Log In
June 26, 2013
Offline
Does the wood look refinished / checkering re-cut?? It just doesn’t look right to me. Opinions please.
Thanks,
Don
February 24, 2014
Offline
Looks recut to me or maybe a custom made piece. sure is nice looking.
November 1, 2013
Offline
That “hump” in the checkering pattern on the wrist, were the upper tang joins the receiver, looks very odd to me.
April 15, 2005
Offline
When I looked at that rifle at the recent Big Reno show (before Don & Jan purchased it), it looked correct to me. I believe that the camera & lighting in the pictures that Jan took of the rifle are not showing the rifle as it really is. This is a very late production Model 94 Fancy Sporting Take Down Rifle (August 1930), an it likely saw very little use.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
June 26, 2013
Offline
Thanks Bert. Nothing like a hands-on inspection. Too bad it’s out of my price range.
Don
March 21, 2016
Offline
I missed that one in Reno, would have liked to have seen it.
Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886
April 15, 2005
Offline
Kevin Jones said
I missed that one in Reno, would have liked to have seen it.
Kevin,
It was just one row away from where Larry & Bill were set up. Next time, you need to shadow me while I am out surveying old Winchesters.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
June 22, 2014
Offline
Isn’t the barrel stamping incorrect for a late model 94? Caliber marking is on the top of the barrel.
November 17, 2011
Offline
Wood is totally the wrong color. Also it doesn’t fit right at the forearm cap. Wood condition is way better than the metal. This gun has a lot of red flags.
July 7, 2011
Offline
callaway kid said
Isn’t the barrel stamping incorrect for a late model 94? Caliber marking is on the top of the barrel.
Good catch. Unless that barrel sat around for about 23 or more years at the factory, it is not right for a gun with s/n 1069XXX.
Paul
April 15, 2005
Offline
callaway kid said
Isn’t the barrel stamping incorrect for a late model 94? Caliber marking is on the top of the barrel.
I completely missed that when I looked at the rifle a few weeks ago in Reno… Red Flags indeed. It would be interesting to look for the barrel date.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
June 26, 2013
Offline
Just noticed one more thing. Is the take-down lever not screwed back in all the way? I see circular screw wear marks on the magazine tube between the lever and forearm cap. If the lever is screwed in all the way, how did those wear marks get there?
Don
February 19, 2013
Offline
Now i’m no expert…..but to me it looks like the front sight is cut a little to far back from the front of the barrel…..isn’t it supposed to be only 3/4″ to the front cut of the dovetail? Please correct me if i’m wrong!
March 21, 2016
Offline
Bert H. said
Kevin,
It was just one row away from where Larry & Bill were set up. Next time, you need to shadow me while I am out surveying old Winchesters.
Bert
I might take you up on that!
Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886
November 7, 2015
Offline
I can’t get past the wood. That is some of the prettiest wood I’ve seen on a lever gun.
November 1, 2013
Offline
TXGunNut said
I can’t get past the wood. That is some of the prettiest wood I’ve seen on a lever gun.
Can’t say that this wood is not original (though frankly the color & checkering make me suspicious), because wood of this quality could be obtained from Winchester, but what I can say for sure is that this is EXACTLY the reaction the folks who fake high-grade guns (I know one of the best!) hope to elicit. The dealers who commission this kind of “upgrading” count on an eye-catching blank to dazzle the prospective buyer, and divert attention, hopefully, from the kinds of incongruities that have been pointed out.
Photos of the marks on the side of the lower tang, if any, might be helpful, except that they could be faked more easily than anything else.
July 8, 2016
Offline
The wood looks way to fresh and rounded in places for it to be original finish or maybe even original wood. In view of other thing mentioned, I think the whole gun is just another fake. Peter
November 7, 2015
Offline
One thing I recall from Madis’ book is that Winchester did not usually checker wood with lots of figure. I guess it’s possible, just seems unlikely. I’ve always been a sucker for a nice wood stock, lucky for me (with one notable exception) they have all come attached to excellent rifles.
November 11, 2012
Offline
Here is another 86′ that sold at RIA a few weeks ago. It has the lighter blonde wood that the 94′ does. To me, like others have said, the wood on the 94′ does not look correct. I t doesn’t have the slightly muddied look in the finish that most deluxe grade Winchesters do. It is however a much earlier rifle so maybe a bad comparison.
April 15, 2005
Offline
TXGunNut said
One thing I recall from Madis’ book is that Winchester did not usually checker wood with lots of figure. I guess it’s possible, just seems unlikely. I’ve always been a sucker for a nice wood stock, lucky for me (with one notable exception) they have all come attached to excellent rifles.
Mike,
Recheck what you read/recall… the opposite is the case. Winchester checkered/carved most of the fancy walnut stocks, and did not usually checker the plain grain walnut stocks.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
