Register
Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
November 7, 2015
Offline
Tom-
It seems you have the earliest Winchester marked Winchester extant but the amusing part is that the folks in New Haven probably didn’t take much notice when they assembled your 23147. I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a Henry marked barrel in the bin next to your carbine’s barrel. If not there were surely others in other bins. As we all know the Henry barrels were not scrapped when the “Winchester” stamp was made. Situations like this are what keeps collecting interesting!
Mike
TXGunNut said
Tom-It seems you have the earliest Winchester marked Winchester extant but the amusing part is that the folks in New Haven probably didn’t take much notice when they assembled your 23147. I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a Henry marked barrel in the bin next to your carbine’s barrel. If not there were surely others in other bins. As we all know the Henry barrels were not scrapped when the “Winchester” stamp was made. Situations like this are what keeps collecting interesting!
Mike
Mike,
You make a good point, but to take it one step farther what about receivers in bins with serial numbers applied. If a higher serial number is picked first, maybe a higher serial number was the first to have a Winchester marked barrel threaded on it. So maybe you can only say it is the lowest serial number with a Winchester barrel, not the first one made.
One thing you can see on ledger pages guns did not come out of the factory in perfect order. T/R
TR said
TXGunNut said
Tom-
It seems you have the earliest Winchester marked Winchester extant but the amusing part is that the folks in New Haven probably didn’t take much notice when they assembled your 23147. I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a Henry marked barrel in the bin next to your carbine’s barrel. If not there were surely others in other bins. As we all know the Henry barrels were not scrapped when the “Winchester” stamp was made. Situations like this are what keeps collecting interesting!
Mike
Mike,
You make a good point, but to take it one step farther what about receivers in bins with serial numbers applied. If a higher serial number is picked first, maybe a higher serial number was the first to have a Winchester marked barrel threaded on it. So maybe you can only say it is the lowest serial number with a Winchester barrel, not the first one made.
One thing you can see on ledger pages guns did not come out of the factory in perfect order. T/R
What do you guys think about the actual serial # itself being double stamped on the “1” . The #1 in the 23147 was first stamped with a smaller font size as you can see the smaller, shorter base sticking out both sides near the bottom. It is then restamped with the rest of the serial # in the correct size font as normal. Doesn’t it seem odd that it would have been stamped with just a “1” ??? You may disagree, but just thinking out loud here, is it possible that they were considering numbering the new “WINCHESTER” marked guns in their own serial # range, and then changed their mind considering all the “Henry” marked barrels still ready to go???
Thomas
I think it was just stamped twice, it happens as 1873man stated. Just before your gun was built they mixed Henry’s and 1866 using one sequence of serial numbers, it does not seem likely they would start over just because a stamp was changed. That said, I think what you have is very desirable and would treasure the lowest serial number Winchester barrel stamped gun. T/R
This has been an interesting thread. I’m not and have never been a M1866 collector, but after this thread, every time I see one on a table, I’m going to take a peek at the barrel marking and the serial number.
If you want to be confused even more read the first 50 pages of Herbert Houze’s book on the history of Winchester. The gun we call the 1866 was made and sold in quite a few different forms before it actually settled on the what we normally see. The first Repeater was sold abroad and not in the US. I could not find a Winchester document that called the gun something other than a Repeater, breech loader or magazine rifle. I consider the catalogs as advertisements not official Winchester documents.
Chuck said
If you want to be confused even more read the first 50 pages of Herbert Houze’s book on the history of Winchester. The gun we call the 1866 was made and sold in quite a few different forms before it actually settled on the what we normally see. The first Repeater was sold abroad and not in the US. I could not find a Winchester document that called the gun something other than a Repeater, breech loader or magazine rifle. I consider the catalogs as advertisements not official Winchester documents.
Reminds me how Winchester never called the single-shot model the Model 1885 – either on the tang marking or in their catalogs.
Looks like the article is out… https://winchestercollector.org/magazines/202309/28/ THANKS! TOM
November 7, 2015
Offline
Tom-
Finally got around to enjoying your 1866 article. Very interesting and a good job of explaining the complexities of the question. We will likely never know the serial number of the first 1866 or even the first extant specimen but the search should continue to be interesting. Thanks for sharing the results of your research with us.
Mike
I have a perspective about the serial number with the 1 looking odd.
as I stamp barrels and receivers on Winchesters I would like to point out something.
There is more than one “type” of stamp used in the manufacturing and restoring of Winchesters. There are strike stamps and roll stamps.
the strike stamps are just what you think that means. Grab the stamp, lining up the stamp ( yes at times I even clamp the stamp to hold it plumb with the barrel) then strike it with a hammer.
roll stamps are just that, stamp stuck into a roll stamp machine the barrel or receiver is clamped then the stamp is rolled across the object via electric/ hydronic pressure.
when striking stamps, the object is placed on a anvil or a flat piece of 3/4” steel and struck. If I use a steel hammer the hammer has a tendency to bounce and double strike the barrel. If I use a brass hammer I do not get a double strike.
so when I see things of that nature I look at it from a manufacturing perspective. I too have grabbed the wrong hammer and double struck barrels or receivers.
Just my perspective.
Sam
WACA Member
Colt Collectors Association Member
Buffalo Bill Center of the West Member
1 Guest(s)
