Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Does it seem rather odd that the screw heads of this supposed 98% condition carbine appear to lack finish? I would expect them to be in a better state of bluing in an otherwise 98% condition .44-40 carbine?????
From my view, at the $8.000 price, I’d run away from that one. Stocks appear to have been sanded, too many screws have been turned. Not enough detail in those few photos.
I’m still learning. I hadn’t noticed that ’92’s would have a butt stock that could hold cleaning rods. Is this a normal aspect of this model?
Also, no wear is evident on the hammer. Were ’92 hammers blued?
FromTheWoods said
From my view, at the $8.000 price, I’d run away from that one. Stocks appear to have been sanded, too many screws have been turned. Not enough detail in those few photos.I’m still learning. I hadn’t noticed that ’92’s would have a butt stock that could hold cleaning rods. Is this a normal aspect of this model?
Also, no wear is evident on the hammer. Were ’92 hammers blued?
Special order on the buttstocks with traps. Late M92 hammers were blued. With all the restoration of old guns going on now, I would just as soon have one with a bit of flaking on the receiver. Hey, maybe they fake that too. My EX BIL bought a near to mint M53 in 44-40 cheap, around $4,000. Took it to a Reno show where our table was next to a world renowned collector and author. He showed the rifle to this gentleman who stated,”the best restoration I have ever seen”. My EX BIL near cried. Years later I paid more for mine than he did, but it is not mint, maybe 90%+ and the receiver has some spotting. Minty bore and a 3 digit serial number. Big Larry
Thanks, Big Larry. I watch Model 1894 threads closely and cruise around their auctions. I’m afraid if I begin learning about the ’92’s, I’ll have to buy another safe!
I am unable to fully ascertain if the stocks have been sanded, oiled, etc, but it appears this has been the case. Too many red flags relative to the preauction estimates.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I think this is another situation where a hands-on inspection is called for. With the wear/thin bluing on the bottom of the receiver I’m inclined to disagree with the 95% score. I’d chalk the difference in blue on the screws to bad lighting or a bit of dressing up and cold blue on some bubba’d screw slots. Nice gun, IMHO, just overrated.
Mike
The only thing that raises my eye is there is zero rubbing in the reciever from the saddle ring. Leather strsp doesnt appear to be 108 and yrs old but possible. Flaking of reciever bluing is starting at the front on the ridges. Zoom in as much as you can.
Oh asking this, is the color of blue spot on?
Good morning guys,
I am not convinced that the rifle has been refinished but a few things are amiss. For as nice as it looks there is NO case color left on the lever. The hammer should absolutely be case colored. The butt stock is not proud to the tang metal. And certainly no wear from the ring is a question. Stocks with a trap door could certainly be ordered as previously noted. And the nickel steel barrel is also a possibility but would be a special order item as well. The receiver edges do look very crisp with just a hint of edge wear and there is typical thinning on the underside of the receiver from carry. Iagree taht without a good close hands on inspection that this would not be a phone bid rifle.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
IM not trying to start an argument here, only asking for my education. But I see a lot guns getting shot down on the internet for having sanded down stocks that the finish to me appears pretty original in color and wear. My question is this, most of theses guns were stored with minimal thought of preservation in mind. Wood shrinks over time in dry atmosphere, and moisture is the enemy. I’m no woodlergist I don’t know how much shrinking occurs but could this be a reason for the stocks not being proud to the Tang or butt plate?
About Winchester wood fit to metal. There was a thread on the .22 forum about this.
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4568617&highlight=#post4568617
I wrote this response and many agreed:
I see a wide variation in the butt plate to wood fit on original finish Winchester .22 rifles. Some butt plates do appear to be sanded to be flush with the wood and fit near perfect. But some do not, on these the wood is always “proud”, meaning the wood is bigger, sticks up and there is a slight edge above the butt plate. We are only considering clearly original finish rifles here. I have yet to explain the differences. I understand Winchester ran the wood fitting department like a job shop so different workman may have done things differently. I wish I knew the answer. Some say the plastic shrinks causing the wood to be proud. But then along comes some metal butt plates with proud wood and the metal did not shrink! So there goes that theory. Now if the butt plate is larger than the wood, then there is something changed, sanded or replaced.
I have been a woodworker for most of my life. Wood does not shrink, in the case of a stock, in thickness. Wood shrinks in width unless it is quarter sawn. I have seen thousands of Winchesters. If the wood is not proud at the buttplate upper corners something is wrong. If there are gaps anywhere something is wrong. Same with grips, ivory or wood. If a gun was left out in the sun for decades, maybe.
1 Guest(s)
