Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have 1895 saddle ring carbine, 401531, 30 Gov 06, with what appears to be non-standard forearm and handguard. The handguard is not cut out for a rear sight and there is a Lyman side-mounted receiver sight (WR). There are no spring clips and the forearm has some type of plastic and paper material packed into it. The saddle ring assembly is missing. Please see the attached photos and tell me what you think this is. Thank you in advance.
Big Mac, and others. I will make some observations, but hope someone more knowledgeable will chime in here. Maybe Mark Douglas. Anyway, the fore end seems to be a “normal” fore end for a carbine that was ordered without the top hand guard. While the photos are dark and I do not seem able to make them larger or manipulate them, it looks as if there were never spring clip cutouts in the fore end, consistent with the way Winchester did for not having a top hand guard. The plastic and paper seem to be placed in order to put upwards pressure on the barrel in an attempt to make it more accurate. I also could not see any drilled and tapped holes for a rear barrel sight, so would be consistent with the Lyman receiver sight being ordered from the factory. The saddle ring likely was left off to avoid interference then with the Lyman. The real odd aspect is the top hand guard. From what I can see, it looks as if it is held to the barrel with a screw midway from front to rear, and the barrel is drilled and tapped to hold it on? I have not known of Winchester doing this, but that is not to say it didn’t happen. Also, to my limited knowledge, when a top hand guard was installed with no provision for a rear barrel sight, I thought they were grooved so the receiver sight could be lowered and sighted without the top hand guard interfering with the line of sight. I don’t see the groove in this instance. From the picture of the underside of the top hand guard, it appears to have been in place for a lot of years and is not a “new” application. I am wondering, though, if the original owner didn’t decide to have a top hand guard installed after receiving the carbine, and one was made by someone to fill his need. Perhaps someone who can manipulate the photos can see details that I can’t see. I am not confident anymore that I can see details all that well anyway! But this is my take on it. An interesting saddle ring carbine (even if it doesn’t have a saddle ring!).
Tim
cwachter said
Tim, which picture do you want lightened? I lightened this one.
cwachter said
Tim, which picture do you want lightened? I lightened this one.
Sorry somehow the size of the file got changed? Maybe this is better
Tim thank you for your response. By way of further explanation the top handguard is held in place by 2 screws that go through to the top of the barrel where 2 holes are drilled and tapped to hold and fasten the handguard in place. I assumed these holes might also have been in place for a barrel mounted type of rear sight(?). Both pieces of wood are very well aged and seem to fit nicely together as if original. The handguard is not grooved, as you noted, but sits low enough for the receiver rear sight line of sight viewing over it (see left side photo, the handguard is nearly flush/level with the front of the receiver.). Any additional thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Mac
Big Mac,
For what it’s worth, here is my take. I think Tim is right that the paper or plastic was probably embedded into the forend in an attempt to improve accuracy. I do believe I see grooves in the forend to accommodate the spring clips for attaching a handguard. In the middle photo, you can see scratches on the barrel above the groove. These scratches are consistent with the handguard being removed by forcing it upward and off the barrel. I believe the handguard is period homemade or gunsmith made replacement that utilizes the mounting holes for the carbine rear sight to attach it. The handguard is a lower profile than any stock 95 handguard I have seen and I’ve not seen or heard of one attached with screws through the sight mounting holes. If this carbine didn’t have a saddle ring from the factory, I believe it should have a filler screw in place of the saddle ring stud. Of course it’s possible the filler screw has been removed. If it had a saddle ring for any length of time, there should be an impression in the front left side of the wrist on the buttstock and/or a half moon wear pattern in the bluing under the Lyman receiver sight.
Since it can’t be lettered we can’t know for sure, but here is a scenario that I think explains the configuration: Very early on, someone installed the Lyman model 21 receiver sight. They then decided they didn’t like the saddle ring clanking on the sight, so they removed it, but didn’t have a filler screw to fit and left it open. They then realized that the handguard and standard carbine sight interfered with the shooter’s ability to see the front sight, so they removed them and found a lower profile handguard and attached it using the holes for the rear sight. Certainly just conjecture on my part, but I think it’s a likely scenario. By the way, an aftermarket Lyman receiver sight (model 21 or 38) doesn’t detract from the value of an 1895, since many were dealer installed and the records usually didn’t identify whether they were factory original. It is one of the few instances were an aftermarket receiver sight doesn’t detract from the value of a vintage rifle, primarily because it is often impossible to know if it was original.
The good news is that it’s a very desirable gun in a great caliber. Also, an original carbine sight and handguard can easily be installed if you so chose. The bad news is that they are hard to come by and expensive when you do find them. The correct sight for a carbine of this vintage would be a Winchester 50b. A note of caution if you do find a stock 1895 handguard, never try to install it by forcing it over the barrel from the top. That’s a good way to crack or entirely break the handguard. Just remove the forend and rear sight (if equipped) and slide the handguard on from the front of the barrel, then replace the forend and sight. Hope this helps.
Mark
Mark,
Thank you for the response and plausible explanation, makes sense to me. I intend to keep the 1895 as is and keep an eye out for correct saddle ring assembly and/or plug for the stud mounting hole. FYI it shoots nice (plastic and paper?). I may try to gently dig the paper out. Who knows, could be hidden treasure? By the way is the indention correct where the plastic and paper are inserted?
Mac
Big Mac and others, For sure I have to defer to those who see better than I do. I can’t say I see the notches in the fore end for the spring clips, but for sure trust Mark when he says he does. I do believe, as stated, the top hand guard is an after market solution, as was stated. A very interesting piece for sure.
I went back and tried to find some of my old records without success. Buckinghams had reproduced top hand guards without the cut out for the rear barrel sight. Thought I might have a picture of them but didn’t find any. Anyway, they were supposedly correct copies of the few made by Winchester for those carbines made without rear barrel sights. They used the spring clips and not screws going into the barrel sight holes. I do greatly appreciate the lightened photo of the top hand guard as I could see at least the one screw with that, and the position was in keeping with the barrel mounted rear sight. A lot of stories of the carbine could be explained, I imagine, were another SRC able to be placed alongside to show the spacing, clips, etc.
Tim
Big Mac, Tim, etc. The only source I know for a reproduction handguard (or “barrel cover” as Winchester called them) is Homestead Parts – see link below. They also list a correct reproduction saddle ring and stud for the 1895, but are currently out of stock.
I, too, struggled to see the spring clip groove from the side, but it is much easier to see in the first picture with the forend removed and looking down from a top view. If you look about a third of the way up from the bottom, there is a groove or cutout that traverses the barrel channel. There is another that is more difficult to see where the material is bedded toward the front of the forend. This groove is missing entirely on forends designed for carbines without barrel covers.
Big Mac – I looked at a couple of forends I have laying around and there is no inletting in the area where the embedded material is on this forend. I also don’t remember seeing anything like it on other carbines I’ve had apart. I don’t believe this indention is original, but it certainly doesn’t detract from the gun since it can’t be seen when the forend is installed.
I think I’d leave the barrel cover on the gun as well. It does make it rather unique and if you like it that way, that’s all that counts. In my experience, there are many 95 carbines with Lyman receiver sights that have a saddle ring and many that don’t. I’ve probably seen more that don’t have the saddle ring. Again, the choice depends on your personal preference and shouldn’t effect the value or collectability of the gun.
Enjoy the carbine. I have a 95 SRC in 30-06 and probably shoot it as much or more than any other gun in my collection. They are a great handling gun and I’ve always been partial to the 30-06 for deer hunting.
http://homesteadparts.com/shopcart/pid_2119.htm
Mark
Tim and Mark,
Thanks to both for your timely responses and insight. Yuuup just going to keep her the way she is (but will continue to monitor Homestead for correct saddle ring assembly).
On another note, I have a Model 1910 with Lyman 1A tang sight. The rear mounting screw is incorrect so I am in search of replacement screw. I called Lyman customer service but they couldn’t help, They did give me phone numbers of two gents who might have scrounged parts. I am also looking on eBay. Any other thoughts are appreciated. (Guess I need to post this over on the sight related forum.)
Mac
1 Guest(s)
