Anthony said
Dell,
As others have said, it's a very nice rifle with an exceptional and well liked configuration. We appreciate you returning and sharing with us, as members have said it's truly a prize!
Any time one like this is seen at a gun show or even at Auction, many might suggest or assume it was sent back and the receiver sight was added then. 
These are getting harder to come by and sought after and many of us would be proud to own it! 
 

agreed and thanks for your thought.   I did check back with Cody, but the only feedback I got was the shared all the data they had already. Maybe they didn’t wanna go back and check or maybe they don’t have the data. Not sure

Thanks for the auction listing with the pics and description.

Chris,

Thank you for noticing and posting what you're seeing, as it's the reason I have some doubts, until further research is done, if possible, and verified. 

Tony

As others have said, it's a very nice rifle with an exceptional and well liked configuration. We appreciate you returning and sharing with us, as members have said it's truly a prize!

Any time one like this is seen at a gun show or even at Auction, many might suggest or assume it was sent back and the receiver sight was added then. 

These are getting harder to come by and sought after and many of us would be proud to own it! 

Tony

Dell said
https://photos.app.goo.gl/P2f2PV959dCMgSk18
 
Hey y’all I know I’m a little bit late, but I thought I would post the letter I received back from Winchester on this 1894. I would really appreciate any feedback you may have on this.
  

I remember this thread now back in 2024. No mention of the Lyman 21 receiver sight in the letter but still a very nice rifle. I’m not sure if the repair and return could be related to the addition of the receiver sight? You might want to double check with Cody on the features. Thanks for remembering us.

Hey y’all I know I’m a little bit late, but I thought I would post the letter I received back from Winchester on this 1894. I would really appreciate any feedback you may have on this.

The butt plate has been replaced or removed recently - likely after the top of the stock was damaged. You can see the damage. The gaps and screws tell me that.  If genuine, the butt plate may have also had markings on it but that is speculation. 

Rick C said
Well I guess maybe the oxidation or pitting on the front of the receiver is due to the barrel being separated during storage and somehow wasn’t exposed to the same elements. My question now is why it doesn’t state 1/2 magazine, which I would expect having that special order feature. I have 8 or 9 Cody letters that show 1/2 magazine on several different models. 
  

Jesi was emailed and responded that there was no mention of magazine length in the records.

Bert

I am looking at an 1894 short barrel rifle, 20" made 1902. 32 Special. Take down, 70% condition, wood and metal untouched up, just normal aging. VG bore. Excellent markings. With Lyman 21 sight. It has a dovetail, so probably not original, but looks the age of the gun. $1800. Sound about right?

Rick C said
Well I guess maybe the oxidation or pitting on the front of the receiver is due to the barrel being separated during storage and somehow wasn’t exposed to the same elements. My question now is why it doesn’t state 1/2 magazine, which I would expect having that special order feature. I have 8 or 9 Cody letters that show 1/2 magazine on several different models. 
  

Maybe…but I wouldn’t count on that.

Not that it hurts it, but the sights are after market upgrades.

Bo Rich said
Zebulon,  Very nice Featherweight!  I have one like yours.  Also, a .30’06 that I have been using for 35 years now.  I mounted a Leupold 2X7 scope on it when I bought it.  I have used it for Antilope, White tail, Mule deer, as well as Elk.  My favorite hunting rifle!
  

Yes, Bo. It is about as good an all-around game rifle as you can find. This is my second one and I was beginning to miss my first one. 

When I sold the 1956 Featherweight '06 to a friend, I kept the Leupold Vari-X III 1.75 - 6 matte finished scope and will put it on this one, using a set of Redfield low rings I'd squirreled away in my parts box. 

I know serious collectors regard aftermarket pads as a fault but both of mine have had the same pad, and for good reason. I find the Monte Carlo stock on these very comfortable to shoot - with a good ventilated Whiteline. 

More pre-64 Featherweights were sold in 30/06 than all the rest and almost invariably you see them with this same recoil pad at shows. To the point they look to me odd without them. 

Here's my first one, with my pal taking possession.The 1966 Model 70 is a 243 set up for varmints, for comparison. Hurts your eyes but it was a bell rinnger.