Log In
November 25, 2014
Offline
Was looking for my first 1894 in .30 WCF, specifically a vintage one to make good use of the C&R and I came across this one marked J.C. ’17 (JC being my initials I was pretty much sold on the spot). As I researched why it might be marked that way I came across a couple of posts that make me want to ask you experts if you think i might be a spruce gun (I think it’s in the possible range/period at: 836xxx). Even though it lacks the Military markings commonly seen on the spruce guns, any other way to authenticate/debunk?
I know for certain the rear sight wouldn’t be right, but I’m really not sure of much else. What’s your opinions (good, bad, or ugly – though preference is on those that contain fact 
)? I think it’s reblued, so I guess I could convince myself that any markings that were there could have been scrubbed, but the Winchester proof marks still seems sounds and there are no traces of other receiver marks.
Pictures below, and I’m happy with the rifle – I bought it because it was in budget and met my criteria for vintage saddle ring carbine, but serviceable with sound wood, good mechanics and bore, and a .30-30 Winchester lever gun…probably paid a few dollars over what might have been a “good deal” but hey it was already monogrammed! Just trying to make sure it won’t be a travesty to take it out on the first day of CF season….!
Anyway glad to be here and happy to have my first real lever gun to keep all the turn handle bolt guns company. Now to fight the urge to buy another 8 or 9!
March 20, 2009
Offline
Good morning,
If you could post a detail photo of the proof stamps it would help. But I do not think it is re-blued from what I can see in the photos. The butt stock is a rifle stock and not a standard carbine stock. In addition it has been heavily sanded and fits poorly.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
December 1, 2012
Offline
The forearm has the distinct appearance of being one of the gumwood stocks that were very common at the time (your carbine was made in 1918). Many of the carbines made from just before WWI and into the ’20s had gumwood stocks as walnut became scarce due to war production. Also, as twobit mentioned, the buttstock is a replacement, which makes sense since gumwood ages terribly and gives the appearance of mold under the surface. I have a 38-55 carbine from the early 1920’s that had gumwood stock and I re-wooded it because it looked awful, full of dark spots as though it had been floating in water for weeks. Also, the buttplate is a rifle style, not a carbine style.
Still, a very nice carbine and you are absolutely right about the instant monogram!
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
John’s carbine was actually made in early 1916. I believe the Polishing Room records will confirm this.
I’ve seen a few others like this carbine that are only marked with the “JC 17” and not with the “US” and Ordnance bomb marks. Others have both the “JC 17” and the martial markings.
November 25, 2014
Offline
Thanks for the info on the replaced buttstock. I suspected it was as such since it didn’t match the forearm and did appear to be a tough fit. Too bad, since it’s in otherwise nice shape. I’ve since done some reading on the shape differences in buttstocks and will probably on day place a carbine stock and plate back on it.
Pictures of the receiver proof marks (no US property markings) are shown below, and I included the barrel markings as well.
Anybody have any good detailed pictures of the JC markings on carbines that also have the US markings? It would be good to compare, and I’ve only seen the RI auction house photos of a JC marked carbine without the US and flaming bomb.
I decided to borrow the Father in Law’s Model 64 in .32WS for hunting this year. He passed away a few weeks back and it would be therapeutic to spend some time in the woods with him again anyway. I’ll spend some time tracking down the right rearsight within my budget and the .30-30 can have it’s deer later.
December 1, 2012
Offline
Perhaps this might shed some light on the J.C. 17 stamping:
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
November 25, 2014
Offline
Thanks Wincacher. I’ve seen that listing and I would give it a little more credence if it had the ordnance and US markings in addition to the JC markings.
I’ve heard before and Tom D mentioned as well that some have been seen with the US/Ordnance markings in addition to the JC. It would be interesting to see someone who might have an example of that in order to compare. I’m sure there are some fakes out there…
-John
December 1, 2012
Offline
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
November 25, 2014
Offline
Indeed I hadn’t, your searching skill is stronger then mine! I’ve been looking around seriously for at least a month. Well, probably not a lot of better information out there on that. I read Rick Hill’s article and must have missed that note that he transcribed in the post you linked.
Thanks for the link!
September 29, 1993
Offline
John:
There are quite a few of these J.C.’17 marked carbine that fall in the early serial number range of known “Spruce Guns”. In addition to the replaced rear sight, yours has a rifle butt-plate that was not standard issue for the “Spruce Guns”. I am of the opinion that these guns were purchased domestically by the Army Signal Corp for security use before the U.S. Ordnance Dept. authorized/delivered the 1,800 U.S. & Ordnance Dept. marked guns.
Just my opinion of course but since it has been re-blued use it as an interesting shooter with a bit of history attached to it!
WACA Life Benefactor Member
NRA Life Member
1 Guest(s)
