Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
We’ve posted several examples of questionable pieces offered on auction. When high condition is desired one often finds themselves swimming with sharks. As we discussed, this is having a negative inspirational impact upon collecting. For me, the Winchesters that are not “high” (e.g. often faked) condition, but instead, are original and show decent honest wear, are fine examples to own. In fact, a piece that saw use for what it was made for, has an additional type of authenticity in my book. We’ve seen a .32 special carbine recently sell for a mind-blowing amount. Here is a .32 special carbine that I doubt will sell for a quarter that amount. It is a couple decades older than the one we were watching and unlike the other one, it has special order features. It is mellow throughout and appears to not have any alteration to the wood or metal finish, extra holes, or any sign of abuse. It, “adds up” as far as wear. The finish on the mag. tube is brighter and matches the finish on the underside of the barrel and the carbine has a mellow feel throughout. I’m a fan of .32 specials so it has that going for it.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/767616964
I find myself hesitant to hit the submit button. My status with Winchesters is that I am a student. Many times when I come here thinking I know something, it turns out I don’t. This can sting at times, but it’s also why I keep showing up. It is an honor to, “palaver” (e.g from the Gunslinger) with those who have so much knowledge and experience to offer.
I think it depends on if you are buying it as a collector gun, a shooter, or both. I am not big on a gun in this condition simply because I believe that if this gun collecting thing goes to heck some day, the guns in this condition will not do well on the resale market. I also believe that the 32 WS is the least collectable caliber in a ’94. If your buying it as a shooter only, and you like it, then by all means own it. I can’t believe it will sell for more than $900.00-1200.00. Just my opinion. Peter
PS: and the reason that carbine you mention sold for the amount it did was because of it’s high condition. If it had been in the same condition as this gun, I doubt either bidder would have even been bidding
steve004 said
We’ve seen a .32 special carbine recently sell for a mind-blowing amount.https://www.gunbroker.com/item/767616964
As a cautionary note, if you decide to bid on this carbine, I believe the bidder W***3 (A+31) was one of the 2 bidders that drove the price up to a ridiculous amount on the previous rifle and appears to be trying to do it again.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
steve004 said
We’ve posted several examples of questionable pieces offered on auction. When high condition is desired one often finds themselves swimming with sharks. As we discussed, this is having a negative inspirational impact upon collecting. For me, the Winchesters that are not “high” (e.g. often faked) condition, but instead, are original and show decent honest wear, are fine examples to own. In fact, a piece that saw use for what it was made for, has an additional type of authenticity in my book. We’ve seen a .32 special carbine recently sell for a mind-blowing amount. Here is a .32 special carbine that I doubt will sell for a quarter that amount. It is a couple decades older than the one we were watching and unlike the other one, it has special order features. It is mellow throughout and appears to not have any alteration to the wood or metal finish, extra holes, or any sign of abuse. It, “adds up” as far as wear. The finish on the mag. tube is brighter and matches the finish on the underside of the barrel and the carbine has a mellow feel throughout. I’m a fan of .32 specials so it has that going for it.https://www.gunbroker.com/item/767616964
I find myself hesitant to hit the submit button. My status with Winchesters is that I am a student. Many times when I come here thinking I know something, it turns out I don’t. This can sting at times, but it’s also why I keep showing up. It is an honor to, “palaver” (e.g from the Gunslinger) with those who have so much knowledge and experience to offer.
I have one exactly like yours. # 927896. Mine has the 4 1/2″ buttplate. What does yours measure? It is a little nicer on the outside, but the bore is pretty much worn out. Paid high to get it. Big Larry
I also love the .32 Spl 94’s but there must not be a lot of fans because Ive had a E++ one made in 1957 for awhile with no takers at $900.00. Seems like the 32 Special barrels are more accurate or something because I shoot them much better than the 30/30’s. Maybe its the difference in the twist.
Eagle said
I think it depends on if you are buying it as a collector gun, a shooter, or both. I am not big on a gun in this condition simply because I believe that if this gun collecting thing goes to heck some day, the guns in this condition will not do well on the resale market. I also believe that the 32 WS is the least collectable caliber in a ’94. If your buying it as a shooter only, and you like it, then by all means own it. I can’t believe it will sell for more than $900.00-1200.00. Just my opinion. PeterPS: and the reason that carbine you mention sold for the amount it did was because of it’s high condition. If it had been in the same condition as this gun, I doubt either bidder would have even been bidding
I spend plenty of time pondering the future of collecting. The older guys continue to head down the road and the younger guys all seem to want black rifles. Plus, younger people seem to not have as much money. So part of my ponderings is who is going to be around down the line (who has both the interest and the ability) to buy the really high dollar items?
As far as the popularity of the .32 special, it is tends to be a special group of (devoted) followers. I am a proud member 🙂
I, too, am a .32 WS fan. Don’t worry about me bidding for this one–I prefer rifles–full magazines, octagons, crescent butts. Plus, I need another safe.
Is that front sight a bit far from home?
It looks exactly like a carbine with the same features that I once owned although mine was in .30-30. It was a handy little gun that rode with me on occasion during my game warden days. I prefer an honest gun showing like this also as I like to shoot my guns without worrying about destroying collector value and I also like te .32 Special cartridge.
I have some rifles here that I would not carry in the woods, or even take to the range for fear of a nick or a ding. If something comes to me with a ding, I can accept it. However, if I am the one that does it, I never forgive myself. For some pieces, easing them out of the safe is far from a relaxing experience as a, “safe ding” is no minor event. Talk about your stuff owning you vs. you owning it
. So, the carbine at hand is an example of something I would experience both joy of ownership as well as something I could feel relaxed about. Relaxation is a much better state of mind vs. the alternative.
On the topic of the .32 Special, that cartridge is in my genetics. Back on the family farm hunt years ago where family and extended family congregated for the November deer hunt, the .32 Special was well-represented. I had two uncles who had an affinity for them and then their sons followed suite and bought them for themselves. By the way, there wasn’t a Marlin in the bunch and all were pre-64 carbines vs. rifles. Interestingly enough, there was not a .30-30 in the bunch.
FromTheWoods said
I, too, am a .32 WS fan. Don’t worry about me bidding for this one–I prefer rifles–full magazines, octagons, crescent butts. Plus, I need another safe.Is that front sight a bit far from home?
Here is a .38/55 carbine I found set up in what looks like identical configuration. I see they were made one year apart. The front sight placement looks the same to me:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/767215721
The two would make a neat pair.
While we’re on the topic of .32 Specials, here’s a fairly nice M55.
Bert – it doesn’t look like you have this one in your survey (#1082437):
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/765668428
And another M55 in .32 Special. Not quite as nice (and I could do without the rear swivel).
Bert – it looks like this one isn’t in your survey as well (#7333):
November 7, 2015
Offline
I like the carbine but the bore description gives me pause. Guns of this era often show the effects of corrosive primers. If the bore is good this will make a fine shooter. I like an honest gun like this one. I can confidently take it hunting knowing that it’s likely been through worse and if I don’t abuse it it won’t be the worse for wear. If, OTOH, you want a collectible item you may want to set your sights a little higher. A higher condition specimen will appreciate and sell faster than these old shooters we all like.
Mike
Thank you, steve004. I wonder why the sight is set back so far from the end of the barrel?
FromTheWoods said
Thank you, steve004. I wonder why the sight is set back so far from the end of the barrel?
I really don’t know. I note the .32 special and the .38-55 carbine look to have the same sight distance from the end of the barrel. Also, I pulled a ’94 SRC from that era out of my safe tonight and it appeared the same distance. So I think they are all correct. But the reasoning behind this isn’t apparent to me.
I like the .32 WS, especially in the rifle configuration. It just feels good when it goes boom!
James
steve004 said
While we’re on the topic of .32 Specials, here’s a fairly nice M55.Bert – it doesn’t look like you have this one in your survey (#1082437):
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/765668428
And another M55 in .32 Special. Not quite as nice (and I could do without the rear swivel).
Bert – it looks like this one isn’t in your survey as well (#7333):
Steve,
I already had both in my survey, thanks for checking though.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
steve004 said
I really don’t know. I note the .32 special and the .38-55 carbine look to have the same sight distance from the end of the barrel. Also, I pulled a ’94 SRC from that era out of my safe tonight and it appeared the same distance. So I think they are all correct. But the reasoning behind this isn’t apparent to me.
The sight setback is correct, and it just looks odd because it does not have a barrel band installed in front of it as a standard SRC does.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
