Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I had wanted a decent Winchester 1892 SRC in .44-40 for a long time, but never found the right one. I must have picked up to handle at least a good 10 or 20 over the years at shows and, just like the last one I handled in July, they were already spoken for, waiting for the buyer to come back with cash. Or, not spoken for due to a ridiculous price tag.
I finally acquired one recently at auction, and the price tag wasn’t a bargain, like I usually like, but was okay, for what it is.
This SRC did not sell at a previous sale with reserve. This sale, no reserve.
Interestingly, I spent the better part of this year ripping this carbine apart, thinking that the buttstock had been replaced. The last day of the auction, I called the auction house asking for more photographs, and they stated that they have a 30 day no questions asked return policy, and so I took the gamble.
I received the carbine, and I am thoroughly convinced the buttstock IS original. This is one of those Winchesters you have to see in person to know for sure. I have photographed it trying to accurately depict it, and even from my photographs, one still might think something’s fishy. I think it’s simply because of a chip to one side of the stock at the upper tang and a consequent lack of a perfect fit on the other side that gives this illusion. I’m about the last person to want to make “excuses” for a firearm so what I see in person cannot be easily photographed accurately.
My only criticism of this carbine are that the upper tang screws have been replaced. As you may already know, a tang sight requires different screws than are already in place on the upper tang, and so my guess is that the carbine once had a tang sight that was replaced with A set of proper screws, but not original to this carbine. The other criticism (maybe) is that the rear leaf sight might be a replacement despite appearing original. Bert says this would letter with a leaf sight if original. This sight might, however, be slightly more desirable than the ladder sight one might expect to see on this rifle. The letter states the following:
SNA August 21, 1893
Type: Carbine
Caliber 44
Received in warehouse Sept 12, 1893
Shipped from warehouse Sept 15, 1893
No mention of the sights, however.
This carbine is just how I like them: Nice forge marks, proper saddle ring wear, adequate use, but not abuse…
I have never received a firearm and returned it after receiving it, but I certainly would have done so if this SRC failed to meet expectations. Should you do this now, however, it’s more a gamble than a “gamble” due to shipping costs. Shipping used to be under $50 for something like this. Round trip, still under $100. Shipping costs have skyrocketed recently over the last few years. This would have been a well over $300 “fee” round trip, as one way shipping was over $160. A word to the wise…
The carbine has 016 stamped on the stock, indicating that this was unlikely purchased for civilian purposes, instead, likely by an organization, government or company.
And now some photographs. Please feel free to rip it apart, if so desired, as I’m still within the window of opportunity to return it.
This is one I never thought I would pursue, and so it’s interesting I now have it. Again, the photographs are the best I could do.
Now that I look at the photographs I took, and posted, I see I had the same problem the auction house had with this carbine. It’s wood being proud to the upper tang, a chip on one side, a blued finish, and shadows created by the proud wood on the blued upper tang, giving the optical illusion of a gaping hole between the (proud) part of the upper tang and the extant bluing on the upper tang.
Nice carbine. Lots of nice blue. Your thoughts on the buttstock are plausible.
“Originality” is an interesting concept with many tendrils. For example, there’s a huge difference between a buttstock that has been fabricated vs. an, “original” buttstock that was taken from another rifle. The latter is an original Winchester stock. If I think back to the high point of my M1892 collection (which was a fair number), if I took the wood off all of them and set them in a pile, and then asked someone to come in and put the wood back on (with no instructions), this might not be all that easy. It would be a different story with my Savage 1899/99 collection as one would simply match up the numbers on the wood to the numbers on the receivers. Not so easy with Winchesters. In fact, we’ve had examples here where the only way it can be proven that some sort of swap has been made, is someone has a photo of a rifle when it sold at an earlier date, and a change can be observed.
Let’s say for example, the buttstock on this carbine is not the buttstock it was shipped with. And let’s stay we can find the original carbine that this buttstock came from. And we put this buttstock back on that carbine. It will likely look the same and the fit will be no better. So, one would make the same comments.
The obsessive irrationality of collecting. (something I am quite familiar with).
Again – very nice carbine and I’d be proud to own it 
Nice example. I see no red flags. I’d prefer it to not have the ‘016’ stamped on the stock, but if you can find a plausible explanation of the source, that could add interest.
I suppose I got lucky with finding my 92 carbine in 44 WCF. I think it was the 3rd to last of the 92’s in my set of all calibers in both rifle and carbine. Found mine in Cody several years back. For me, the most difficult to find was a 38 WCF in the carbine.
I’d be happy to have your example, especially considering the age. I like to have all of mine in the ‘letterable’ range.
Nevada Paul
Life Member NRA
The 3-leaf Express sight appears to be original, and while it should have been listed in the warehouse ledger record, it was probably the mostly common omission (due to the relative common use of that sight). I personally would not be overly concerned by the fact that it is not mentioned on the factory letter.
For an early production (antique) Model 1892 SRC, it is a very nice specimen, and in much better condition than the majority.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
The 3-leaf Express sight appears to be original, and while it should have been listed in the warehouse ledger record, it was probably the mostly common omission (due to the relative common use of that sight). I personally would not be overly concerned by the fact that it is not mentioned on the factory letter.For an early production (antique) Model 1892 SRC, it is a very nice specimen, and in much better condition than the majority.
Bert
Thank you, Bert! I’m pleased to have your blessing!
You wouldn’t believe how difficult it is to find one of these in good condition in .44-40, SRC, and pre 1899!
So, now the only thing I can find wrong with it are the likely replaced upper tang screws. I won’t lose any sleep over that.
Would the rear leaf sight have been a special order as I assume the ladder sight was standard? Or were some just randomly fitted with a leaf sight as well? I prefer the ladder sight, as it seems more typical of a carbine, but the leaf sight is a less common variation.
Here is the letter, FWIW.
Ian,
The Carbine ladder sight (no. 44A in later years) was always the standard sight for the Saddle Ring Carbines. That stated, the most common non-standard sight was the 3-leaf Express sight. The vast majority of the Carbines exported to the U.K. were equipped with the 3-leaf Express sight. I would not consider it a “randomly” fitted sight.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Just sitting here watching the ball game so decided to do something more useful. Not good at head stands
and not figuring out how to format in a bigger file than kb.
Darrin
Darrin Smith said
Just sitting here watching the ball game so decided to do something more useful. Not good at head stands
Darrin
THANK YOU! Neither am I good at hand stands. I don’t know how to fix an upside down photograph, as I’m simply not that computer savvy. Nor do I understand how these get rotated when I don’t rotate the camera on my phone.
Bert H. said
Ian,The Carbine ladder sight (no. 44A in later years) was always the standard sight for the Saddle Ring Carbines. That stated, the most common non-standard sight was the 3-leaf Express sight. The vast majority of the Carbines exported to the U.K. were equipped with the 3-leaf Express sight. I would not consider it a “randomly” fitted sight.
Bert
Much thanks for the clarification!
There are no British proof marks on this carbine. Personally, British proof marks don’t bother me, but it does to others, and would hurt value. I, personally, have enjoyed my many visits to Great Britain and would consider it part of its history, but others don’t because that rules out an Old West past.
This carbine was sold to Don Grove for around 10 or 11k by a collector from Arizona who told me he bought it from an individual from Denton, Texas. Maybe it has an interesting heritage, or, for all I know, it might have spent its formative years in Manhattan. (I have a really nice Model 1886 rifle that came out of a Manhattan apartment about 40 years ago).
November 7, 2015
Offline
Good, honest carbine as far as I can tell. I’m amused by your anecdote about the seller holding an item for someone who’s “coming back with the cash”. I hope the buyer came back because in my experience they generally don’t. Looks like it worked out well for you, this one is a keeper.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
