Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
TR said
Anthony said
Maverick Said,
Other than the engraving work along with some other minor details, there isn’t anything special about the barrel of a 1of1000 from that of a standard barrel.
Brady,
1 of 1000 barrels, we’re tested, and compared, to in batches of 1000 barrels, and the best test shooting barrels we’re pulled and put aside for a 1 of 1000 rifle.
Anthony
The math is wrong, maybe one in 300 average. Most likely just set aside barrels that shot strait. So the barrel is the difference. The marketing ploy made the rest of their guns look bad, that’s why they stopped making them.
The Hollywood movie made the gun valuable, Winchester made the barrel strait. I have shot two of these and they both shot better groups than my other 73s. So I like to think the 1 of 1000 barrels are better. T/R
It doesn’t mean you are correct, and probably you are, but where does it state that 1 of 1,000 and 1 of 100 are precisely that, not as far as actual number, as in 1 out of every thousand being the best barrel in a thousand, etc.
Because you learn something new every day, and I did, as I always thought that 1 of One Thousand meant that there potentially could be One Thousand such rifles reserved as such, and, of course, there were nowhere near even a thousand, but I thought it meant a total number manufactured, not to exceed one thousand?
mrcvs said
TR said
Anthony said
Maverick Said,
Other than the engraving work along with some other minor details, there isn’t anything special about the barrel of a 1of1000 from that of a standard barrel.
Brady,
1 of 1000 barrels, we’re tested, and compared, to in batches of 1000 barrels, and the best test shooting barrels we’re pulled and put aside for a 1 of 1000 rifle.
Anthony
The math is wrong, maybe one in 300 average. Most likely just set aside barrels that shot strait. So the barrel is the difference. The marketing ploy made the rest of their guns look bad, that’s why they stopped making them.
The Hollywood movie made the gun valuable, Winchester made the barrel strait. I have shot two of these and they both shot better groups than my other 73s. So I like to think the 1 of 1000 barrels are better. T/R
It doesn’t mean you are correct, and probably you are, but where does it state that 1 of 1,000 and 1 of 100 are precisely that, not as far as actual number, as in 1 out of every thousand being the best barrel in a thousand, etc.
Because you learn something new every day, and I did, as I always thought that 1 of One Thousand meant that there potentially could be One Thousand such rifles reserved as such, and, of course, there were nowhere near even a thousand, but I thought it meant a total number manufactured, not to exceed one thousand?
Page 12 & 13 of Edmund E. Lewis book in the section entitled “Variety Of Arms, the procedure for selecting a One of a thousand”. They did in fact say “Every Sporting Rifle we make will be proved and shot at a target, and the target will be numbered to correspond with the barrel and be attached to it. When one hundred barrels are thus proved, the one making the best target will be selected and set aside, and another hundred proved in the same way, and so on until one thousand have been tested and ten targets selected with the barrels with which they were made.”
My 1 of 300 is wrong because they only start with sporting rifles, not carbines and muskets. I don’t think the math works. T/R
In Gordons book I think around page 78 has the reprint of that as well.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
This falls under either you learn something new every day OR never assume anything because you know what that means.
THANK YOU!
That Winchester document is a rare promotional circular printed at the end of 1873. We are lucky to have this type of information available, many great books.
I’m sure the procedure became impractical as demand for the rifle increased. When you look at the early ledgers, target groups varied greatly. Although we know the group size of targets, we do not know the range. If the range was less than 100 yards, they sold a few poor guns. T/R
November 7, 2015
Offline
I think the 1 of 1000 concept was largely marketing and quite probably a flawed marketing plan at that. Later analysis determined that promoting certain products over similar products because they are somehow better made the other products seem of lesser quality or less desirable. In today’s world with today’s QC standards it’s debatable whether one rifle would be significantly better than the rifle made immediately before or after. Yes, we have the concept of stacking tolerances but those tolerances are in many cases very small. Were tolerances greater with early production 1873’s? I don’t know. I’ve heard there was considerable variance in bore diameter and barrel quality but I haven’t seen documentation to support these reports, I’m inclined to think maybe they were anecdotal until we read about an advertising campaign that wanted consumers to believe the Winchester factory actually gets it right one time out of a thousand. Or maybe that’s not exactly the message they wanted to convey but perception is a tricky thing. My point, best I can recall, is that the 1 of 1000 rifles were promoted as being of exceptional quality and some consumers agreed and were willing to pay a bit more and quite often spend a significant amount to make them even more special. Today’s collector obviously thinks they’re something special as well, I won’t pretend to understand why a collector may spend a large pile of money on a rifle that is supposedly markedly more accurate than other similar rifles when it’s a safe bet the new owner will never shoot it.
If this collecting thing made sense it wouldn’t be near as entertaining!
Mike
Mike, One year John Linebaugh was at our club. A question came up about “accuracy”. I no longer recall how the question was worded, but John’s response was to the effect that he could not engineer in to his pistols an automatic accuracy. He line bored everything, held very tight tolerances, etc, yet would find one once in a while that shot poorly (and these were expensive, custom built pistols built one at a time, etc). Those were rejected and started all over. Similarly he stated he had examined one Super Blackhawk with chambers not aligned well with the bore, and everything seemed crooked and so on, yet it shot like a dream. I about bet you yourself have seen new pistols or rifles made about the same time yet accuracy differed widely. It just happens. Modern QC and computer driven tolerances aren’t a total panacea, but generally we have rifles with inherent accuracy our grandfathers could but dream of. Tim
The Madias book has a paragraph on barrel straightening after first boring and rifling. I take it this was done by a craftsman and would effect accuracy depending on how good he was at his job. Targets will very. T/R
TR said
The Madias book has a paragraph on barrel straightening after first boring and rifling. I take it this was done by a craftsman and would effect accuracy depending on how good he was at his job. Targets will very. T/R
This is a very good point – likely a major factor. Now that you mention it, I recall seeing old photos of factory workers doing this work (e.g. staring down a bore to check and recheck how their straightening efforts were working out). I would think there would be craftsman variability here that would factor in to accuracy. Also reading Tim’s comments about John Linebaugh is very helpful. Winchester likely knew that there were multiple factors that went into the accuracy capability of each rifle (e.g. straightness of barrel, bore diameter etc. etc.) and you just wouldn’t know the outcome until the specific barrel and rifle was tested for accuracy. It could be some rifles had some small issues that should have affected accuracy – but didn’t. Tim’s report on what Linebaugh said about the Ruger Blackhawk is illustrative.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Maybe my expectations are not very high but the majority of the vintage Winchesters I own, at least the ones with good bores, are capable of pretty impressive accuracy. I only have a few antique Winchesters; one 1895 with a good bore comes to mind, it seems to give a good accounting for itself at the range. It’s a current project so results are not all in. I have no personal experience with the earliest 1873’s. Maybe I’ve been lucky but I’m inclined to believe the majority of the pre-64’s we like are very capable rifles. I remember well the 80’s and 90’s when modern bolt guns were considered acceptable if they could keep three shots in three inches at 100 yards, many could not do that! I haven’t bought many new rifles in the past 25 years but I know quite a few of those stainless and plastic rifles we tend to avoid are actually capable of decent accuracy, often approaching MOA.
Mike
tim tomlinson said
Mike, One year John Linebaugh was at our club. A question came up about “accuracy”. I no longer recall how the question was worded, but John’s response was to the effect that he could not engineer in to his pistols an automatic accuracy. He line bored everything, held very tight tolerances, etc, yet would find one once in a while that shot poorly (and these were expensive, custom built pistols built one at a time, etc). Those were rejected and started all over. Similarly he stated he had examined one Super Blackhawk with chambers not aligned well with the bore, and everything seemed crooked and so on, yet it shot like a dream. I about bet you yourself have seen new pistols or rifles made about the same time yet accuracy differed widely. It just happens. Modern QC and computer driven tolerances aren’t a total panacea, but generally we have rifles with inherent accuracy our grandfathers could but dream of. Tim
A lot of very good comments here, on the accuracy of the 1 of 1000 rifles, and a few articles written over time, dedicated to the history of how these rifles we’re advertised as being very accurate, and sold as so.
Tim’s article surely rings home with me. As many of the other articles all combined, brings me to these points.
It tells me a lot, about a guy like John Linebaugh, who strove for accuracy at every turn, and built his well known firearms accordingly, amongst a few well known others, I’m sure.
To build something as a rifle barrel and to test it, and have it come up short, or even a little short, on the accuracy scale, as many of these masters might have encountered, is interesting, Yes, but a little mind boggling also. As many different methods over the years have been tried, including freezing the barrel, and controlling temperatures, not to distort accuracy, yet trying to enhance it, etc……………..
I’m sure there will be more to come.
Anthony
Anthony said
but each of the, 1 of 1000 barrels, we’re tested, and compared, to in batches of 1000 barrels, and the best test shooting barrels we’re pulled and put aside for a 1 of 1000 rifle. One of the selling points that Winchester used in their amazing advertising machine that they would use to promote their rifles with, and a very good selling point, that helped to make buyers want one, back in the day. A tested barrel that was truer than the others compared to, was a great selling point! IMO!
I believe you’ve bought into the 150 year old advertising machine.
As Bob pointed out that is an impossibility. I’m not entirely convinced at all, that other than the engraving & other minor details that I won’t get into, nothing is different about the barrel from a standard production barrel. They’re made out of the same metal / barrel stock, as production progressed they are cut and chambered the same as those barrels of standard production. At the end of one of George’s chapter he discusses these and other things. He goes on to state something to the affect that “They were all the best and accurate. Winchester saw the fallacy in making the claim that any of their own rifles were second rate or a less superior product.”
For the Model 1873 less than 150 of the 1of1000s were made and less than 10 of the 1of100s. And even fewer Model 1876s were made of each.
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
steve004 said
I recall seeing old photos of factory workers doing this work (e.g. staring down a bore to check and recheck how their straightening efforts were working out).
WW1 dated 1918 Photograph with the description, “This long line of men, straightens the rifle barrels with scientific accuracy.”
The human eye is a very scientific piece of equipment!
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
November 7, 2015
Offline
Maverick said
steve004 said
I recall seeing old photos of factory workers doing this work (e.g. staring down a bore to check and recheck how their straightening efforts were working out).
The human eye is a very scientific piece of equipment!
Sincerely,
Maverick
Had a handyman/carpenter tell me the eye is the straightest tool on the job. I’m glad he never had progressive lenses!
Mike
TXGunNut said
Maverick said
steve004 said
I recall seeing old photos of factory workers doing this work (e.g. staring down a bore to check and recheck how their straightening efforts were working out).
The human eye is a very scientific piece of equipment!
Sincerely,
Maverick
Had a handyman/carpenter tell me the eye is the straightest tool on the job. I’m glad he never had progressive lenses!
Mike
You are so right. Once you go to progressive lenses, lenses with prisms, or bifocals nothing is straight. T/R
Maverick said
steve004 said
I recall seeing old photos of factory workers doing this work (e.g. staring down a bore to check and recheck how their straightening efforts were working out).
The human eye is a very scientific piece of equipment!
Sincerely,
Maverick
Winchester described the process of barrel making and testing in their early catalogs as follows;
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I don’t know fellows, looks like several of those gentleman are over 40 and they seem to be doing the job nicely. It does seem like that they are looking at a certain pain of glass mounted on the wall. I wonder if it is for magnifying the light coming into the building to make it easier to see down the barrels.
My arms are just about to just about to be not long enough any more. It helps to get a larger computer screen. My last computer I bought I just hooked it up to a 55inch HDMI TV screen and I like it a lot.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Bert H. said
Winchester described the process of barrel making and testing in their early catalogs as follows;
Somewhere I think I’ve come across a picture of a WRACo employee “Leading Barrels”. I’ll have to see if I can find that picture.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Maverick said
The human eye is a very scientific piece of equipment!
Sincerely,
Maverick
I believe you bought into the 107 year old advertising machine! 
Anthony
Anthony said I believe you bought into the 107 year old advertising machine!
Signed, Sealed and Delivered! I often wonder if I was feed with a Winchester Bottle as a baby.
Here is that WWI era picture of a worker “Leading Barrels”.
Bert, Which Catalog is that clip from?
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
1 Guest(s)
