Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have just acquired this Model 1894. It is a 1908 gun by the serial number. It is in fairly nice condition overall with a very good bore and very little actual use showing. Here are my questions. Just how rare is a carbine with a button magazine and shotgun buttplate. Second, the stock is walnut while the forend is gum. Would this be factory correct? Also pictured are the barrel marks from the underside. Is the barrel original to the gun? It has been this way for a very long time and shows no attempts to alter it. The square cut for the button is factory and no front band was ever there so I am certain is is an original Button magazine barrel.
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
Others far more knowledgeable than me will be along to assess other questions, but I don’t think a gumwood forend and a walnut stock would be factory work. The factory would want consistency in finish between the forend and stock and the stock is of a redder hue than the forend, and so my guess is the stock is replaced.
Also, the consistent lack of finish on the rear sight relative to the barrel tells me it’s likely replaced and the style would be unusual for a carbine.
That butt stock is not original to the gun. Winchester never used that particular steel butt plate on a M1894. That butt stock was originally on a M64. Pretty sure the Winchester No. 34 3 Leaf Platinum Lined rear sight is also not original and that there should be a No. 44A Ladder sight on there.
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Tedk said
That butt stock is not original to the gun. Winchester never used that particular steel butt plate on a M1894. That butt stock was originally on a M64. Pretty sure the Winchester No. 34 3 Leaf Platinum Lined rear sight is also not original and that there should be a No. 44A Ladder sight on there.
Yes, of course! That buttplate is the obvious—and I completely missed it.
I would expect a ladder sight on a carbine, but this wasn’t always the case. However, I would not expect a folding leaf sight on a carbine, which is why I didn’t think it to be correct, as you surmised as well.
I don’t disagree with the analysis of this particular carbine, but haven’t we seen examples of carbines that were shipped from the factory with a walnut stock and gum wood forearm?
There was a thread a while back about SRC’s with a Special Order button mag. Bert’s survey revealed that these guns were supplied with a Whelen Comb fluted stock and shotgun butt. Pretty sure I’ve been examples with both hard rubber and steel butts.
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Old Guns: Here’s what Your Button mag. s.r.c. should look like. This one is British Proofed
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
See posts 8 – 13 of this thread:
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/mis-matched-wood-on-this-1894-src/
Synopsis: Bert confirms no Winchester left the factory with mismatched forearms and stocks.
Pic of a Special Order SRC with button mag, Whelen Comb stock and shotgun butt
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Tedk said
I’ve had at least one of these. I know one was a .32 Special.
I had the understanding that the Whelen stock was introduced much later than 1908. Can anyone verify that? That is a dandy “Special Order Carbine” in my eyes, but I have miss identified special features before. I also believe the differance in finish appearance is the lighting in the pictures. I like the serial number too. I have never seen a non-pistol grip stock on a model 64. I have a later model carbine with a model 64 buttstocl ser. #1129291. I think you have “Special Gun”. Congratulations! RDB
My analysis is likely totally off base, someone with greater knowledge will be along to clean up my errors
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Tedk said
That butt stock is not original to the gun. Winchester never used that particular steel butt plate on a M1894. That butt stock was originally on a M64. Pretty sure the Winchester No. 34 3 Leaf Platinum Lined rear sight is also not original and that there should be a No. 44A Ladder sight on there.
Ted,
Winchester did indeed use that particular style checkered steel butt plate (on special order) on the Model 1894 Carbines & Rifles. Furthermore, that butt stock was not originally on a Model 64 (the Model 64 rifles were all made with a pistol grip butt stock). Just like the checkered steel butt plate, the No. 34 3-leaf express sight was a factory optional sight for the Model 1894, and it was frequently installed by Winchester on the Carbines.
Thus far I have documented (88) factory original Model 1894 Rifles & Carbines with a factory installed checkered steel butt plate. I have documented (67) with the 3-leaf Express sight.
With that stated, I do agree that the butt stock is most likely not original to that gun. As has been mentioned, Winchester would not have mixed a Walnut butt stock with a Gumwood forend stock.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Mea Culpa
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Tedk said
There was a thread a while back about SRC’s with a Special Order button mag. Bert’s survey revealed that these guns were supplied with a Whelen Comb fluted stock and shotgun butt. Pretty sure I’ve been examples with both hard rubber and steel butts.
More accurately, the special order Carbines with a shotgun butt were fitted with the Whelen Fluted comb butt stocks after approximately 1913. Those that were manufactured before 1913 did not have the fluted comb. Most of the special order Carbines with a shotgun butt had the hard rubber butt plate, but some of them had a smooth steel shotgun butt plate or the checkered steel butt plate.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
In answer to the question about button magazines, they too are not at all uncommon. In the survey covering the 354000 – 1079689 serial range (May 1907 through December 1931), I have documented the following numbers;
Eastern Carbines:
| Magazine Length | Quantity | Percentage |
| ½ | 40 | 5.4% |
| ⅔ | 158 | 21.4% |
| ¾ | 11 | 1.5% |
| Full | 530 | 71.7% |
Saddle Ring Carbines:
| Magazine Length | Quantity | Percentage |
| Full | 4,557 | 94.9% |
| ½ | 164 | 3.4% |
| ⅔ | 76 | 1.6% |
| ¾ | 7 | 0.1% |
The total number of Carbines (all types) in my survey is 5,563. The total number of Model 1894 Rifles and Carbines in the survey is 9,889 (I am hoping to break the 10,000 mark before the end of this year).
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Tedk said
There was a thread a while back about SRC’s with a Special Order button mag. Bert’s survey revealed that these guns were supplied with a Whelen Comb fluted stock and shotgun butt. Pretty sure I’ve been examples with both hard rubber and steel butts.
More accurately, the special order Carbines with a shotgun butt were fitted with the Whelen Fluted comb butt stocks after approximately 1913. Those that were manufactured before 1913 did not have the fluted comb. Most of the special order Carbines with a shotgun butt had the hard rubber butt plate, but some of them had a smooth steel shotgun butt plate or the checkered steel butt plate.
Bert
A large amount of the half mag, SB 3 Leaf sight 94s were shipped to India, I have owned 2 both in 32/40. A huge collection of Winchesters was purchased in early 80s by an Australia dealer and sold hear, most were never fired and had mint bores.
mrcvs;
Synopsis: Bert confirms no Winchester left the factory with mismatched forearms and stocks.
If you are talking about ” NO Winchester” This statement is not true.
According to Winchester Slide Action Rifle Book Volume ll Model 61 & Model 62 (page 70-71) discontinued model 60 stocks were used to make forearms for the Model 61s during the late 50s. Causing a mis-match between stock and forearm on some 61s.
Yes I know the forum was talking about model 94s but this only shows that Winchester did not throw anything away. If only the guns could talk we would have a better concept of what actually took place in the Winchester factory.
Win61 said
mrcvs;Synopsis: Bert confirms no Winchester left the factory with mismatched forearms and stocks.
If you are talking about ” NO Winchester” This statement is not true.
According to Winchester Slide Action Rifle Book Volume ll Model 61 & Model 62 (page 70-71) discontinued model 60 stocks were used to make forearms for the Model 61s during the late 50s. Causing a mis-match between stock and forearm on some 61s.
Yes I know the forum was talking about model 94s but this only shows that Winchester did not throw anything away. If only the guns could talk we would have a better concept of what actually took place in the Winchester factory.
I was talking about the Model 1894, but I would imply it applied to all other early lever guns, such as the 1892. I don’t know about all Winchesters, as I have no interest in post WWI Winchesters, little interest in this manufactured after 1920 or so, and much interest in those before 1920 and even more so if pre 1899.
But I was totally wrong about the 3 leaf rear sight being not on carbines. I had not seen it before, but it can be correct. My guess is that is found more overseas, but that’s just a guess.
However, the grey tone of the rear sight on the OPs rifle sticks out on the OPs carbine relative to the barrel and I don’t think THAT rear sight originated on THAT carbine. I could be wrong…
Attached find pictures of my Model 94 Carbine 25-35 S/N 419463 (1908). This is a standard carbine with gum wood stock and forearm. It has the 3 leaf rear sight which I believe to be the original rear sight. The tang sight is period correct but did not come with this carbine.
Bert – I believe you have this carbine in your 94 survey. If not let me know and I will send you the information needed.
1 Guest(s)
