Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Nice early receiver-has 10 o’clock screws – probably started it life as 38-55 rifle- junk now thoo
April 26, 2015
Offline
Chuck said
Parts gun.
Chuck, please explain why you think so. I’m curious because except for the glossy, refinished wood, I can’t tell anything about it. Thanks, BK
Bruce Koligian said
Chuck said
Parts gun.Chuck, please explain why you think so. I’m curious because except for the glossy, refinished wood, I can’t tell anything about it. Thanks, BK
Bruce,
I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck… it is a complete parts gun, and the pictures in the listing very clearly show the evidence. That rifle was originally a 38-55. The factory barrel markings clearly show that it was manufactured in the late 1920s or very early 1930s. The butt stock did not fit the tangs properly, and as a result it has missing chunks of wood, a very crude fit, and a large crack in it. Further, the checkering is not a Winchester pattern.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I see replaced wood and tang screw. A barrel that may have been replaced by Winchester as the receiver bears the WP proof mark indicating it has been back to them. The barrel seems to have original factory blue. The folding rear sight would be correct for use with a tang sight that is now missing. What other parts can you tell are replacements? In my opinion ot worth the asking price or even close to it.
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
The barrel has not been replaced by Winchester just because it has the WP proof marks. All guns of this barrel vintage were proof marked on the barrel and the receiver. Old receiver, newer barrel, non Winchester wood, Very poor attempt to put this very fancy wood on the receiver.
The wood does not look like Winchester wood. It may be but it is not the usual XXX or XXXX grain pattern. Might be English walnut because of the color and wood grain.
I wonder at what point the ill fitted stock had the chunks pop off and the wrist crack like that? Maybe it was just a couple of thousands small with the intention of tapping it on for a really tight fit, or perhaps it survived that and a couple of rounds through it to “break it in” was the clincher. I would like to have been there to witness the astonishment that must have followed.
The stock was broken when the gun was dropped or banged into. The wood is not well suited to a gun stock as the grain is running cross ways to the gun due to the figure in the stock. Wood of this type is brittle and can chip very easily. The fit of the gun to the wood did not cause this to happen. All the damage and the repaired break is running parallel to the grain. Just a good hit to the either side of the stock would have caused it break in this matter. This is why the grain usually runs parallel to the gun. I have seen many 12 gauge guns with a much worse fitting restock that have never broken after years of use but using a nice straight grain piece of wood. Any fancy figure in the wrist of a gun is an invitation to this happening, this is why you will never see wood like this on a Purdey or Holland. they learned this long ago.
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
April 26, 2015
Offline
“Bruce,
I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck… it is a complete parts gun, and the pictures in the listing very clearly show the evidence. That rifle was originally a 38-55. The factory barrel markings clearly show that it was manufactured in the late 1920s or very early 1930s. The butt stock did not fit the tangs properly, and as a result it has missing chunks of wood, a very crude fit, and a large crack in it. Further, the checkering is not a Winchester pattern.
Bert”
38-55 because of the serial number? Yes, not Winchester checkering. I see it now (even through the glare), and thanks.
Bruce Koligian said
38-55 because of the serial number? Yes, not Winchester checkering. I see it now (even through the glare), and thanks.
Yes, it is the serial number that tells us that it was originally a 38-55. Per the ARMAX document, the first (544) Model 1894s made were all 38-55s. The first 32 WS rifle by serial number was 10675.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
The gun could be on it’s 5th barrel for all we know but we do know the gun was back to Winchester for a repair that caused them to test fire the gun and stamp the receiver with the WP mark. The WP did not come into use until about 10 years after this gun left the factory for the first time. I wonder how many 38-55s have had the barrel replaced due to black powder. The 38-55 fell out of favor and many 94s that needed to be rebarreled were done so with a different caliber. A legitimate repair, not cause to call a gun junk. The wood is junk and if it were to be replaced properly this could be a decent early 3 digit Model 94. We have no pictures of the receiver to judge it by.
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
Old Guns said
The gun could be on it’s 5th barrel for all we know but we do know the gun was back to Winchester for a repair that caused them to test fire the gun and stamp the receiver with the WP mark. The WP did not come into use until about 10 years after this gun left the factory for the first time. I wonder how many 38-55s have had the barrel replaced due to black powder. The 38-55 fell out of favor and many 94s that needed to be rebarreled were done so with a different caliber. A legitimate repair, not cause to call a gun junk. The wood is junk and if it were to be replaced properly this could be a decent early 3 digit Model 94. We have no pictures of the receiver to judge it by.
This is where you are dead wrong. At this point, we do not know the gun went back to Winchester for a repair! Where is the evidence?? With no factory letter as supporting evidence (and that is the first clue that this rifle was reworked by someone other than Winchester), all that can definitely be stated is that the rifle is more than likely not factory original. The stock work definitely points to aftermarket rework. Further, the presence of proof mark stamps on the rifle is not positive evidence that it was returned to Winchester for repair. There are hundreds of aftermarket proof mark stamps out there in the hands of “restorers”. Even you can buy a set of them (Numrich Gun Parts has them – https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/850750). I personally know several Winchester restoration people who have them.
In regards to the 38-55 falling out of favor, Winchester did not discontinue it from the Model 94 production until late 1937 (announced in the January 1938 Salesman catalog). Factory ammo was available for it up to the early 1950s.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert what do you mean about the ammo being available up to the 1950’s? Black powder? I have Winchester 38-55 ammo made in the last 10 years.
Bert, If you are going to stand by your statement then you openly admit just about any Winchester is a fake and can not be proven. If you can’t prove that mark on the receiver is a fake then don’t say it is. The scenario of the gun being sent back and rebarreled in the 1920s is perfectly legitimate and not reason to call the gun a fake or a parts collection. It makes much more sense the saying a faker applied the mark. The addition of an incorrect stamp does more harm then good. If someone is smart enough to buy and use the stamp to fake things then I would assume they are smart enough to know when to use it and when not to. Adding a 1905 -06 marking to a first year first month production gun would be a quite stupid thing to do. If an attempt was being made to deceive then a period correct barrel and much better stocks would have been used. Most likely the gun was rebarreled in the 1920s and restocked with some sort of fancy wood by by Fajen in the 50s or 60s. The wood broke and was repaired at some point in time and today the gun looks like this. I am not questioning the stocks, they are junk, but the metal may not be 100 percent as it left Winchester but it looks far from junk to me. The 38-55 may have been cataloged for many years but it was not a very popular cartridge much after 1910. I can still buy ammo for a 22 WRF but I don’t know of any guns being built in that caliber now or for quite a few years back.
I have a 94 rifle that was rebarreled and the receiver proofed in the same manner as this one. You called it a fake as well. You also said it should have a marking on the underside of the barrel that would only be there if Winchester did the work. I later found a post by you that said that mark of which you spoke of was only found on the Model 1885s. ?
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
Chuck said
Bert what do you mean about the ammo being available up to the 1950’s? Black powder? I have Winchester 38-55 ammo made in the last 10 years.
Chuck,
No, not black powder. I believe that Winchester discontinued loading the 38-55 with BP pre-WW I. Winchester factory loaded new 38-55 smokeless powder ammo into the 1950s, then discontinued it for a period of time. When Winchester began manufacturing Commemorative Model 94s in 38-55, they reintroduced ammo for them. Current modern manufactured 38-55 ammo does not use the same bullet diameter as the original BP and early smokeless powder ammo (.375 vs. .379). I am not sure when Winchester made the change to the .375 bullet diameter, but it probably coincided with the introduction of the Model 94 Big Bore in the late 1970s.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Old Guns said
Bert, If you are going to stand by your statement then you openly admit just about any Winchester is a fake and can not be proven. If you can’t prove that mark on the receiver is a fake then don’t say it is. The scenario of the gun being sent back and rebarreled in the 1920s is perfectly legitimate and not reason to call the gun a fake or a parts collection. It makes much more sense the saying a faker applied the mark. The addition of an incorrect stamp does more harm then good. If someone is smart enough to buy and use the stamp to fake things then I would assume they are smart enough to know when to use it and when not to. Adding a 1905 -06 marking to a first year first month production gun would be a quite stupid thing to do. If an attempt was being made to deceive then a period correct barrel and much better stocks would have been used. Most likely the gun was rebarreled in the 1920s and restocked with some sort of fancy wood by by Fajen in the 50s or 60s. The wood broke and was repaired at some point in time and today the gun looks like this. I am not questioning the stocks, they are junk, but the metal may not be 100 percent as it left Winchester but it looks far from junk to me. The 38-55 may have been cataloged for many years but it was not a very popular cartridge much after 1910. I can still buy ammo for a 22 WRF but I don’t know of any guns being built in that caliber now or for quite a few years back.I have a 94 rifle that was rebarreled and the receiver proofed in the same manner as this one. You called it a fake as well. You also said it should have a marking on the underside of the barrel that would only be there if Winchester did the work. I later found a post by you that said that mark of which you spoke of was only found on the Model 1885s. ?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion… and I most certainly do not share it. Additionally, at NO time during this entire topic did I label that rifle as a “fake”… go back and read my words very carefully! I clearly stated the stocks are not original Winchester work, and that the barrel is not original to the rifle.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
As a matter of curiosity it would be interesting to know if there is an associated R/R on the letter for the gun. Doesnt make sense why someone would apply a proof stamp to the receiver unless something was changed out, maybe it was rebarreled prior to the existing 32WS barrel, or as has been suggested the intent to deceive. Either way the proof mark on the receiver kills the gun for anyone wanting to bring it back to its original configuration (as does the newer wood). This is just one of those guns that has too many things going on with it. Looks like it wore a tang sight for a long time that someone recently removed.
Also, one thing I noticed on the receiver, right above where the extractor engages the receiver when the bolt is closed, the receiver has been relieved of some metal, at an angle tapering towards bolt (either that or its the lighting). In looking through some pics of later first model 1894’s they dont have this feature. Is this something found on the very early first models?
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1892takedown said
As a matter of curiosity it would be interesting to know if there is an associated R/R on the letter for the gun. Doesnt make sense why someone would apply a proof stamp to the receiver unless something was changed out, maybe it was rebarreled prior to the existing 32WS barrel, or as has been suggested the intent to deceive. Either way the proof mark on the receiver kills the gun for anyone wanting to bring it back to its original configuration (as does the newer wood). This is just one of those guns that has too many things going on with it. Looks like it wore a tang sight for a long time that someone recently removed.Also, one thing I noticed on the receiver, right above where the extractor engages the receiver when the bolt is closed, the receiver has been relieved of some metal, at an angle tapering towards bolt (either that or its the lighting). In looking through some pics of later first model 1894’s they dont have this feature. Is this something found on the very early first models?
Chris,
Yes it would be interesting to see what the factory letter has to say for that rifle. However, I somehow doubt that the seller wants to “clear the air” so to speak. I also agree that is one of those guns that has too many “unexplainable” things going on with it.
I have had my hands and eyes on several early First variation Model 1894 rifles (serial number 3 and 77 at the same time). I do not remember seeing a relief cut on the receiver of any of them.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I apologize for my bit of a rant yesterday. I was not having a good day. This gun is to me an example of what is a very collectible gun that is being dismissed by collectors that demand a gun be near perfect in order to have any sort of value, either momentarily or historically. The financial value of this gun is greatly diminished by the current condition, mostly the wood. The historical value remains so far as this seems to be a legitimate low 3 digit serial number model 94 Winchester. If this gun were exactly as pictured but with original well used wood it would be seen differently by some. It has been rebarreled, that is a fact. Many old guns that saw use in the days this one did have had the barrel replaced due to black powder and later corrosive primers. That is part of the guns history. Not all can afford the best of the best and there is a very active market for guns in the 1000 to 3000 dollar range. This gun is way overpriced in my opinion. The seller is placing too much value on the serial number. I do wish we had better pictures of the gun in order to judge the unseen parts by. I would personally like to own this gun and if no wood is immediately available I would strip the gun of the wood and store or display sans wood. It obviously wore a tang sight for a number of years. Either replace the sight or the filler screw. The original slightly longer tang screw most likely went with the sight when it left.
I have many fine example of Colts and Winchesters and I also have quite a few lesser condition guns that are quite rare and seldom if ever encountered without looking hard and shelling out some big money. I buy all my guns locally and have rarely if ever overpaid. I just happen to live where the good guns have gone to rest until they come to me. and come they do. Just yesterday a 99.9 percent original blue 1929 Colt Pocket Positive in the Original Box with papers and brush came to me. If the Winchester in question would have crossed my path at a reasonable price I would have jumped on it because just how many guns this early have survived at all? While we all have different tastes I would take this gun with correct wood over any Turnbull restored gun any day.
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
1 Guest(s)
