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
Winchester 1895
June 19, 2013
8:49 am
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 148
Member Since:
August 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was wondering if we could possibly have a discussion from a collector’s standpoint on this altered 1895. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=348002676
I’m not looking to get a bid; I already had my shot at it. I would like to hear the pros and cons from the collecting standpoint on what I consider a very rear 1895(Madis: 1 in 900 had special wood, 1 in 1400 had pistol grip, 1 in 1100 had checking and only the first +- 5000 were flat side). I figure, by these numbers, this could be a single digit configuration. Do the holes drilled in the receiver for the Williams sight and the changed front sight negate all this or are all Madis numbers suspect. I’d like to get some in depth thoughts on this since we can see some good picture references. Take note it’s missing the original rear sight. There is a barrel mounted sling attachment that I think is original or was one of the R&Rs. The sling is now mounted in the alternate style so the hole in the butt stock is probably correct placement but I don’t believe the sling mounting hardware is correct and don’t know the condition of the wood under it. I hope some discussion is generated here for nothing else than my mental stability. Thanks Gene 😕

June 19, 2013
12:10 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9301
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gene,

I have discovered through various verified sources that the rarity numbers that George Madis published are not accurate for any of the models that I have personally studied and researched. To provide you with an example, if you look at the survey results for the Model 1894 (in the ARMAX Vol V), and then compare them with what George listed in "The Winchester Book" or in "The Winchester Handbook", they are not even close to being in agreement. For the Model 1885, my detailed survey revealed numbers significantly different than those George arrived at. I suspect that the same can be said for the vast majority of the various models.

In regards to the rifle in question, I see a number of things that are what I consider quite detrimental to the collect-ability and value of it.

1. Yes, the extra (non-factory) holes drilled & tapped in the receiver frame for the Williams peep sight are very negative.

2. The barrel has been shortened (cut down) by 4-inches. The standard factory length for the 30 US cartridge was 28-inches. The Cody worksheet does not list a barrel length, which means that it was standard length. The fact that it has a non-factory style front sight ramp on it is another clue that the barrel was chopped. This is a very negative hit as well.

3. Neither of the sling swivel mounts that the sling is currently attached to is correct or original. The sling-eye dovetailed to the barrel appears to be correct, but it should be listed on the Cody worksheet and it isn't. My conclusion is that the rifle should not have sling mounts of any type. Additionally, the added holes to the deluxe wood is another serious hit to the value in my opinion.

4. The missing rear sight is the least egregious issue, but when added to the whole, it definitely adds to the negative pile.

Bert

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

June 21, 2013
12:04 pm
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 148
Member Since:
August 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert,
Thank you.
I am still licking my mental wounds, otherwise I would have replied sooner. After your insightful analyses of this rifle I have been kicking myself in the a-- for not seeing the things you pointed out. I had the evidence but I think I was swept up with the supposed rarity of the rifle. I should have looked closer. I have an 1895 in 30-40 with a 26” barrel and it is called out in the Cody record that I have. I requested info on this rifle and should have picked up on that omission but I never even compared the two. After your post I pulled out my rifle and studied the two muzzles and the difference is clear. The outer chamfer and the inner cut are not original. Having looked at this rifle up close I have my own thoughts on the sling attachments but it’s neither here nor there, the sum of the alterations are without question a huge detriment to its collectability. It’s a shame. The rifle looks like it was well cared for over many years then along comes someone who wanted to change the beauty.
Thank you again for giving me pause. I need to become more analytical and less emotional when looking at the collectability of a firearm.
Gene
P.S. For better or worse, your name is now a topic of conversation between my wife and me.

June 21, 2013
2:44 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9301
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gene,

You are quite welcome 🙂

I understand how easy it is to get caught up in the "emotional" part of the potential deal. It took me a long time to become purely analytical when I pick one up and handle (fondle) it.

Bert

p.s. Do I even want to ask about that conversation between you and your wife 😕

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

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: jolly bill, morriskt@aol.com
57 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 6365

Posts: 51055


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 850

Members: 8529

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 3934

twobit: 2410

TXGunNut: 2062

Maverick: 1416

Big Larry: 1352

JWA: 1236

Wincacher: 1180

Brad Dunbar: 1053

clarence: 930

1892takedown: 837

Navigation