Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
If an 1894 rifle has what is a non-standard sight (such as a Lyman combination front sight or a tang peep sight), but the Cody letter does not include the sight, does that provide definitive proof that the sight is not original? Or is that maybe considered an indicator? Just wondering with what degree of confidence the collecting community views the accuracy of the ledgers when it comes to non-standard sights.
Thanks – spursfan
Hello,
I would put my money on the "strong indicator" option. Keep in mind that the folks working in the Winchester factory 100 years ago were just as human as the rest of us and that mistakes could be made. I would also look at the coloration of the sights. Do they match the condition of the gun? Is the bluing under the peep sight perfect, or at least much better than outside the foot print of the base? Is the front sight base, or the barrel, nicked from a hammer hitting it to insert the sight?
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
spursfan
Of the 48 Cody s/n searches that I have, only 11 of them mention the sights at all. See example below. From the wear, it appears that the Lyman 21 has been on this rifle since new but, it is not mentioned in the Cody info.
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/34382/5_zpsa3906bd8.jpg.html
[Image Can Not Be Found]
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/34382/20_zpsb9fa3661.jpg.html
[Image Can Not Be Found]
I will add a closeup of the receiver shortly. I don’t have one on photobucket right at this time.
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/34382/012_zps517775cd.jpg.html
[Image Can Not Be Found]
January 26, 2011
Offline
From what I’ve seen and heard from others, it does seem that more often than not, the sights were not mentioned in the ledgers. I guess it does not bother me too much if special sights are not mentioned as long as they are period, and model correct for the gun and they also appear to have been on it for a very long time. Like Michael said, good bluing match and no after the fact dings and bruises from being changed out.
Looking at it from the opposite perspective, if a rifle has something out of the ordinary with regards to sights, and it is clearly mentioned in the letter, I personally consider that to be a premium on value and I therefore would be much more attracted to that particular firearm.
~Gary~
This is one of the exceptions and I was sure glad to get it before I bought the rifle.
http://s1224.photobucket.com/user/oldguy67/media/146566/27_zpscb56c032.jpg.html
[Image Can Not Be Found]
Paul
Of all the lettered guns I have, the only one that mentions a sight, is my 1947 vintage S&W K22. 1/10" patridge front sight. None of my Winchesters make any mention of sights and they go back to a M1892 rifle shipped in 1902. Big Larry
Thanks for the thoughts & insights. Interesting to hear everyone’s perspective.
Of the letters I have and have seen, it appears that the only time a sight was mentioned was when it was a special order, or non-standard, sight. Perhaps one should assume the piece in question should have the sights that were considered standard for that model unless otherwise specified in a Cody or old Winchester Museum letter.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
I wonder if this holds true with sling swivel studs? I have a lettered 1903 vintage M1894 takedown that is 98% with no mention of the studs. No question they are Winchester originals. Big Larry
I’ve been involved with old Winchesters for less than 2 years, so here’s the opinion of a “newbie”. If the history of the record-keeping at Winchester was one of great detail and high level of correctness, the story would be much different. From what I’ve observed in Forum posts involving letters, it seems to me the operative word should be “maybe”, whether the item is, or is not, included in a letter. Michael’s point about checking the upper tang under a peep sight, and the overall condition of the sight, is good. Whether a sight was screwed on at the factory or screwed on a week after purchase by the first owner, doesn’t seem to be that big a deal to me. What’s the difference between Winchester buying a Lyman sight and screwing it on, and a new owner buying a Lyman sight and screwing it on, if the sight is period-correct ? Perhaps I am too new to appreciate what details are important to more serious collectors. I suppose it’s the same with cars: Was the PTO winch on that Jeep CJ-2A put on by Willys or by the first owner. In the end, the seller and the buyer must decide what is important, and place a value on the item accordingly.
You have to look at sights put on old guns just like you would do today. If I bought a new deer rifle and it didn’t have a good scope on it I would put one on hopefully without drilling holes. That is what happened with the old Winchesters, hopefully without drilling extra holes. Over the years of collecting and looking at factory records I would say only 5-10% of the early Winchesters will letter with sights.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Hi
From the letters and searches I have, sights listed were only on special order.
Walter
From the few I have seen, the Cody letters seldom mention sights, even if special order. I have recently been trying to find out which is the correct rear sight for a Model 1876 Rifle. I have found that the Sporting Rear sight appears to have been the standard sight but the Sporting Leaf Rear sight was often installed, even though that is a carbine sight. Some of these were stamped 1873 and most were stamped 1876.
I have seen 4 letters for 4 distinct Model 1876 Rifles (1 is my own) that have the Sporting Leaf Rear Sight and the Rocky Mountain Front Sight (the standard front sight was the no. 21) and not one of the 4 letters makes any mention of the sights installed.
Quoting Pirkle: “While the type of sight was not usually included in factory records, special order sights usually were…..It may be necessary to accept the fact that it will be impossible to confirm a particular rifle rear sight as a factory original installation.”
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
In my experience (after having looked at more than a few hundred thousand ledger entries in the past 20-years), special order sights were recorded in the ledgers for the vast majority of the cases when they were factory installed. Sights are the one thing that can be (and were) readily changed by the people who owned the guns. More often than not, if your old Winchester has non-standard sights on it, and it is not mentioned in the warehouse ledger records, you should assume that the sights were added after the fact. From my personal perspective, finding upgraded sights on an old Winchester is not a negative issue. It was something that people did to improve the gun.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I don’t put the kind of time into looking at the number of guns as Bert or some others here do. That being said, I sure look through a large number of 1894s on online auctions and gun shows for every one 1894 that I actually use and record data for… and those just have a chance of having the original sights.
Brad
1 Guest(s)
