Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
Opinion desired
June 18, 2013
2:07 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 47
Member Since:
September 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
June 18, 2013
3:16 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I would call that traces of case colored in protected area.

June 18, 2013
5:43 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 468
Member Since:
March 1, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

it looks like someone tried to fake case coloring with cold blue,there is no real case coloring on that receiver

John K

June 18, 2013
6:02 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2482
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

By the serial number the gun is definitely a "second model" version of the 1890. The receiver was originally case hardened at the time of production but it does look a bit on the "funky" side to me. Another worrisome point is the apparent mint bore and the significantly better condition of the barrel blue than the balance of the rifle finish. The stock has been sanded and refinished. I would pass on it.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

June 18, 2013
6:24 pm
Avatar
Wisconsin
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4026
Member Since:
May 2, 2009
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

At first glance it looked like someone went at it with a torch but I do see a little real case color on the left front under the screw. Someone did do something to it, I have never seen case weather like that.

Bob

WACA Life Member---
NRA Life Member----
Cody Firearms member since 1991

73_86cutaway.jpg

Email: bob.1873man@gmail.com

June 18, 2013
7:32 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
October 13, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Not that you asked about this, but the barrel is not original to the rifle (too late) and this rifle should not have Winchester firing proofs on the receiver/barrel as manufactured. This rifle has had substantial enhancement.

June 18, 2013
7:54 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 47
Member Since:
September 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I wasn't interested in buying the gun, as it is a little higher than what I can afford. I thought the case coloring looked kind of weird and also thought that the finish on the barrel looked a little too good to be true.

June 18, 2013
8:14 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 318
Member Since:
September 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree with you guys. No case colors remaining (maybe a trace). Well used old gun that probably was sent back to the factory and rebarreled, with proof marks added then. I think someone tried to imitate case colors on the receiver using cold blue, or something. The seller is way off base in his description.

June 19, 2013
4:23 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 273
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The auction gun has had the case colors enhanced and altered. This is what real case colors look like.

[Image Can Not Be Found]

June 19, 2013
6:43 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9528
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That rifle is a piece parts gun. Look at the poor fit between the barrel assembly and the lower receiver assembly. There are a number of visual clues that scream "Not original".

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

June 19, 2013
3:50 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 248
Member Since:
January 24, 2007
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert is correct. Wrong on many levels, and surely NOT original case colors. MANY think they know a lot about winchesters because they have a blue book or Flaydermans. FEW have owned hundred of rifles and handled many more than that to TRULY know. This one is a BUST.

June 19, 2013
6:30 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 47
Member Since:
September 7, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

One piece of strong evidence that it isn't all original is the fact that one of the patent dates on the barrel is much later than the date of manufacture stated by the seller. I suppose one might argue that the factory pulled a receiver out of a parts bin and matched it with a newer barrel, but the other inconsistencies noted by others are too troubling to value this rifle anywhere near where the seller has it.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: 1873man, rogertherelic, Erin Grivicich, Big Mac, 34871
59 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 6691

Posts: 53948


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 903

Members: 8798

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 4026

twobit: 2482

TXGunNut: 2180

Maverick: 1468

Big Larry: 1377

JWA: 1237

clarence: 1192

Wincacher: 1180

Brad Dunbar: 1069

Chuck: 1054

Navigation