Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
It looks to me that the barrel is much earlier than the rest of this carbine. Address stamp is on the top of the barrel and no model designation either. Front sight has been hammered on a bit too. Thoughts?
Don
Outdated parts were never thrown away if they were still usable. So it’s possible an “old” brl can wind up on a newer rcvr.
Front sight is a replacement, but that doesn’t prove anything one way or another.
clarence said
Outdated parts were never thrown away if they were still usable. So it’s possible an “old” brl can wind up on a newer rcvr.Front sight is a replacement, but that doesn’t prove anything one way or another.
Do you think Winchester would have let this out the door with no model designation anywhere whatsoever on this carbine? Seems odd/unlikely, but I’m no expert either…
Don
deerhunter said
Do you think Winchester would have let this out the door with no model designation anywhere whatsoever on this carbine? Seems odd/unlikely, but I’m no expert either…Don
Yes, it’s an anomaly for sure; the result of changing the model marking from the upper tang, where it was at the time this brl was made. Maybe that’s why Leroy has it priced so low.
The receiver was manufactured in June 1937. Winchester changed the barrels from Nickel Steel to Proof Steel in April/May 1932. Based on the factory markings on that barrel, it was manufactured before 1923. The 44A rear sight was discontinued in early 1932, and the saddle ring was discontinued in 1931. The fact that there is zero rub wear on the receiver from the saddle ring tells me that it was added in very recent times. The odds of that Model 94 being factory original are less than .01%
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
The receiver was manufactured in June 1937. Winchester changed the barrels from Nickel Steel to Proof Steel in April/May 1932. Based on the factory markings on that barrel, it was manufactured before 1923. The 44A rear sight was discontinued in early 1932, and the saddle ring was discontinued in 1931. The fact that there is zero rub wear on the receiver from the saddle ring tells me that it was added in very recent times. The odds of that Model 94 being factory original are less than .01%
Wow! Very impressive bit of BUYER BEWARE facts there. Thanks again Bert.
Don
Bert H. said
The receiver was manufactured in June 1937. Winchester changed the barrels from Nickel Steel to Proof Steel in April/May 1932. Based on the factory markings on that barrel, it was manufactured before 1923. The 44A rear sight was discontinued in early 1932, and the saddle ring was discontinued in 1931. The fact that there is zero rub wear on the receiver from the saddle ring tells me that it was added in very recent times. The odds of that Model 94 being factory original are less than .01%
And all that for the low low price of $11500.00. Shamful.
oldcrankyyankee said
And all that for the low low price of $11500.00. Shamful.
Would be interesting to hear Leroy’s explication of all these anomalies, esp. the SR; suspect he’d say it was still available on a special order, which is probably true. But it seems odd that a customer with the good taste to order the SG buttplate would also request an option so utterly useless as the SR.
Good morning,
In my work on the Model 1892 it is not uncommon to find “earlier” barrels (those marked with early address stamps) used MUCH later during production than when they were the dominant form. The Type 3 address stamp as found on the Model 94 carbine was THE stamp used on the 1892’s and located on the TOP of the barrel until early 1910 when the position was moved to the left side. This stamp was used until 1926 when the Model designation was applied to the left side of the barrel. But… between 1910 and 1926 barrels with the top location commonly pop up in the data. And… After 1926 there are even barrels with the Type 3 stamp on the left side can be found as late as 1930, some four years after its common usage. It is interesting that in these cases the Model 92 designation is found on the right side of the barrel since the tang stamp style at the time had no designation within it. For me it is not out of the question that the barrel could in fact be original to the gun especially since it is in 25-35 and the inventory may have not as robust and the other 94 calibers. Just my opinion.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Correct or not, it’s an $11,500 story… Only lettered guns for me at those prices when it’s that uncommon!
Rick C
RickC said
Correct or not, it’s an $11,500 story… Only lettered guns for me at those prices when it’s that uncommon!
I have no argument there at all. It is quite pricey at $11,500!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
It’s an attractive configuration. I like the uncheckered pistol grip stock. I was going to say it’s a lot of money for story/speculation but there isn’t even any provided!
steve004 said
I was going to say it’s a lot of money for story/speculation but there isn’t even any provided!
For many customers, nothing more is needed when Leroy speaks.
Bert H. said
The odds of that Model 94 being factory original are less than .01%
And that’s good enough for some folks! Imagine.
Rick C
RickC said
Bert H. said
The odds of that Model 94 being factory original are less than .01%
And that’s good enough for some folks! Imagine.
Not exactly that–Leroy’s endorsement, that’s what’s good enough “for some folks.” And he’s wise not to “explain” any of the discrepancies, which would only sow doubt in the minds of prospective customers who otherwise had none. If someone calls to ask, that’s the time to explain. What I’d tell them is, “Winchester wasn’t making collector’s items, but commercial products. The customer knew what model he was ordering, so didn’t have to have the model number stamped on the gun.”
Possibly not just the barrel swapped as others have indicated, but also look at the fit and finishes of the lower tang/receiver, and fit of the wood in the upper tang. Its also surprising to have that late of a receiver that is not flaked, when you consider the finishes on the lower tang and floor plate. The WP stamps on the receiver and barrel are different (the “P” has a larger vs smaller loop in the P).
The “halo” from the saddle ring we are accustomed to seeing on some of these guns is very faint on the receiver, but it doesnt take much to rub that saddle ring around a bit till you get the worn finish pattern in the receiver you want. Some of these SRC’s that have higher finish remaining and a very pronounced saddle ring “halo” are also questionable and sometimes appear to be enhanced compared to actual SRC’s that were used that have finish remaining.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Chris,
That was the first thing I looked at was the fit of the lower tang.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
1892takedown said
Possibly not just the barrel swapped as others have indicated, but also look at the fit and finishes of the lower tang/receiver, and fit of the wood in the upper tang. Its also surprising to have that late of a receiver that is not flaked, when you consider the finishes on the lower tang and floor plate. The WP stamps on the receiver and barrel are different (the “P” has a larger vs smaller loop in the P).
The “halo” from the saddle ring we are accustomed to seeing on some of these guns is very faint on the receiver, but it doesnt take much to rub that saddle ring around a bit till you get the worn finish pattern in the receiver you want. Some of these SRC’s that have higher finish remaining and a very pronounced saddle ring “halo” are also questionable and sometimes appear to be enhanced compared to actual SRC’s that were used that have finish remaining.
Considering those added observations, the very best guaranteed story ?, shouldn’t do it, but…
Rick C
January 26, 2011
Offline
1873man said
Chris,That was the first thing I looked at was the fit of the lower tang.
Bob
I agree Bob. The lower tang does not fit the receiver properly and had a different wear to it. What’s needed to convert a straight grip into a pistol grip? …….. a curved lower tang from another gun. A great configuration and caliber but probably something pieced together with the perfect recipe of parts.
~Gary~
1 Guest(s)
