Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Bert,
Note that Armax Re: barrel lengths does not mention the 22″+- 94/95 carbines. I assume (careful with that word) that they are referring to the <359,999s.
B
BOBR94 said
Bert,
Note that Armax Re: barrel lengths does not mention the 22″+- 94/95 carbines. I assume (careful with that word) that they are referring to the <359,999s.
B
Bob,
That is correct… the ARMAX only lists serial numbers 1 – 353999. The 94/95 hybrids were much later in the production run.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I have only seen one in the flesh. I bought one last year, a SRC serial number 350,055(will double check number) with button mag, shotgun steel buttplate and three leaf express and brass blade front sight. It letters as stated but was in fairly rough condition. I sold it to another collector who wanted one and selling price was maybe $100 more than a correctly marked specimen so I wouldn’t attach much of a premium for value. The guy I sold it too viewed it as more of a curiosity than a “rare” variation.
Update:
Hi Guys,
Just perusing the forum and reread this thead. Notice that the 14″ specimen with the “error” is well out of the usual serial range for this variant as well as being the 2nd version (P134). It both supports my statement on P106 about a later rebarrel or special order and refutes my claim of the only trapper found with an error date. Not only that, it validates the existence of TWO trappers with different error dates, both likely being special orders. Oops! Exactly the reason for my Addendum/corrigendum. It will be noted as such.
Regards,
Bob
BOBR94 said
Update:
Hi Guys,
Just perusing the forum and reread this thead. Notice that the 14″ specimen with the “error” is well out of the usual serial range for this variant as well as being the 2nd version (P134). It both supports my statement on P106 about a later rebarrel or special order and refutes my claim of the only trapper found with an error date. Not only that, it validates the existence of TWO trappers with different error dates, both likely being special orders. Oops! Exactly the reason for my Addendum/corrigendum. It will be noted as such.
Regards,
Bob
Bob,
I went back and read pages 106, and 134 of your book and I see what you mean. I can understand that the 14″ barrel of my trapper may have been in the parts bin waiting on a “Trapper” order. It’s nice to know that I have the second trapper known with the error date, and perhaps the only known trapper with the 2nd error version of October 14, 1884.
Al
My updated survey now has a total of (21) Model 1894 ELW Rifles and Carbines with the August 14th patent date error marking;
273334 – ELW TD Rifle 30 WCF w/22″ round barrel
330452 – SRC 30 WCF
338247 – SRC 30 WCF
341541 – SRC 25-35 WCF
344048 – SRC 30 WCF
344706 – SRC 30 WCF
351186 – SRC 38-55
351732 – Eastern Carbine 32 WS
351756 – Eastern Carbine 32 WS
354811 – SRC 32 WS
359029 – SRC 30 WCF
359137 – SRC 30 WCF
359712 – ELW TD Rifle 30 WCF w/22″ round barrel
368734 – SRC 30 WCF
369284 – SRC 38-55
369334 – SRC 30 WCF
371206 – SRC 30 WCF
373316 – ELW Rifle 30 WCF w/22″ round barrel
374906 – SRC 32 WS
381425 – SRC 32-40
400073 – SRC 38-55
Discounting the first serial number (273334), the remaining serial numbers were all manufactured from February 1907 through June 1908 (or if you discount serial number 400073), through December 1907. Keep in mind that during this serial number range, Rifles out numbered Carbines by a very substantial margin, and most of them had octagon barrels. As such, it is my belief that just one single roll die was used to mark all of the barrels with the August 14th patent date error. When it finally wore out (December 1907), the replacement die had the correct patent date on it.
Bert
p.s. Please keep your eyes open for more specimens that I can add to the survey list.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert
My guess is that you are correct, the roll dies used to mark round and carbine barrels were concave to match the contour of the barrel. Dies used to mark octagon barrels, of course were flat.
It’s interesting that you’re finding this mark on ELW barrels, I’ve never compared the tapers between ELW and carbine barrels, but they must be close.
Mike Hunter said
BertMy guess is that you are correct, the roll dies used to mark round and carbine barrels were concave to match the contour of the barrel. Dies used to mark octagon barrels, of course were flat.
It’s interesting that you’re finding this mark on ELW barrels, I’ve never compared the tapers between ELW and carbine barrels, but they must be close.
Mike,
When you get the chance to measure both, I am definitely curious about what you find. That stated, all three of the ELWs had a 22″ barrel versus a 26″. At this point, I would assume that there is very little difference in the diameter of the ELW barrels and the standard 20″ Carbine barrel at the location where the patent was stamped. I also wonder how much barrel diameter tolerance (slop) could the roll die account for?
Bert
p.s. See you in Cody
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Hello Doug,
Welcome to the WACA forums and thank you for the information provided on the two Carbines.
Do you remember which type of butt plate was on the Eastern Carbine?
For the standard SRC, was the proof mark on the barrel stamped forward of the rear sight, or behind it?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Hi Bert,
My buddy has a SRC in 32-40 with the error date on the barrel. I will get him to check the serial number so you can add it to your survey. Also, were you the one doing the survey on the Model 65? i have one to add if you like.
Manuel
Yes, I am the same person who is surveying the Model 65, and the Model 43, Model 55, Model 64, and Model 71. For a complete list of the Models I have surveys in progress for, go to this link… https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-survey-discussion/winchester-research-survey-discussion/
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Where is the proof mark on the barrel located… behind the rear sight, or in front of it? Oddly, a substantial number of the Patent date error marked barrels have the proof mark stamped in front of the rear sight.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
The current survey count of the August 14th patent error is (26), (3) ELWs, and (23) Carbines.
Thanks to everyone for the added serial numbers! Please keep up the hunt for new numbers.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I have a Winchester 1894 SRC in .30WCF with the August 14th Patent Error date. It is S/N 276505 mfg in 1905. My barrel line address is at the 12 O’clock position, the WP stamp is in-front of the rear ladder sight. The 30 WCF is also at the 12 O’clock position just behind the ladder sight.
It is the only one I have seen in person in 25+ years collecting, so I consider these to be rare. The dollar valuation of that rarity is of course in the eye of the beholder, but the unit of measurement (quantity) aspect speaks for itself, it is scarce.
The error is an enigmatic occurrence. No definitive reason for why it happened though we reasonably deduce that an engraver made a mistake on a roll die, mixing it up with the Model 1892 or Model 1886 October “14th” Patent date. Was Winchester aware of the mistake, or when did they become aware? Surely someone must have noticed at some point, perhaps it was too late when they did, units were already out the door.
From a legal perspective, engraving, printing or including the correct Patent information on a company’s product is serious business, it protects their intellectual property from infringement. Making a mistake in the Patent marking of said products would be just as serious. Hence the “coin-strike error” aspect to this. When the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving makes a similar engraving die stamp mistake on coins, they always obtain the error units and quickly destroy them, minus the scant few that occasionally end up in production or otherwise escape detection and leave the building. Did Winchester attempt to do that also, secure and destroy the mistakes? If they did, apparently they missed a few! 
BobbyA said
I have a Winchester 1894 SRC in .30WCF with the August 14th Patent Error date. It is S/N 276505 mfg in 1905. My barrel line address is at the 12 O’clock position, the WP stamp is in-front of the rear ladder sight. The 30 WCF is also at the 12 O’clock position just behind the ladder sight.It is the only one I have seen in person in 25+ years collecting, so I consider these to be rare. The dollar valuation of that rarity is of course in the eye of the beholder, but the unit of measurement (quantity) aspect speaks for itself, it is scarce.
The error is an enigmatic occurrence. No definitive reason for why it happened though we reasonably deduce that an engraver made a mistake on a roll die, mixing it up with the Model 1892 or Model 1886 October “14th” Patent date. Was Winchester aware of the mistake, or when did they become aware? Surely someone must have noticed at some point, perhaps it was too late when they did, units were already out the door.
From a legal perspective, engraving, printing or including the correct Patent information on a company’s product is serious business, it protects their intellectual property from infringement. Making a mistake in the Patent marking of said products would be just as serious. Hence the “coin-strike error” aspect to this. When the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving makes a similar engraving die stamp mistake on coins, they always obtain the error units and quickly destroy them, minus the scant few that occasionally end up in production or otherwise escape detection and leave the building. Did Winchester attempt to do that also, secure and destroy the mistakes? If they did, apparently they missed a few!
I already had your Model 1894 SRC listed in my research survey. The receiver frame was serialized in September of 1905, but I highly suspect that it was not fully assembled until sometime in 1906. Thus far, I have seen and documented a total of (56) Model 1894s with the patent error marking. Based on the information contained within the research survey, my estimate is that approximately 1,800 were made with the patent date error.
Winchester made no effort to recall (secure) and destroy any of them. My belief is that the error was corrected when the next set of dies was made, and they simply ignored the error. Keep in mind, it was the year 1906, and they owned the patent rights.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Thanks! Planning to order a CFM letter soon with the Serialization information, these are very nice to have and very grateful for your years of work in this space. On the Patent markings, they are & were a legal requirement, for the manufacturer to place this specific information (correctly) on products in order to recognize the Patent and protect it from infringement.
Place the wrong Patent info, a competitor could have basis to argue (after they copied the design) that they searched for the Patent based on the product marking and it doesn’t exist (i.e. there is no Model 1894 Patented on August 14th with the US Patent & Trademark Office) This was serious business and so I believe they would have destroyed those with patent marking mistakes.
Other circumstances in this time period (1905-1910) could make that concern elevated, given John Moses Browning had left Winchester just a few years earlier. The genius, the master behind the designs of the operation was now with a competitor, at Fabrique Nationale (FN) in Belgium. They should have been especially sensitive to Patent markings in that vein.
Btw – does anyone know if there is a Winchester Model 1894 with the Serial No. 524,702? That is the Patent number for the Model 1894, I imagine that would be a special one to have.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9c/3b/e4/acee4622cfa1fe/US524702.pdf
[Image Can Not Be Found]
BobbyA said
Place the wrong Patent info, a competitor could have basis to argue (after they copied the design) that they searched for the Patent based on the product marking and it doesn’t exist (i.e. there is no Model 1894 Patented on August 14th with the US Patent & Trademark Office) This was serious business and so I believe they would have destroyed those with patent marking mistakes.
The fact that I have located (56) of them thus far is a very strong indicator that Winchester did not make any attempt to locate and destroy any of the patent mismarked Model 1894s. Because Winchester owned the patent for the Model 1894 and the Model 1886, it was extremely unlikely that someone would question the marking on a few thousand guns, or try to copy the design and claim it as their own. The W.R.A.Co. was a juggernaut in those days, and other companies seldom ever successfully trifled with them over legal matters.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
