Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I have a late 1927 model 95 that has no ebony tip insert in the forend. The forend sure seems original shaping internally and externally. Were late model 95s made this way?
November 7, 2015
Offline
JC-
It seems I’ve seen some but can’t recall any details. If our 1895 experts don’t chime in I’ll research it in their new book tomorrow. In the meanwhile a few pics may help solve our mystery.
Mike
JC and Mike, I am not as well versed as Mark so he may yet weigh in with a different view. I will say I have not personally seen any of the original 1895 RIFLES without a proper ebony insert in the forearm tip. But never say “never” is a good motto, just be very jaundiced. I have seen forearms that seem perfectly correct at first glance, only to find they are a tad longer, or the ebony insert is a bit “off” in its shape (the longer bit towards the receiver was a thicker profile as I recall), etc. They pass muster unless you have others to set next to them and then the differences stand out. The reintroduced models 1895 have atrocious forearms if you ask me, or even if you didn’t. My take based on a memory that is fading daily. Tim PS. I think my collection of 1895’s ends at around the 1921 or 1922 time frame, so keep that in mind. 
I’ve not seen any original 1895 forends without the ebony inserts, even in the very late production rifles. Of course, that doesn’t mean that some don’t exist. Most of the semi-inletted reproduction forends don’t come with an ebony insert and have to be installed. Correctly inletting that insert is not an easy task, so I can imagine some of them have been installed without the insert. Mark
Here’s a link to a GB listing for a late gun without the ebony insert:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/952328533
What do the members think of this gun as to originality?
I saw another late gun like this without the ebony in 405 WCF on another website several months ago.
My gun, when it first arrived, I thought was for sure incorrect because of lacking the ebony tip. A knowledgeable collector friend thought different, so I started looking online for late guns and have so far seen these two. By the way my forend and stock are not in great shape. At some point they both received plastic and pearl inlays, plus a recoil pad! The metal is in 98 percent condition with a perfect mint bore though. I plan to replace the butchered wood and have a nice set of stocks to fit from PGW which comes with the ebony tip. There is a possibility of patching over the plastic inlay on the forend and it is nice otherwise. I still wonder if no-ebony forends are legit for late guns or not.
It would be helpful to see pictures of your forend – particularly of the inletting. The GunBroker rifle isn’t a particularly good example because, at least, the buttstock has been refinished so we can’t see if the finishes match between the forend and stock. Additionally, the fit around the tangs looks suspect to me. It may well be a replacement. It’s very difficult to say with certainty without removing it. Keep in mind, also, that your rifle was manufactured in 1924 and the GunBroker rifle in 1932. Several thousand rifles were manufactured with ebony inserts between them in a span of eight years.
I’m not saying that no factory originals exist without ebony inserts, but it would help to be able to your question about yours and give an honest opinion without good quality close-ups. Mark
I missed the basis for .35 WCF on gunbroker to be considered, “factory refinished”?
steve004 said
I missed the basis for .35 WCF on gunbroker to be considered, “factory refinished”?
Steve,
I didn’t see any reference to the GunBroker 1895 having been “factory refinished”. In my opinion, the stock’s been refinished but not by Winchester. The rounding of the wood at the buttplate and the metal proud to the wood at points at the upper tang are the giveaways. The wood also looks too light to me, lacking the typical red cast of factory Winchester finishes.
It’s difficult to use this as an example of an 1895 without an ebony insert. Principally, because it’s very conceivable that the stock was refinished when a non-original forend was added at a later date so that the finishes on both pieces would match. I’m not dismissing the possibility that original forends exist without inserts, I just don’t think we can rely upon this rifle a definitive example of one. Mark
Mark Douglas said
steve004 said
I missed the basis for .35 WCF on gunbroker to be considered, “factory refinished”?
Steve,
I didn’t see any reference to the GunBroker 1895 having been “factory refinished”. In my opinion, the stock’s been refinished but not by Winchester. The rounding of the wood at the buttplate and the metal proud to the wood at points at the upper tang are the giveaways. The wood also looks too light to me, lacking the typical red cast of factory Winchester finishes.
It’s difficult to use this as an example of an 1895 without an ebony insert. Principally, because it’s very conceivable that the stock was refinished when a non-original forend was added at a later date so that the finishes on both pieces would match. I’m not dismissing the possibility that original forends exist without inserts, I just don’t think we can rely upon this rifle a definitive example of one. Mark
Mark – you are correct. I misread the auction title. (I’m sure this will get better with age) 
steve004 said
Mark – you are correct. I misread the auction title. (I’m sure this will get better with age)
I hope so. I have the same problem.
I am having trouble loading pictures of my gun and forend, I’ll keep working on it.
Okay, I give up for now. When I try to post a picture, I keep getting an error message, “file size too large”.
My gun I believe has original metal finishes. It has 97 percent metal and a pristine bore.
The wood and inletting seem original to me. I have taken apart and owned a few factory stocked guns and a couple custom stocked guns. This forend strikes me as factory all the way regarding inletting. Custom stocks are generally scrapped smooth and lack machining marks like my forend.
I intend to restock this gun and just want to be as accurate as possible, is why I was asking.
JC, I don’t have a program in my computer to “play” with pictures so have to work with one as it is presented. Being taken against the white of snow, your pictures are way too dark for me to see any details of the forearm. Perhaps Mark can work with them to decide what they look like. I am still interested where this all goes as I have looked at quite a few 1895’s in obtaining the modest number I have, and have yet to see a forearm that is factory for sure that does not have ebony inserts, but I also believe you are not the average joe in considering factory vs after market, etc. Good luck with all this. Tim
PS. Because of the limits of me and my computer, I don’t trust I can see in a photo what others seem to see anyway!
It gets dark here early. I will post some more pictures tomorrow or over the weekend. I have some new brass in 35 WCF and am wanting to shoot this gun.
I reduced the size of the pictures so they would upload. Evidently not enough to get them on the same page. I also lightened them.
1 Guest(s)
