Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Is this factory checkering on this 1894?
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Troutdale, OR
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1861
Member Since:
June 26, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
1
January 26, 2021 - 5:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

My guess is it’s not, but wanted to run it by the experts here.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/889489244

Don

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10640
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
2
January 26, 2021 - 6:42 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Don,

It is most likely original, but the butt stock checkering has been inexpertly “refreshed”.  It is a bit odd to see H-pattern checkering on relatively plain grained stocks (though there is a small amount of figure in the butt stock).  The checkering on the forend looks original and untouched.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Troutdale, OR
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1861
Member Since:
June 26, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
3
January 26, 2021 - 6:49 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Thanks Bert.  Haven’t seen too many straight grip 1894’s with checkering so was unsure of the checkering pattern on the buttstock.  I would have also expected fancier wood with the H-pattern checkering.  Too bad the checkering on the buttstock has been messed with.

Don

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 71
Member Since:
February 28, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
January 26, 2021 - 7:20 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The bluing looks a little strange to me. Could it be original, or has it been “refreshed” also?

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6168
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
January 26, 2021 - 7:57 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

#433595 is “incredibly early”?

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1376
Member Since:
July 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
January 26, 2021 - 8:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

My opinion is that the checkering is not original.  I don’t think Winchester cut the checkering pattern around the bottom tang on a straight grip like this.  I thought they cut it closer to the tang with a very nice radius following the curve of the tang.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4108
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
January 26, 2021 - 10:51 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

My initial impression was the checkering is not original, but that could be from what Bert observed – an, “inexpert” job of freshening.  Also, 1908 production does not imply to me, “incredibly early.”  The bluing left a suspect taste for me.  It is, after all, a gunbroker auction.  I’m not saying all gunbroker rifles are flawed, but unless it is a respected known seller who I am familiar with, I am wary.  

Let me add, the wear on the buttstock doesn’t match the lack of wear on the receiver.  And, there was likely a reason the checkering needed to be freshened.  

Avatar
Rod
Guest
WACA Guest
8
January 26, 2021 - 10:54 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

jampard said
The bluing looks a little strange to me. Could it be original, or has it been “refreshed” also?  

Yeah, the wood has dings but the blue doesn’t?

I don’t know enough to venture a guess on the checkering.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 112
Member Since:
November 11, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
January 26, 2021 - 11:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The checkering on the buttstock is not original Winchester.  If you look carefully and compare the ratio of the diamonds, it looks about 2-1. On this particular checkering pattern, Winchester used a ratio of about 3-1 or more.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6168
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
January 27, 2021 - 1:13 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Old-Win said
 On this particular checkering pattern, Winchester used a ratio of about 3-1 or more.  

How many rows or lines per inch, if you know?  You’d sure think anyone copying the H pattern would stick to whatever this measurement was–it’s as simple a pattern as there is.  Is this gun beyond the “letterable” range?

Found in another source: standard was 20 lines per inch, more for fancier patterns.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10640
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
11
January 27, 2021 - 2:00 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I did not understand the “ratio” comment either.  It is beyond the letterable range.  The LPI used changed (became coarser) through the production period.  That stated, the subject rifle is early enough that it should be 18-LPI.

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1376
Member Since:
July 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6168
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
January 27, 2021 - 2:27 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

tionesta1 said
For comparison, Here are a couple of model 1894 straight grip deluxes that Leroy Merz has for sale:

https://www.merzantiques.com/product/w2823-winchester-1894-deluxe-special-order-rifle/
 

Forget the checkering–how can Merz say, without factory documentation, that this was ordered with the scope?

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4108
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
January 27, 2021 - 3:17 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

clarence said

tionesta1 said
For comparison, Here are a couple of model 1894 straight grip deluxes that Leroy Merz has for sale:
https://www.merzantiques.com/product/w2823-winchester-1894-deluxe-special-order-rifle/
 

Forget the checkering–how can Merz say, without factory documentation, that this was ordered with the scope?  

I suppose he is basing it all on where the barrel markings are located?

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10640
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
15
January 27, 2021 - 4:30 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

steve004 said

I suppose he is basing it all on where the barrel markings are located?  

Actually, he is basing in on the fact that the Proof mark on the barrel is stamped forward of the scope mount base.  Ordinarily it would have been stamped much closer to the frame ring (and would be under the base).  I see nothing wrong with his assertion that it was factory ordered with the scope.

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 112
Member Since:
November 11, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
January 27, 2021 - 4:38 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert H. said
I did not understand the “ratio” comment either.  It is beyond the letterable range.  The LPI used changed (became coarser) through the production period.  That stated, the subject rifle is early enough that it should be 18-LPI.  

I am sorry that I wasn’t more clear on the ratio.  What I am referring to is the length of the diamond to its width.  The length of the diamond is about 3 times as long is it is wide.  The stock on the OP’s rifle has diamonds that are about 2-1.  Early Winchesters that had checkering were done in a size of about 20 lines to the inch and by post WWII, had changed to about 17 or 18 lines per inch.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10640
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
17
January 27, 2021 - 4:44 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Old-Win said

I am sorry that I wasn’t more clear on the ratio.  What I am referring to is the length of the diamond to its width.  The length of the diamond is about 3 times as long is it is wide.  The stock on the OP’s rifle has diamonds that are about 2-1.  Early Winchesters that had checkering were done in a size of about 20 lines to the inch and by post WWII, had changed to about 17 or 18 lines per inch.  

Pre-1900 Fancy checkered stocks were frequently 20-LPI, post-1900 were 18-LPI, and the post WW II were 16-LPI.

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 542
Member Since:
September 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
January 27, 2021 - 2:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Old Win, you are dead on about the diamond ratios.  I would about bet you have done some checkering in the past?  I know I have a checkered past!  The comparison of the buttstock and forend shows the differences in the layout of the patterns and the fineness of the diamonds.  Tim

Avatar
Troutdale, OR
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1861
Member Since:
June 26, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
19
January 27, 2021 - 4:26 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Regarding Merz’s scoped 1894, what kind of rear barrel sight is that?  I’ve never seen anything like that before.

Don

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4108
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
January 27, 2021 - 4:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert H. said

Actually, he is basing in on the fact that the Proof mark on the barrel is stamped forward of the scope mount base.  Ordinarily it would have been stamped much closer to the frame ring (and would be under the base).  I see nothing wrong with his assertion that it was factory ordered with the scope.  

Bert – yes – that is what I meant – the placement location of the proof mark on the barrel.  I can’t think of another explanation why they would have placed it there.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6168
TXGunNut: 4889
Chuck: 4528
1873man: 4269
steve004: 4108
Big Larry: 2297
twobit: 2284
TR: 1698
mrcvs: 1672
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12526
Posts: 108816

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1731
Members: 8737
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation