Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Bert H. said
Jeremy P said
Bert, if you see this, do you have a more narrow DOM than the web site provides (1921-1928)? I have a s/n 935804 (same gun essentially), 60,000 prior to this one marked as 1924/5, but I don’t remember where I got those years.
Most likely the latter half of the year 1924. You can get the exact date from Pauline Muerrle.
Bert
I’ll write her, thanks Bert. JP
Jeremy,
What is the serial number on the gun (I mistakenly thought it waws 935808)?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Bert-
SN in pics is 989768
Mike
Jeremy P said
Bert, if you see this, do you have a more narrow DOM than the web site provides (1921-1928)? I have a s/n 935804 (same gun essentially), 60,000 prior to this one marked as 1924/5, but I don’t remember where I got those years.
Hello Jeremy,
SN 989768 corresponds to production form mid 1929.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Jeremy,
What is the serial number on the gun (I mistakenly thought it was 935808)?
Bert
Thanks..the 935804 is one I already owned….989768 is what I picked up yesterday. 1929 is definitely not what I had down already for the older of the two….thanks! I got “1924/5” from somewhere and put on my inventory, just don’t remember where I got that year from.
Having Pauline’s contact is nice for future stuff, but I won’t likely pay to get a year alone…good with ballparking these two! JP
I have a similar condition carbine ser. 987357. Does your carbine have similar barrel stamping?
rogertherelic said
I have a similar condition carbine ser. 987357. Does your carbine have similar barrel stamping?
I have one in nearly exact same cond, also .44; what’s a fair price to ask for it? (“Fair” means both buyer or seller feel good about transaction.)
rogertherelic said
I have a similar condition carbine ser. 987357. Does your carbine have similar barrel stamping?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/5ZrzundrUvgx7ook9
here’s my photos Roger….look at picture 7 & 8, very different stampings. My Winchester roll mark is on the typical tang location….is your top tang without a stamping at all?
twobit said
Jeremy P said
Bert, if you see this, do you have a more narrow DOM than the web site provides (1921-1928)? I have a s/n 935804 (same gun essentially), 60,000 prior to this one marked as 1924/5, but I don’t remember where I got those years.
Hello Jeremy,
SN 989768 corresponds to production form mid 1929.
Michael
Hey Mike! Were you the additional 1892 guru that I couldn’t remember? Thanks for the info…
Bert, sorry, I muddied the waters throwing out the s/n of the earlier gun I already had. So far looks like 935804 (already owned it) might be 1924 and the one I brought home yesterday (989768) is 1929. Get a little ahead of myself here and there.
Jeremy P said
My Winchester roll mark is on the typical tang location….is your top tang without a stamping at all?
Yours is the last of the upper tang markings used; the progression was from Model 1892, to Model 92, to yours. All other aspects of cond & configuration being equal (which seldom occurs), I’d assign greater value to the first marking.
clarence said
Yours is the last of the upper tang markings used; the progression was from Model 1892, to Model 92, to yours. All other aspects of cond & configuration being equal (which seldom occurs), I’d assign greater value to the first marking.
Interesting….I recognized it as all “correct” and original, but I gotta do a better job of starting to remember all the transitions and first, second, third, etc….but hey, that’s why I’ve been grabbing up all the books I run into…
without looking, iirc the earlier carbine of the two I’ve been discussing has the 92 tang mark, where the “18” has simply been deleted from the die
rogertherelic said
My ’92 has the Type 6 tang stamp. RDB
Ah….sending me down a rabbit hole for some reading, eh? Challenge accepted. 🙂
Jeremy P said
Hello Jeremy,
SN 989768 corresponds to production form mid 1929.
Michael
Hey Mike! Were you the additional 1892 guru that I couldn’t remember? Thanks for the info…
Jeremy,
That would be me.
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
clarence said
Yours is the last of the upper tang markings used; the progression was from Model 1892, to Model 92, to yours. All other aspects of cond & configuration being equal (which seldom occurs), I’d assign greater value to the first marking.
That is not correct. The last upper tang stamp style found on the Model 92 rifles was the Style #6 which has dashes before and after the bottom two lines of print.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
rogertherelic said
My ’92 has the Type 6 tang stamp. RDB
Roger,
I have your rifle listed in my survey but I do not have any images saved. I do have a notation that the Model 92 designation is on the right hand side of the barrel. Is that correct? I have found several late 1929 and 1930 produced SRC’s with earlier produced barrel all in 44 WCF caliber like this. Since the #6 and 7 tang stamps have no Model designation on them and the barrels were already produced without a Model designation also The barrel were apparently stamped on the right side. See the example below.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
rogertherelic said
My ’92 has the Type 6 tang stamp. RDB
Roger,
I have your rifle listed in my survey but I do not have any images saved. I do have a notation that the Model 92 designation is on the right hand side of the barrel. Is that correct? I have found several late 1929 and 1930 produced SRC’s with earlier produced barrel all in 44 WCF caliber like this. Since the #6 and 7 tang stamps have no Model designation on them and the barrels were already produce without a Model designation also The barrel were apparently stamped on the right side. See the example below.
Michael
Michael, this was the explanation I was looking for (for his rifle), thanks for posting that.
1 Guest(s)
