Since the 1968 GCA was passed, Madis’s numbers were ok with the BATF and collectors, everybody knew where they stood, and I’m pretty sure that the BATF really didn’t care; they had a set of very well established numbers to go by, and in reality an 1892 made in 1897 or 1899 was still the same; and really not a big concern for the BATF.

For 40+ years, Winchester’s in the contested serial number range were shipped without the requirement to have a FFL holder at the shipping and receiving end. Truly a victimless crime….. who was negatively impacted by this?

Now, we have a few individuals, who are not only insisting that the Government adjust the numbers but are demanding it.  To what end? To provide a safer society; to make sure that an assault 1873 doesn’t get into the wrong hands? To prevent gang bangers from using a High Wall in a drive by or to stop a mentally deficient person from using an 1897 to shoot up a mall?

I doubt that the motivation is that noble.

From my point of view: 1. There is no difference between a Winchester manufactured pre 1898 v. post 1898,  2. The guns in the contested serial number range had been considered exempt since the inception of the 1968 GCA with no ill effect to society. 

So what do you say we compromise; here is my two step plan:

Step 1. Approach the BATF, tell them that we would like the historical numbers provided G. Madis, on models where his number are greater than the PR numbers to be added to the BATFs C&R list as a block; SN 1 thru 147,684 for the 1894. This should be a no brainer, as they have been using those numbers since the inception of the GCA of 68.

Step 2. In a separate action, after step 1 has been approved, apporach the BATF, with new information that has come to light, we would like SN# of 1-XXX of the following Winchester models (where the PR numbers are greater than G.Madis’s numbers) added to the C&R list.

To me this is a win for the collector. It’s an approach that I believe WACA needs to agree on and execute collectively.

Thoughts?

Burt,

Thanks for the magnanimous offer; it’s always better to be part of the solution.

Have already discussed with, and provided a path to Rob K.

Bottom line is that if this is to be a WACA approach, there needs to be a consensus of the membership.

Mike

I was going to comment on how this oh so familiar debate is so draining and reads like the proverbial broken record. Yet, as many times as this subject seems to present itself, it reminds me of the horrific car crash you just can’t look away from as you pass by. It’s always interesting to hear all the different views and I get pulled in.

Although I don’t really care to take sides, I do have an example of one way this gets complicated for me. Let’s just say I happen to own Win. 1894 s/n 145000 and it’s a 20” rifle with a matted barrel and a saddle ring. It also has 9 3/8” fore-end wood that’s questionable to the already odd configuration. What is the most important item that you can have as a collector, and especially a seller, to accompany this rifle at a show? I’m guessing most of you said a Factory Letter from the CFM. We put a heck of a lot of value in the information this document holds because it offers credibility to our special order rifle and hopefully validates the special order features. The absence of this one piece of paper can take the rifles value and cut it in half, or possibly even be a deal breaker.

Now, let’s say that you are also trying to add the status of “Antique” to this fine rifle to put some icing on the cake as you try to sell it to a fellow collector, or that customer you always hope to see with the roll of hundred dollar bills in his pocket. How do I explain that my factory letter shows three separate dates all in 1902 but at the same time I am claiming a DOM of 1898? I would be very uncomfortable trying to explain how the gun was manufactured 4 years before any of the surviving Winchester records showed this rifle to exist. One thing I learned early on with trading or selling Winchesters is that you don’t want to have to make excuses for your gun. I feel like if I use the Madis dates in conjunction with a factory letter it puts me in a position of explaining something I don’t have an answer for. It also might leave the letter itself in question and worse yet, my own credibility.

I too would like to see more Win rifles qualify as antique but I’ve yet to come up with a good way of explaining how the dates on the letter are inaccurate, but the configuration information is legit. This would give the impression that I am only choosing to give value to the portions of the letter that benefit me.

My apologies if this discussion was only aimed at the legality angle of the serial number dispute. I just wanted to share a little different perspective on the subject.

I think there is some confusion as to the plan I proposed; it would not change the BATF’s overall definition of “antique firearm”. And it certainly would not clarify any discrepancies on manufacturing dates.

 All it would be is a single line entry in the BATF’s Curios or Relics list under Section IIIA — Weapons removed from the NFA as collector’s items and removed from the GCA as antiques, which would state, as an example: “Winchester model 1894 serial numbers 1 thru XXX,XXX”.

If the number falls into that range, it’s an Antique, if not, its modern, and requires a FFL to ship. As simple as that.

No more of this foolishness, Madis numbers vs. PR number vs whatever suits our purpose at the time.

Why have a hard date for which guns manufactured before are only antiques yet have a “rolling” +50 year old designation for C&R guns.  Keep the 50 year C&R and make +100 year guns antiques and just get down the road with this entire peeing match.

Michael

I have thought for a LONG time that the Gun Control Act of 1968 arbitrarily determined that, at that time, a 70 year old firearm should be considered to be ‘antique’.  Therefore, as time progresses, perhaps it should be modified such that anything over 70 years or 100 years old, or other similar value should be considered an antique.  Anything pre-1899 is much more fun to deal with than something later, and, obviously, if that were to change to a later date, it increases the number of firearms falling into this category.  Having said that, the politicians who are anti-firearm and most likely to propose gun control legislation are the least knowledgeable when it comes to firearms, and probably unaware, or at least ignorant of, the pre-1899 ‘antique’ firearms laws, and, if it were brought to their attention, it might, instead of being expanded to include later firearms, disappear completely!  Sometimes it is best just to sit tight and not mess with things, even though I very much would like the definition of ‘antique’ firearms to include much more.

Also, if Congress were to include more firearms and maybe arbitrarily state that once a firearm is 100 years old, what happens 100 years from now?  Those firearms being abused by mentally deranged individuals today, 100 years from now, still could be used in a similar manner and will never fall into the same category as a quaint old Winchester.