be incorrect for factory original checkering to follow the contour of the tang.
mrcvs said
Bert H. said
Let see if you guys can identify what is not correct.I think it would be incorrect for factory original checkering to follow the contour of the tang.
Nope… that is not one of the clues.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
OK, here are the pictures. Definitely gumwood, and not factory original checkering, but high quality work. I informed Clipper47 as to why it is not factory work. Let see if you guys can identify what is not correct.Bert
The checkering on the butt-stock is way too wide and extends nearly the full length of the top tang–the checkering should start to angle down at a little past half-tang. Also, the checkering extends back way too far (maybe a couple inches) on the bottom of the butt-stock. Here’s one with the correct checkering:
http://rarewinchesters.com/gunroom/1894/M94-0422491/details.shtml
Don
1 Guest(s)
