Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
This was recently addressed in another thread.
I am not quite sure why there are prejudices against British proofmarks on Winchester rifles. Yes, I know that having British proofmarks strongly suggests that a rifle was not in the Old West, but most other Winchester rifles were not, and of those that were, most were well used and the chances are that they were owned or used by a prominent figure in the Old West is slim, and proving a connection to such a figure is virtually nil.
It seems folks will pay a premium for what might have or could have occurred, or, conversely, discount a firearm because it could not have been part of the Old West. Seems rather superficial and it seems like some folks are certainly passing up fine Winchesters with more condition for those with far less, simply because they clearly could not have been in the Old West.
If I was buying these hoping to buy many and prove a connection to a prominent figure in the Old West, and hit the jackpot, my odds are far better purchasing a lottery ticket.
Speaking for myself,I never gave it much thought,one way or the other.
A gun is only original once. With the addition of the proofs most likely the gun was refinished too. It’s like putting an extra hole in a receiver.
Chuck has a good point, many British proof guns are refinished in the era by the best gun smiths in the world using the same process as Winchester. After 100 years it’s hard to tell, they stayed off the markings and edges, quality work. It was not uncommon. T/R
TR said
Chuck has a good point, many British proof guns are refinished in the era by the best gun smiths in the world using the same process as Winchester. After 100 years it’s hard to tell, they stayed off the markings and edges, quality work. It was not uncommon. T/R
Sure they were capable of that kind of work, but was it done when a new gun imported into the country was merely proof tested & marked?
Was wondering also about that Lightening sent to Bombay–was it proofed there, or was it detoured to Britain first?
They don’t bother me a bit, I’ve only got two that are British proofed and in my opinion I got a steal of a deal on both. I know I would of paid 60-100% more if they had not been foreign proofed. I have no intention of ever selling either and they are both of a medium condition 50-60%ish with great bores. Wonderful rifles to use as shooters. The proof marks don’t really seem to effect the accuracy……
If I was only collecting high condition guns with no intention of ever pulling a trigger, I believe I would probably shy away, however that’s not my cup of tea. I enjoy shooting more than fondling.
Erin
Good questions, don’t know the answer. I owned 1 dlx 76 and 2 86s that were done, case and blue looked Winchester but they had blue in the proof marks. The 76 dlx was a 50/95, short round barrel, button mag, shotgun butt. One 86 was a dlx 50/110, half round, button mag, shotgun butt the other was was a std 86 45/70, round barrel, button mag, rifle butt. It was brought to my attention at a Las Vegas show by Paul Sorrel and later by Walt Hallstein. I had no idea and was not pleased with the news, but I think they were right. That was one of the reasons I tend to shy away from British proof guns. T/R
From Australia, we sometimes see Brit proof winchesters, but mostly Colts.In the last few years I have steared away from the pommy Colts because of the reasons given above, no western romance.But recently pick up a very interresting and documented Colt sa, and yes it has foreign proofs, Belguim.
The reason I purchased it was for the following reasons.
It has the H.N stamp on the frame, not a condemed but an overrun frame.
It was shipped to Colts New York office for export to Belguim.
From there it ended up in Italy for sale.
Purchased buy the former owners Grandfather, who was on route to Australia, where he settled started a ranch and raised his family.The colt was handed down through the family. It Has a colourfull past to which was writen on two piece’s of paper and given to me by the grandson.
Hell, I don’t even like a Colt or Winchester that was shipped to some city back east, much less overseas. 
I have an ancestor that was of some fair renown out west in the 1800s. When I read about that, I thought “cool”. Then I found out he went to South Africa where he was an even bigger deal. However, when I found that out, I shrugged my shoulders and lost interest.
I have watched this topic with some amusement, as it has most surely elicited an interesting discussion. That stated, and in my personal opinion, British Proof marks on a Winchester do not have a negative affect on the collectability or value, and may in some cases, actually may add to the value.
To provide an example, the middle high-wall in my signature picture is a rare 405 WCF… with you guessed it, British Proof marks. It was purchased by an Englishman who was enamored with the success that Teddy and his son Kermit had on their African Safari with Winchester rifles chambered for The 405 WCF cartridge, and he ordered a Model 1885 Single Shot in that caliber. It received its duly warranted British Proof marks, and then made its way to Africa. Many years later, it found its way home (to America), and I have been its caretaker since 2001. Is it less valuable because to went to England… absolutely NOT!
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Online
Interesting thread. I don’t own a firearm with British or other foreign proofs but if I did it would have more to do with the gun than the proof marks.
Mike
TXGunNut said
Interesting thread. I don’t own a firearm with British or other foreign proofs but if I did it would have more to do with the gun than the proof marks.
Mike
I have a Colt SAA with US stamped on the left side. Also has inspector initials. I’m not bothered by that at all.
Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.
Bert H. said
It was purchased by an Englishman who was enamored with the success that Teddy and his son Kermit had on their African Safari with Winchester rifles chambered for The 405 WCF cartridge, and he ordered a Model 1885 Single Shot in that caliber.
An Englishman, it’s probably safe to say, confident of his marksmanship, if he took it to Africa!
The Colt derringer that we have with British proofs was purchased primarily due to its high condition, especially the bore, plus the fact that only about 2000 went to England near the very end of its production. Additionally, it has the rampant colt in a circle, which is very rare in itself for these little jewels. It has condition, rarity, and the proof marks show that some of the original finish remains where it was stamped.
The good thing about the Forum is you get to hear everyone’s opinion and the only one that’s right is yours. T/R
TR said
The good thing about the Forum is you get to hear everyone’s opinion and the only one that’s right is yours. T/R
My take on it so far……….is if everyone who has responded here walked past a table with a British proofed Winchester for sale: Some would set it back down in utter disgust, some would be still be interested and be a potential buyer if it were in high condition as a collectible and others might be looking for a nice shooter in a condition and price range of a very affordable category. Just my 2 cents, no right or wrong, just personal preference……
Erin
Sure they were capable of that kind of work, but was it done when a new gun imported into the country was merely proof tested & marked?
Was wondering also about that Lightening sent to Bombay–was it proofed there, or was it detoured to Britain first?
Take a look at the proof mark is it in the white or is it blued? Most guns that were for the British market went to England first, but not all.
Erin, I was able to buy a Colt 1905 semi auto pistol at a very good price because of the British proof marks on it. The 1905 was the first Colt 45 ACP.
TR said it best, buy what you like. You know what they say about opinions. They are like……everyone has one.
Chuck said
A gun is only original once. With the addition of the proofs most likely the gun was refinished too. It’s like putting an extra hole in a receiver.
I do not agree that the addition of the British Proof marks warranted refinishing the gun. I have examined a good number of them that were positively not refinished (including the high-wall that I own), as most of them still have the original Winchester factory finish on them.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I agree with Bert, Chuck. Chuck the proof stamps on my Colt show a bit of bare metal and factory finish. Also, Clarence made a comment the other day about rejecting out of hand the statement that economy priced Model 57’s had the barrels hand lapped at the factory. That statement carries some weight, but refinishing a rifle for the most part only because of applied proof marks seem far out to me.
I also agree with TR as to what’s good about this forum, in that once you’ve heard everyone’s opinion, the only one that’s right is yours! Funny, but an awful lot of truth to that.
James
Bert H. said
I do not agree that the addition of the British Proof marks warranted refinishing the gun. I have examined a good number of them that were positively not refinished (including the high-wall that I own), as most of them still have the original Winchester factory finish on them.
Bert
Warranted or not the British refinished a lot of guns just to make them look like new and they still do. Colts, Winchesters and high grade shotguns.
My Colt pistol is maybe not the best example because the British added Wilkinson Pall Mall London SW to the slide along with the proof marks. The gun’s slide and maybe the whole gun was refinished because there is blue in the marks. It is very hard to tell that a Colt or Winchester was re blued some 100 years ago. They are the best at matching original finishes. I have a small collection of very early Colt semi auto pistols and they all have the same early high polish blue finish as this one does.
1 Guest(s)
