Log In
November 2, 2009
Offline
After looking at all of the photos and comparing each digit, I think the number is 96051. I thought at first the third digit might be a 9, but it just doesn’t have the same curve as the obvious 9. I think the nick across the face of that number, only makes it appear to be a 9.
March 20, 2010
Offline
Im partial to 96051. The third digit has too steep an angle where it makes the loop for a 9, should be more rounded like the first digit and compared to others in the same date range. The barrel marking looks like it got too faint and someone stamped it again to make sure no one made a mistake about what caliber it was. Can definitely see an original “4” stamped over.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
May 2, 2009
Offline
bubba 84 said
It appears to be 96951 you could try placing a magnet inside an use a fine metal powder on the numbers it may show the grain of the metal displaced by stamping
I have done lots of inspections of steel parts for cracks using the magnetic particle method (Magnflux) and that method will not detect the worn numbers.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
February 18, 2016
Offline
Gentlemen, I am overwhelmed with the effort. Here is my current thinking after
1. It is the original barrel, the finish, patina is just such a virtual match to the receiver.
2. I hope everyone saw the two overall pictures I posted. It is definitely not a SRC.
3. The first and third number are not the same, therefore, you verify my thinking that the third number is not a ‘9’. The fourth number still looks like a ‘5’. If we know the first and fourth, that helps, ‘9’ and ‘5’ respectively, I assume no one disputes the first ‘9’? And, the fourth being a ‘5’?
The Cody folks tried so many combos, I am just not sure we tried the ‘0’ at the third position. I have always been suspicious of the last digit, ‘1’. However, not sure what it could be instead of a ‘1’. Therefore, it sounds like ‘9’ ‘6’ ‘0’ ‘5’ ‘1’ is our best guess. I will contact Cody tomorrow and see if that is one of those we tried. All the numbers we tried were Carbines, not 44s.
4. The “44” issue is very interesting. I have looked at this as much as I have looked at the serial number. There is no trace of any other PRE-markings in any other spot, except the ‘under’ ‘4’, and what appears to be a reversed ‘4’ in the same area. I too agree that there seems to be no logical deduction of another number previously stamped on the barrel. Perhaps it was done later, but why the image of a ‘reversed’ digit?
However, having stated what looks like the obvious conclusions, in colabartion with you all, gratefully, I will take the forearm off and look to see if there is an original barrel stamp, then let you know. Again, I am so impressed with the effort to help me. Elliot
November 7, 2015
Offline
I was thinking Frankenstein gun until today’s pics. Any chance there’s a barrel date?
February 18, 2016
Offline
Gentlemen, YES, it has a very clear ‘4’ ‘4’ on the bottom, along with a STAR, cirlcled ‘V P’ and two other symbols just at the breech end, a ‘2’ on top of some other letter/number. So one issue is settled, but the caliber stamping will probably remain a mystery. I purchased because it was a half mag, five digit, 44. It seems that at least that is still valid, but I would like the factory letter and to know the SN. thanks, Elliot
March 20, 2009
Offline
Elliot,
Between SN 50000 and SN 99999 there are 390 sporting rifles with round barrels, half mags, in 44 WCF caliber. If the first and fourth digits are 9 and 5 respectively then the only matches in that range are SN 96750, 97150, 98353, 98354, 98355, and 98356. Notice that none of those end with a 1. At some point a Cody Letter is useless because someone else may not agree with the “interpreted” serial number.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
1 Guest(s)
