Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I found this on another forum from a few months ago.-
I had asked him about some of the things I had read or heard as to why serial numbers would have been intentionally removed and asked him to verify the story that Sears and Roebuck removed the serial numbers so they could sell them at less than Winchester’s recommended retail price. I found his response very interesting, and have included it below:
For years I have heard that Winchester marked these Sears guns with the “WRACo” stamp (when they found them). I have found no documentation of this stamp being used for this purpose. Also, the problems between Sears and Winchester started in 1904 and continued until about 1912. Winchester stopped using the “WRACo” stamp in 1903.
Online
In my research, the guns I have found with the WRACO marking were all manufactured pre-1899, and in at least one case, the serial number was still decipherable beneath the cross-hatched stamping.
One question I have, is where did Dan Brumley find any verified documentation that corroborates Winchester intentionally defacing their own products with the WRACO stamp? I have spent years looking through the information stored in the McCracken Research Library and the CFM, and as of yet, I have not found any evidence of what he states. If Winchester actually defaced the serial numbers, I am certain that they would have noted that fact in the factory ledger records, and based on my detailed examination of the Model 1893 records, there were no such entries made in the records. I have encountered at least a dozen different Model 1893 Shotguns with the WRACO over-stamp marking… early Pre-A guns, “A” series, “B” series, and even one “B Star” marked gun.
One other fact that does not add up, is why is the WRACO marking only found on 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1897 models? Why not the Single Shot, Model 1886, 1887, 1890, and 1895 ?
Last comment, Winchester had the requisite skills and tooling necessary to repair a damaged serial number. It is my belief that is what they would have done during a Repair & Return vice intentionally defacing the gun with a crude over-stamp.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I do not pretend to know the answer to this question. But I own one, so it is of interest to me. As far as defacing the serial number, I believe it is presumed that the serial was worn to the point it could not be accurately deciphered, so Winchester could not restamp it. Winchester did not “deface” a readable serial number. Colt did some strange things also on their SAAs, like put current at the time markings on earlier guns that came in for repair or refinish with presumably worn markings. That confused Colt collectors for a long time, trying to figure out how inappropriate era markings showed up on guns (such as 1900 era markings on 1880 era guns).
“One other fact that does not add up, is why is the WRACO marking only found on 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1897 models? Why not the Single Shot, Model 1886, 1887, 1890, and 1895” Good question. Sears also sold those models, as shown in my 1899 Sears catalog. If Sears did it, why did Sears never remove the serial number and stamp WRACO on any of those other models? They certainly sold many of them in this time period.
“If Winchester actually defaced the serial numbers, I am certain that they would have noted that fact in the factory ledger records” Did Winchester go back and enter into the factory records every repair or refinish they made on a gun? Again, Winchester did not deface the serial numbers, the numbers stamped over were unreadable. Consequently, there could not be a notation in the factory ledger, the serial number was not known.
“Also, the problems between Sears and Winchester started in 1904 and continued until about 1912. Winchester stopped using the “WRACo” stamp in 1903.”
I do not know if this statement is verifiable, but it would answer the question.
Bert H. said
One other fact that does not add up, is why is the WRACO marking only found on 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1897 models? Why not the Single Shot, Model 1886, 1887, 1890, and 1895 ?
I have either a 1887 or a 1901 Receiver that was defaced with the cross hatch pattern, but I believe does not have the WRACO marking in the cross hatch pattern. I believe that the serial number was slightly visible underneath it as well, and someone tried to remark it or figure out what the serial number was. It is a parts gun with only the receiver, barrel, a few screws and trigger. I’ll have to look at it again to if I can determine was model it is for, because I don’t remember the gauge or markings on it.
Anyway when I get a minute I’ll look it over.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
It is a Model 1887 receiver and a 30 inch 12 gauge barrel. You can clearly see where the hatched markings were applied over the serial number. The barrel is marked “12”, per Madis puts it past the 30,000 serial range. Which is also supported by the lack of the brazed magazine retainer, and would use the later magazine band with retaining screw. The receiver has the earlier trigger that is pre-47,000 serial range. So I believe that puts in having been produced in the 1891-1892 timeframe.
I believe the last three digits of serial maybe 817, but not sure. I do wonder if the original serial would be recoverable in some way, but have never tried to do it.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Brady,
Thanks for posting the pictures. While it is remotely similar to the specimens I have found, it is definitely not the same.
Note the difference in the background pattern on the two Model 1893 shotguns shown in the pictures I have attached. Also note that on the second gun, the “A” is still discern-able, and if you look closely, the serial number “17422” can still be seen under the hand stamped pattern and WRACO marking. It was this specific gun that convinced me that it was not Winchester who tried to obliterate the serial number.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Maverick said
The barrel is marked “12”, per Madis puts it past the 30,000 serial range. Which is also supported by the lack of the brazed magazine retainer, and would use the later magazine band with retaining screw. The receiver has the earlier trigger that is pre-47,000 serial range. So I believe that puts in having been produced in the 1891-1892 time frame.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Sincerely,
Maverick
Brady, where are you getting this information?
Chuck said
Brady, where are you getting this information?
I too am curious… I have an early production 12-Ga Model 1887, and it has “12” marked on the barrel.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Brady,Thanks for posting the pictures. While it is remotely similar to the specimens I have found, it is definitely not the same.
Note the difference in the background pattern on the two Model 1893 shotguns shown in the pictures I have attached. Also note that on the second gun, the “A” is still discern-able, and if you look closely, the serial number “17422” can still be seen under the hand stamped pattern and WRACO marking. It was this specific gun that convinced me that it was not Winchester who tried to obliterate the serial number.
Bert
On the two I have inspected in person, and the ones I have seen on the internet, the number was definitely gone or unreadable. On the 2 inspected closely in person, the receivers where the serial number was was perfectly rounded, no evidence of distortion of the metal from filing or grinding the metal.
With this example being the only one where a worn serial number can be partially seen, perhaps the decision was up to individual workmen, and this guy, for whatever reason, bad lighting or bad eyesight, thought the number was not sufficiently clear. I doubt if if Winchester went through an elaborate process to determine when the marking was used, if they used it.
Again if Sears, a major nationwide distributor, did this this to all their Winchesters over a 7-8 year period of time, the guns should be prevelent.
The vast majority of Winchester collectors I have spoken with the past 60 years have never seen one. How many people here have seen a quantity of them, or any, at an auction or gun show?
I don’t know why Winchester would do it, other than that they did not like returning guns with unreadable serial numbers. Someone’s pet peeve maybe.
If Sears did it because they were discounting guns over a 7-8 year period of time, why so few, and only certain models they were selling in that time period. To ire Winchester, Sears would have had to have been doing it in large quantity, not just a few items on sale.
Chuck said
Brady, where are you getting this information?
I thought I had read it in the “Winchester Handbook” by Madis. I’ll look at it again and make sure I didn’t misread or miswrite something here. As like you gentlemen, now that I reread my post, it doesn’t make the most sense. Anyways!
Bert
If WRACo didn’t mark them, then Who do you think did so? And Why? (Oh course I understand that maybe unanswerable.)
I find it interesting that the pattern on my 87 is different and is lacking the WRACO over it. I would imagine these must have been done before the Gun Control Acts that make it illegal to deface serial numbers.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Maverick said
Bert
If WRACo didn’t mark them, then Who do you think did so? And Why? (Oh course I understand that maybe unanswerable.)
I find it interesting that the pattern on my 87 is different and is lacking the WRACO over it. I would imagine these must have been done before the Gun Control Acts that make it illegal to deface serial numbers.
Sincerely,
Maverick
Brady,
Until there is positive (verifiable) proof that Winchester employees stamped the crude “WRACO” marking on any of their own products, I will maintain my belief that it had to do with the Sears & Roebuck feud with Winchester. While it may not have been Sears employees who did it, it could very well have been only of the companies Sears underhandedly hired to purchase Winchester firearms for them.
The Gun Control Act was not passed until November 1968, so it was not a factor in the defacing of the serial numbers near the turn of the 20th century.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
“In my research, the guns I have found with the WRACO marking were all manufactured pre-1899” How could you determine that if the serial number was obliterated and not readable? The guns I have observed are 1892s and 1894s. There is no marking I have found that proves a pre-1899 date on these models. I wish there was some way to positively identify an 1892 or 1894 as pre-1899 with no visible serial number. That way if I come across one, I could be confident it was an antique and not subject to a possible legal problem.
wolfbait said
“In my research, the guns I have found with the WRACO marking were all manufactured pre-1899” How could you determine that if the serial number was obliterated and not readable? The guns I have observed are 1892s and 1894s. There is no marking I have found that proves a pre-1899 date.
By asking that question, you are showing your utter ignorance of the models in question. As I very clearly stated (and illustrated in at least one picture), the serial numbers were not 100% obliterated. On many of the specimens I have physically examined, it is easy to determine how many total digits were in the serial number, and to decipher one or more of the digits.
1. All Model 1893 shotguns were manufactured pre-1899.
2. The Model 1897 shotguns manufactured pre-1899 were nearly all pre “C” series guns and nearly all Solid frames. Additionally, the patent markings on the barrels identify them as pre-1899 manufacture.
3. In regards to the Model 1892 and 1894, you quite apparently are not very observant. Specifically, the upper tang markings on both the Model 1892 and 1894 are the primary clue as to when they were manufactured. For the Model 1894, the Type-1 upper tang marking was discontinued in the early 15,100 serial number range (in the year 1896).
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
“By asking that question, you are showing your utter ignorance of the models in question” I was addressing 1892s and 1894s, which can be antique or modern, not 1893 and 1897 shotguns. Not an interest to me. “As I very clearly stated (and illustrated in at least one picture), the serial numbers were not 100% obliterated.” In checking examples available, they all look more like the other example you show. Unreadable. The one you show with worn numbers partially readable is an anomaly. I discussed that in a previous post.
“In regards to the Model 1892 and 1894, you quite apparently are not very observant. Specifically, the upper tang markings on both the Model 1892 and 1894 are the primary clue as to when they were manufactured. For the Model 1894, the Type-1 upper tang marking was discontinued in the early 15,100 serial number range (in the year 1896).” So, 15,100 1894s would be determined to be antiques by the tang marking then (the Winchester Book shows the different tang markings but does not give dates of use). That leaves the next approximately 40,000, the majority of the antique 1894s, pre-1899, unable to be distinguished from post-1898 modern guns by a later tang marking used after 15,100. Was the next tang marking after 15,100 on 1894s used pre and post 1899, so of no value in determining antique pre-1899 status for the majority of antique 1894s?
Guessing by partially readable obscured numbers may or may not satisfy the authorities. All they see is a removed, obliterated, defaced serial number. I was hoping there was a way you found to determine verifiably that as you said “the WRACO marking were all manufactured pre-1899” without being able to verify the serial number. A firearm with a removed, obliterated or defaced serial is a Federal violation if the gun is modern, no concern if the firearm is an antique. If I see one for sale, I want to be certain I can prove it is a legal antique. One may be offered to me at any time. I bought one a few months ago, a confirmed antique.
“if you look closely, the serial number “17422” can still be seen under the hand stamped pattern and WRACO marking. It was this specific gun that convinced me that it was not Winchester who tried to obliterate the serial number.” It could also convince you that it was not Sears who did it, because it did not achieve their suspected goal of concealing the serial number.
I am always trying to gain information about Winchesters, particularly 1892s and 1894s. I have started conversations with experienced Winchester collectors at auctions and shows about this WRACO topic. No one had a clue, and surprisingly most long time collectors did not even know what I was talking about.
1 Guest(s)
