Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
This one doesn’t exactly have what you call a lot of good condition to it, but it was obviously used for its intended purpose.
I have my dad’s 61 model A5 20 GA in my safe that he used for about 50 years of dove and quail hunting and it’s in about the same condition.
I think they’re a little proud on the price, but I still think it’s a cool gun.
I like it. Too bad the tang sight it once had got robbed. If the price is on the high side, at least seller follows the law on its antique status, which many of these GB jerks will not; such as the one who refused to ship an 1885 Stevens I had wanted to buy except to a FFL.
Yeah, it’s got some cool factor to it. Pretty neat it is in .38-55. It is an antique but he’s off on the manufacture year. He’s probably using the Madis numbers. It was made and 1898, not 1896. But, importantly still an antique. I can’t understand why someone wouldn’t order a museum letter on it. Given the condition, maybe a bid proud on the price – but not too much 
steve004 said I can’t understand why someone wouldn’t order a museum letter on it.
Well, they don’t give them away (as was true when the collection was in New Haven), but as a dealer the cost would be a business deduction.
I may be looking at wrong list, but several including on the winchester company page say 48818 was mad in 1896?
The right list is at the top of this page under Resources- When Was Your Winchester Made?
Darrin
KingCobb said
I may be looking at wrong list, but several including on the winchester company page say 48818 was mad in 1896?
The so called “Winchester company website page” is actually the Browning Arms Company, and if you read the small print at the bottom, they state it might not be accurate. S/N 48818 was positively manufactured in October of 1898.
The attached letter is for S/N 48468…
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
So appears the .38-55 brl was substituted on one of the R&Rs; which to me makes the gun more interesting than if it still had the .30 WCF brl. Suggests original owner found the .30 WCF unsatisfactory in some respect. Also explains why the original tang sight was replaced by the open rear sight, which is the only part of this gun’s history I would regret if I owned the gun (which I wish I did). Nothing in letter about 3/4 mag or SG butt, but that could also be explained by the R&R. One thing is indisputable: uniform wear proves gun has remained in present configuration for a LONG time.
That was Bert posting a letter for another gun that letters at same time.
I didn’t mean to argue, I was just seeking the source for the correct info.
I just couldn’t find it on here earlier. My apologies.
Got this response regarding it lettering….which kind of kills the interest at that price.
“Yes, it does letter minus the caliber. It has a later barrel added by the factory. “
KingCobb said
That was Bert posting a letter for another gun that letters at same time.I didn’t mean to argue, I was just seeking the source for the correct info.
I just couldn’t find it on here earlier. My apologies.
No need to apologize, and I read your reply as a question versus an argument. That stated, with rare exceptions nearly all of the other websites you will find on the internet contain erroneous Winchester DOM information.
My recommendation going forward is to always use the Resource tool on the WACA website, or if you are a CFM member, call or email them to get the records research sheet.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
KingCobb said
Got this response regarding it lettering….which kind of kills the interest at that price.“Yes, it does letter minus the caliber. It has a later barrel added by the factory. “
Didn’t notice letter pertained to different gun, but surprising that both of them found their way back to the factory for brl replacement. (Maybe evidence that their owners were unaware smokeless powder required the same scrupulous cleaning as black, which was a common misconception in the early yrs of smokeless.) As I said before, to me an R&R is in no way a black mark against these guns or any others, but rather interesting evidence of their histories.
If it is indeed done at the factory. I emailed asking for a pic of the letter. Will see what I get.
Here is the letter. Not surprisingly it was a 30 originally.
Letter doesn’t say anything about it being barrel replaced at factory, but I don’t know if they are supposed to. Everything else appears to check out.
clarence said
Bert H. said
So appears the .38-55 brl was substituted on one of the R&Rs; which to me makes the gun more interesting than if it still had the .30 WCF brl. Suggests original owner found the .30 WCF unsatisfactory in some respect. Also explains why the original tang sight was replaced by the open rear sight, which is the only part of this gun’s history I would regret if I owned the gun (which I wish I did). Nothing in letter about 3/4 mag or SG butt, but that could also be explained by the R&R. One thing is indisputable: uniform wear proves gun has remained in present configuration for a LONG time.
Hey Clarence,
This is one I have in my collection and thought it might interest you. I admit, part of the decision making to buy the gun was largely due to the unusual details of the R&R in the letter.
Don
KingCobb said
Here is the letter. Not surprisingly it was a 30 originally.
Letter doesn’t say anything about it being barrel replaced at factory, but I don’t know if they are supposed to. Everything else appears to check out.
KingCobb said
Here is the letter. Not surprisingly it was a 30 originally.
Letter doesn’t say anything about it being barrel replaced at factory, but I don’t know if they are supposed to. Everything else appears to check out.
They rarely do. But if a gun returned to the factory for some unspecified reason now has what appears to be a factory installed brl on it, it’s not unreasonable to conclude 2 + 2 = 4.
deerhunter said
Hey Clarence,This is one I have in my collection and thought it might interest you. I admit, part of the decision making to buy the gun was largely due to the unusual details of the R&R in the letter.
Don
Yes, far more interesting than a gun with “no history” since it left the factory the first time.
1 Guest(s)
