Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
1894 SRC with factory checkering on gumwood stock?
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
November 16, 2017 - 12:34 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

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? 

Avatar
New Mexico
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1167
Member Since:
December 1, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
November 16, 2017 - 5:03 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

1876-4-1.jpg

"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." 

Avatar
California
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 486
Member Since:
July 19, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
November 16, 2017 - 5:26 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10848
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
November 16, 2017 - 5:48 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
November 16, 2017 - 1:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10848
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
November 16, 2017 - 3:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
November 17, 2017 - 12:52 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert, I will send them once I figure out how to.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 356
Member Since:
April 14, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
November 17, 2017 - 4:48 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi

As I recall reading in the Madis book, gum wood is to soft for checkering.

Walter

Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
November 17, 2017 - 10:57 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1727
Member Since:
September 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
November 18, 2017 - 1:17 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 482
Member Since:
March 21, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
November 18, 2017 - 2:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

wallyb said
Hi

As 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. 

IMG_0805-Copy-Copy-Copy.JPG

Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886

Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
November 18, 2017 - 6:39 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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. 

Avatar
Los Angeles
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 379
Member Since:
January 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
November 18, 2017 - 6:54 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4261
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
November 19, 2017 - 4:40 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
November 19, 2017 - 9:47 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10848
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
November 20, 2017 - 4:55 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I will indeed post them once they have been received.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10848
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
November 24, 2017 - 1:31 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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

IMG_0419.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0420.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0423.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0424.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0425.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0426.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0427.JPGImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1727
Member Since:
September 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
November 24, 2017 - 2:28 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Bert H. said
Let see if you guys can identify what is not correct.IMG_0419.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0420.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0423.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0424.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0425.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0426.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0427.JPGImage Enlarger

I think it would be incorrect for factory original checkering to follow the contour of the tang.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10848
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
November 24, 2017 - 3:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

mrcvs said

Bert H. said
Let see if you guys can identify what is not correct.IMG_0419.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0420.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0423.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0424.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0425.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0426.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0427.JPGImage Enlarger

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
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Troutdale, OR
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1912
Member Since:
June 26, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
November 24, 2017 - 5:39 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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

IMG_0419.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0420.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0423.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0424.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0425.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0426.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0427.JPGImage Enlarger  

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

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6382
TXGunNut: 5051
Chuck: 4600
1873man: 4323
steve004: 4261
Big Larry: 2346
twobit: 2303
mrcvs: 1727
TR: 1725
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12776
Posts: 111307

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1768
Members: 8863
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation