Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1108667720
Enjoy!
Hard to believe you’d put that much work into something and not even change out the screws. Not saying it was good work, just that it was a lot of work….
Obviously a flat band but someone serialized it with an earlier number, which has to be on purpose to create a fake DOM. Wild piece 🤣
Bert, I’ll let you bid on this one.
Jeremy P said
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1108667720Enjoy!
Hard to believe you’d put that much work into something and not even change out the screws. Not saying it was good work, just that it was a lot of work….
Obviously a flat band but someone serialized it with an earlier number, which has to be on purpose to create a fake DOM. Wild piece 🤣
Bert, I’ll let you bid on this one.
Not a Falt-band (nor was it ever). Originally it was a standard Model 1894 SRC (manufactured in May 1912). The original butt stock was replaced, and the rest of the work is all too typical of Bubba’s gun shop.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Reckon how many buffing wheels someone wore out on this old carbine trying to get all the pitting out? I kinda like the boar scene on the stock but would never do that to a gun.
Mike
Who knows if it’s even legal, the sn has obviously been tampered with. I wouldn’t buy it, but I’d shoot the hell out of it if it was given to me.
Are we sure the s/n has obviously been messed with?
It looks OK to me
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
The listing must have been updated. When I look at there is no mention or picture of the serial number and the title of the listing says 1910.
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Pictures are still there with the sn visible. Some of the numbers are crooked, does not looked factory applied to me.
Obviously, the work of one of the Winchester master engravers. I think I’ve seen that Indian profile on the Simpsons
Steven Gabrielli said
Pictures are still there with the sn visible. Some of the numbers are crooked, does not looked factory applied to me.
I see the picture now. Yeah it looks like its missing the first digit. I would imagine whomever did that “lovely” 
factory engraving 
work freshened up the serial number as well.
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
I’m sorry gentlemen. I want to redact my comment from this thread. I thought that I was adding my comments to thread about the improved 1895.
Maverick said
Steven Gabrielli said
Pictures are still there with the sn visible. Some of the numbers are crooked, does not looked factory applied to me.
I see the picture now. Yeah it looks like its missing the first digit. I would imagine whomever did that “lovely”
Therre are no missing digits. Based on the upper tang marking, the serial number on the gun is in the correct range. It does appear that it may have been remarked though.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Jeremy P said
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1108667720
Enjoy!
Hard to believe you’d put that much work into something and not even change out the screws. Not saying it was good work, just that it was a lot of work….
Obviously a flat band but someone serialized it with an earlier number, which has to be on purpose to create a fake DOM. Wild piece 🤣
Bert, I’ll let you bid on this one.
Not a Falt-band (nor was it ever). Originally it was a standard Model 1894 SRC (manufactured in May 1912). The original butt stock was replaced, and the rest of the work is all too typical of Bubba’s gun shop.
Bert
What’s your markers for that s/n and style of gun being correct…the tang marking? I would think it would be easier to make a flat band into an “old” gun by re-marking the serial number. I guess they could have buffed it so hard they restruck the orig number…
Jeremy P said
Bert H. said
Jeremy P said
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1108667720
Enjoy!
Hard to believe you’d put that much work into something and not even change out the screws. Not saying it was good work, just that it was a lot of work….
Obviously a flat band but someone serialized it with an earlier number, which has to be on purpose to create a fake DOM. Wild piece 🤣
Bert, I’ll let you bid on this one.
Not a Falt-band (nor was it ever). Originally it was a standard Model 1894 SRC (manufactured in May 1912). The original butt stock was replaced, and the rest of the work is all too typical of Bubba’s gun shop.
Bert
What’s your markers for that s/n and style of gun being correct…the tang marking? I would think it would be easier to make a flat band into an “old” gun by re-marking the serial number. I guess they could have buffed it so hard they restruck the orig number…
Early barrel and tang stamps
Front sight, location of front barrel band and a 1940’s flat band would not work with those stocks
No pics of the hammer, but it’s very likely an early one
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Jeremy P said
Bert H. said
Jeremy P said
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1108667720
Enjoy!
Hard to believe you’d put that much work into something and not even change out the screws. Not saying it was good work, just that it was a lot of work….
Obviously a flat band but someone serialized it with an earlier number, which has to be on purpose to create a fake DOM. Wild piece 🤣
Bert, I’ll let you bid on this one.
Not a Falt-band (nor was it ever). Originally it was a standard Model 1894 SRC (manufactured in May 1912). The original butt stock was replaced, and the rest of the work is all too typical of Bubba’s gun shop.
Bert
What’s your markers for that s/n and style of gun being correct…the tang marking? I would think it would be easier to make a flat band into an “old” gun by re-marking the serial number. I guess they could have buffed it so hard they restruck the orig number…
Jeremy,
As Ted pointed out, the factory markings on the barrel and the upper tang indicate that it is a 1912 production Model 1894. Further, the barrel front sight configuration and location of the front band positively confirm that it cannot be an altered Flat band. Lastly, approximately 50% of the Flat band carbines have a Type 3 receiver frame and corresponding butt stock. It is not possible to install a “rifle” butt stock on a Type 3 receiver.
The next issue of the Winchester collector magazine will have my article (Part 1) discussing in detail the post-1923 production of the Model 94. It should clear up many questions for the people who collect the Model 94.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Jeremy,
As Ted pointed out, the factory markings on the barrel and the upper tang indicate that it is a 1912 production Model 1894. Further, the barrel front sight configuration and location of the front band positively confirm that it cannot be an altered Flat band. Lastly, approximately 50% of the Flat band carbines have a Type 3 receiver frame and corresponding butt stock. It is not possible to install a “rifle” butt stock on a Type 3 receiver.
The next issue of the Winchester collector magazine will have my article (Part 1) discussing in detail the post-1923 production of the Model 94. It should clear up many questions for the people who collect the Model 94.
Bert
Roger that, thanks for the info Bert & Ted. I was thinking about it all backwards…
