Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I’m looking at a particular 94 trapper carbine DOM 1924. It has the 9 1/8" forearm. Should the barrel address markings be positioned forward of the forearm band (between the muzzle and the forearm band) or behind the forearm band (between the receiver and the forearm band)? I’ve been reading Robert Renneberg’s book, but it’s a bit confusing. It states that the barrel address should be forward of the forearm band for trapper carbines and between the receiver and the forearm band for standard carbines. The 18" carbine I am looking at has the barrel address between the receiver and the forearm band–is this correct? It seems there are some exceptions to the "rule" regarding the 18" carbines and want to make sure the carbine I am looking at is original.
Page 128, 2nd Addition.
Barrel markings for trapper models were applied at the same distance from the receiver on all barrels regardless of length, but – as mentioned earlier, 16 inch and 18 inch trappers were often assembles with the longer 9 1/8 inch style forend. The additional length of the standard forend placed the retaining band one inch forward, partially covering the marking.
floyd58523 said
Page 128, 2nd Addition.
Barrel markings for trapper models were applied at the same distance from the receiver on all barrels regardless of length, but – as mentioned earlier, 16 inch and 18 inch trappers were often assembles with the longer 9 1/8 inch style forend. The additional length of the standard forend placed the retaining band one inch forward, partially covering the marking.
That’s the part that is confusing to me. I don’t have the book in hand with me right now, so I can’t point out the page, but somewhere it states (I believe) that after tang marking #5 (the model "94" conversion from "1894") the barrel address for all carbines was moved to the location between the receiver and the forearm band. I just wanted to confirm this before I make a purchase. Unfortunately, it seems there are a lot of fakes out there and I don’t want to get took.
"Barrel markings for trapper models were applied at the same distance from the receiver on all barrels regardless of length, but – as mentioned earlier, 16 inch and 18 inch trappers were often assembles with the longer 9 1/8 inch style forend. The additional length of the standard forend placed the retaining band one inch forward, partially covering the marking."
That doesn’t quite make sense, if the standard marking was placed at the standard distance from the receiver, and they used the longer “standard” forend, then the markings would not be covered.
I own and have owned several trapper carbines, what I have found is that 16 inches and shorter with shorter forend wood the barrel addy was forward of the rear band, there is no room for the addy between the band and frame.
The one 18 inch carbine that I’ve seen (never owned one) it was a late gun with the “lightning type markings on the left side of the barrel.
For carbines, the first thing I look at is the front sight block. There are very few folks that can do the front sight block correctly. If you see a solder line… it’s a made up gun. On a late carbine the front sight was forged as part of the barrel.
The example carbine in Robert R’s book is the only example I have seen where the barrel addy was partially covered.
[quote="Mike Hunter"]"Barrel markings for trapper models were applied at the same distance from the receiver on all barrels regardless of length, but – as mentioned earlier, 16 inch and 18 inch trappers were often assembles with the longer 9 1/8 inch style forend. The additional length of the standard forend placed the retaining band one inch forward, partially covering the marking."
That doesn’t quite make sense, if the standard marking was placed at the standard distance from the receiver, and they used the longer “standard” forend, then the markings would not be covered.
Thanks Mike. That’s exactly what was confusing to me. Here is the link to this carbine. I currently have it on hold/pending sale. It seems to be in above average condition for a trapper carbine (in a rare caliber too) and can’t wait to get my hands on it.
Is it safe to say that the originality of a trapper carbine like this is solely determined by the "factory" workmanship at the muzzle end of the barrel, tube and sight? The mag tube end plug does not have matching wear to the tube itself and does not fit well. The rounded muzzle face is all white, looks polished. Can’t tell from the blurry pictures if the front sight base is one piece with the barrel itself, in one picture it looks like a dovetail line?
I know current belief is that all carbine muzzles should be blued, but, I have seen a few minty 1894 carbines where the muzzle end was white. Either they left the factory that way or the bluing was removed by an overly judicious use of a cleaning brush.
I have seen three different ways that Winchester did the square front sight blocks on carbine barrels:
Early on for the 1866, 1873, 1876 and some 1886 they machined a radius on the bottom of the front sight matching the radius of the barrel; silver brazed the front sight in place and finish polishing the barrel. On these barrels it truly looks like a square block siting on a barrel.
Later, they machined a very shallow dovetail into the barrel then dovetailed a small block in and silver brazed it in place. I believe that the block was slightly oversize, which required a final machining operation then polish on the barrel.
Lastly, the front sight post was forged/machined as part of the barrel.
On the last two methods, there is generally a slight radius transition between the sight and barrel.This slight radius is very difficult for someone to fake; as it requires machining of metal that is no longer there.
There are a couple of other issues when shortening carbine barrel: first the sight block needs to be silver brazed on, which requires 1000+ deg temps which will quickly remove all blue and patina.
Secondly, the muzzle end needs to be .603 +/- .005 for the barrel band to fit correctly, thus requiring the barrel to be turned down smaller, thus polish/blue/patina all needs to match.
When evaluating a 92/94 carbine I first focus on the front sight, especially that radius transition between the front sight block and the barrel.
The carbine in question has the correct transition, although the front sight blade is a replacement.
Hope this helps
Mike
Mike,
From your previous post, it is safe to assume that this is a factory orginal 18" trapper carbine (minus the front sight blade)–correct? Do you feel it’s worth the asking price (I talked him down to $5k). Your opinion is much appreciated.
Thanks,
Don
1 Guest(s)
