Log In
October 2, 2021
Offline
Hello, all.
A cousin of mine has long missed his stolen Model 92 rifle in 25-20. I, a dutiful family member, have been keeping my eyes open for a replacement This has come up somewhat locally:
There are obvious issues. Poor thing has been used and used some more and perhaps neglected. The back half (carbine buttstock, saddle ring, rear barrel band) says SRC. But the whole front-end of the gun struck me as odd. There’s a magazine tube hanger. It’s a 20″ barrel, so not a rifle. The location of the front sight, about a quarter mile back from the muzzle struck me as funny.
I thought perhaps this was some kind of local adaptation / gunsmith-enabled mutation. But then I saw this:
https://simpsonltd.com/winchester-model-92-src/
One is a bubba. Two appears to be a factory thing. I am unfamiliar with this variation. What is it? What would one call such a creature?
Thanks for whatever insight you can offer.
Dan
April 15, 2005
Offline
Dan,
That is a correct small caliber Model 1892 SRC. Winchester purposefully used a magazine tube retaining ring for the 25-20 and 32 WCF caliber Model 1892 Carbines.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 20, 2009
Offline
Dan Johnston said
Hello, allA cousin of mine has long missed his stolen Model 92 rifle in 25-20. I, a dutiful family member, have been keeping my eyes open for a replacement This has come up somewhat locally:
There are obvious issues. Poor thing has been used and used some more and perhaps neglected. The back half (carbine buttstock, saddle ring, rear barrel band) says SRC. But the whole front-end of the gun struck me as odd. There’s a magazine tube hanger. It’s a 20″ barrel, so not a rifle. The location of the front sight, about a quarter mile back from the muzzle struck me as funny.
I thought perhaps this was some kind of local adaptation / gunsmith-enabled mutation. But then I saw this:
https://simpsonltd.com/winchester-model-92-src/
One is a bubba. Two appears to be a factory thing. I am unfamiliar with this variation. What is it? What would one call such a creature?
Thanks for whatever insight you can offer.
Dan
Hello Dan,
The 25-20 and 32 WCF ammunition required a smaller diameter magazine tube than that used on the 38 and 44 WCF caliber rifles. Therefore, instead of the forward barrel band that is common on SRC’s Winchester opted for the simpler magazine retaining ring as was used on the sporting rifle configurations.
The Wild Rose rifle has had the wood sanded and refinished and the screw in the barrel band is inserted from the wrong side. The Simpson carbine is a much later vintage and has had ALL of the original bluing buffed.sanded off of it. Both rifles are MUCH closer to $800 examples.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
May 2, 2009
Offline
The 73 carbines in 32 used a mag tube hanger like the rifle.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
November 2, 2009
Offline
I’ve never seen so many bad photos, but it appears to be a standard ’92 SRC in small caliber.
November 19, 2006
Offline
Dan Johnston said
Hello, all.A cousin of mine has long missed his stolen Model 92 rifle in 25-20. I, a dutiful family member, have been keeping my eyes open for a replacement This has come up somewhat locally:
There are obvious issues. Poor thing has been used and used some more and perhaps neglected. The back half (carbine buttstock, saddle ring, rear barrel band) says SRC. But the whole front-end of the gun struck me as odd. There’s a magazine tube hanger. It’s a 20″ barrel, so not a rifle. The location of the front sight, about a quarter mile back from the muzzle struck me as funny.
I thought perhaps this was some kind of local adaptation / gunsmith-enabled mutation. But then I saw this:
https://simpsonltd.com/winchester-model-92-src/
One is a bubba. Two appears to be a factory thing. I am unfamiliar with this variation. What is it? What would one call such a creature?
Thanks for whatever insight you can offer.
Dan
To respond to one of your original inquiries, I think the front sight location is correct and does not reflect some type of special variation.
