Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
This model 92 takedown is for sale on Gun Broker, and I’m wondering if the Barrel addresses are the correct style for this. Do you see anything else that may not be right?
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/761938043.
Thanks,
Al
I did not check the book about the address style but the proof marks are forensically matching so it is likely an original barrel to the gun even if earlier mfg. than the receiver.
As for the barrel address, there are others in the my survey within a thousand SN that are the same. The quality of some of the pics though didnt allow me to see if the word “Manufactured” is lightly impressed compared to the rest of the address as is shown on this rifle. The caliber markings are the same as others in the same SN range. Interesting to note the die used for the 44-40 has the period preceding the 44 and lacks a period after the “C” , dont think the other caliber markings have the period preceding the caliber marking or the absence of a period after the “C”. Michael would be the guy to chime in on the markings.
At 964K SN range there are a great many TD rifles in 44-40 with 1/2 magazines. Have several examples that are within a few hundred SN range. This rifle was listed on gunbroker back in 2016, at that time you could see some of the dents in the receiver had no shiny metal (according to my notes), possibly touched up or just the photo angle and lighting on the recent pic. Unfortunately I dont have pics from 2016 to compare.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Thanks guys. Chris, did you happen to scroll down to the larger pictures? How much did this sell for in 2016? I don’t usually go for 92’s so I guess this is a learning thing for me more than anything. The caliber marking doesn’t look right to me for some reason.
Al
I looked at that gun when it came on GB and was just a bit suspect of things so just clicked out and went on. The seller has always been good, but there are some things with the wood and the metal that say “refinish” to me. It could be a totally legit old gun. I am no expert by any means, but if I see any flags at all, I just move on. I don’t want to buy a gun that has been refinished and don’t want to deal with the suspicions later on either. Just my opinion. Peter
I didnt look at the pics at the bottom before. This is one of the reasons why I dont go for a lot of higher condition guns without the full hands-on experience. Could be a super nice gun and 100% right, but there are too many maybe’s for me. In looking at the barrel markings on the larger pics, dont really like for the way some of the lettering characters appear to be cut, out of round, or shallow, or deeply stamped. Portions of the proof marks are missing even though what you can see whats there looks right. In certain pics the blue looks ok, while others the blue takes on a gray tone. The wood finish (what you see in the light glare), and the undersize wood at the forend cap. All you can go off of is whats captured in the photos.
I dont have any recollection what the gun sold for in 2016.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
tionesta1 said
This model 92 takedown is for sale on Gun Broker, and I’m wondering if the Barrel addresses are the correct style for this. Do you see anything else that may not be right?https://www.gunbroker.com/item/761938043.
Thanks,
Al
Hello Al and others,
Yes this rifle is very much correct. In my survey of the Model 1892/92 rifles there are several (9 in my survey) 1/2 mag, 44 WCF caliber, T/D frame guns between SN 964649 (this rifle) and SN 964163. Every one of them has the Type 3 barrel address stamp on the left side and the Model designation stamp on the left side of the barrel. This stamp is necessary because the tang stamp which was used is the Style 7 with no Model designation included. Clearly Winchester was using older 44 WCF barrels, already stamped with the Type 3 BA which was already out of use on the balance of production to make up these rifles. The tang stamp styles found in the range slightly before and after include the Style 5, 6, and 7. There is LOTS of inconsistency during this SN range which makes it difficult to determine what is “supposedly correct.”
This rifle was first sold at Julia”s in mar 2014 Lot 1065 and sold for $6325!!!. My how times have changed. I thought we weren’t supposed to loose money on this hobby??? https://jamesdjulia.com/item/1065-358/
I hope this helps Al.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
If you take a quick glance at the Julia photo of the left side of the receiver it looks like dog meat compared to the current pics. BUT look closely and you can clearly see all of the freckling is still present and every little bit of “pattern” to the freckling is the same. Nothing has changed but how the rifle was photographed.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Very interesting and thanks for the pictures comparing the two auctions Michael. Peter
twobit said
If you take a quick glance at the Julia photo of the left side of the receiver it looks like dog meat compared to the current pics. BUT look closely and you can clearly see all of the freckling is still present and every little bit of “pattern” to the freckling is the same. Nothing has changed but how the rifle was photographed.
Michael
And yet it sold for $6325! What a difference four years makes.
Michael,
Thanks for the information, very informative. It’s amazing what lighting will do to the pictures. There’s still 9 days to go on the current GB auction so it will be interesting to see if the price approaches what it sold for at Julia.
Thanks again all.
Al
I wouldn’t bid on this one unless I could see it in person. It might be totally legitimate, but I suspect refinishing. At least the wood appears to be refinished–not “proud” relative to metal surfaces like it should be, finish on the wood appears refinished, bluing on receiver and that in front of frame and before forearm, to facilitate take down of rifle, appears inconsistent.
Again, it could just be the quality of the photographs, but with a lot of money on the line, this could pan out as nothing more than a gamble.
Mtcvs, Could you provide some pictures of how you believe the “proud” wood should look on a correct gun from this era? I think this subject gun has had finish added to the original finish, but not stripped and sanded down and totally refinished. I see wood fit at the buttstock to receiver tang area of minty correct guns that fits like this one does? Not too proud? just well fitted and tight. There seems to be a variability on Winchesters on exactly how the wood is done. No consistancy. The forearm cap however on this one does not fit well or factory at all.
I will agree with MRCVS. The one picture that shows a close up of the rt side of fore end cap and wood adjoining shows that the wood is not tight to metal at all, and it also shows to me that the finish on the wood is to thick in my opinion. To me the gun has been messed with here and there. Just my opinion of course. Peter
1 Guest(s)
