Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Far from original sights…& receiver. 32WS made in 1897?
Online
Could the SG BP & 2/3 mag be special ordered on a carbine? If it was a s.o., why retain that most useless of excrescences, the sling ring?
I guess I was more interested in 32WS not being produced until 1901. MERZ Antique informed me the serial number was 27997 with a 1905 DOM. ??♂️
Offline
This serial number is not correct. The upper tang is marked Model 94 so it was made well after 1897 or 1905
That SRC has some things going on with it for sure. At first glance I thought that maybe the serial number listed was not complete as 27,997 put its made 1897, but if the serial number was missing a ‘1’ on the front end that makes it 127,997 a 1901 produced gun and depending of date would’ve made it possibly a very early 32 W.S. chambered SRC. If it was produced in late 1901. But that doesn’t explain the 1905 dated Proof markings.
Its also odd to me that the SRC being in 32W.S. has the rear sight it has, as I would of thought it would have the special 32W.S. rear ramp style sight.
I suppose you can argue it had a R&R at sometime after 1905. And if the serial # is indeed 27,997 a Cody letter could be ordered to see what fruit it holds.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
My inquiry to Merz & submission it’s not original was responded with “we have it on hold now for someone”. Sure you do ?
Look at the photo of the caliber stamp and be glad somebody else owns it.
RickC said
Maybe Merz just doesn’t know the 32WS dates and thought it was original even with the U notch rear sight which is post 1915.
Merz the Winchester specialist in business since 1965? One call to Cody would have verified whether the non-standard features were original…or not! I’d bet he did make that call hoping to hear it was a rare special order, but the response he received persuaded him that ”silence is golden.”
Burt Humphrey said
Look at the photo of the caliber stamp and be glad somebody else owns it.
You are SO right! If Merz’s vision has deteriorated to the point that he didn’t notice a re-marking as crude as this one, it’s time to retire. But I don’t doubt he’ll easily sell it–his sucker-list is worth millions.
You would think he would describe this gun exactly what it is…or was.
Leroy and his people are sharp, they know what they own. I saw him not to long ago and vision is not a concern. He knows how to market and sell, what to say and what not to say. His business is selling guns and he is good at it. T/R
TR said
Leroy and his people are sharp, they know what they own. I saw him not to long ago and vision is not a concern. He knows how to market and sell, what to say and what not to say. His business is selling guns and he is good at it. T/R
No argument on Merz knowing what not to say. Not on my trusted seller list.
RickC said
No argument on what not to say. Not on my trusted seller list.
My trusted seller list has no names on it! I take it one gun at a time, I let the gun speak for itself. T/R
Front and rear sights are correct for a saddle ring carbine. The .32 Special Smokless sight could probably be installed as a special order, but was most often used on rifles of this caliber.
sb said
This serial number is not correct. The upper tang is marked Model 94 so it was made well after 1897 or 1905
I do believe you’re onto something here. Look at these example serials fairly close to the serial number range of the SRC. Now compare them to each other and then to the SRC in question and I think you’ll see the difference.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Maverick’s examples look like the same dies with some variance for the contour of the receiver. The gun in question is struck very hard and the dies aren’t as curvy and lack the extra point on the top of the seven. The lower tail on the two is odd but because the receiver curves there looks different? The condition of the metal changes in the area of the serial number. The barrel markings are also deep. Yes a question but priced to sell. T/R
Positively not original, and the upper tang marking is post-1919.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
clarence said
Could the SG BP & 2/3 mag be special ordered on a carbine? If it was a s.o., why retain that most useless of excrescences, the sling ring?
It would be nice to know what Ser # 27997 came back as for configuration. It most certainly wasn’t a 32WS caliber & U notch rear sight.
TR said
Maverick’s examples look like the same dies with some variance for the contour of the receiver. The gun in question is struck very hard and the dies aren’t as curvy and lack the extra point on the top of the seven. The lower tail on the two is odd but because the receiver curves there looks different? The condition of the metal changes in the area of the serial number. The barrel markings are also deep. Yes a question but priced to sell. T/R
$1795 is not priced to sell imo for this frankenchester but each to their own I guess.
1 Guest(s)
