Log In
March 16, 2005
Offline
I have an 1894 SRC, serial number 222563. The Resources indicate it was manufactured in 1904. I think I remember that proof marking started after that. The barrel has Type 6 marking, and the barrel bottom is year marked 27. The barrel and receiver ring have matching Winchester proof marks. I think this indicates that it was rebarreled at the factory, probably in 1927 or 28. The finish wear is consistent. How far off base is my theory?
Thanks,
P O Emerson
April 15, 2005
Offline
June 1904.
Is there a work order number stamped somewhere on the underside of the barrel? Your theory is certainly possible, but the R&R work order number should be stamped on the bottom of the barrel somewhere, or possibly on the non-exposed areas of the lower tang. Can you post pictures of the gun?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 16, 2005
Offline
I just removed the butt stock, forearm, and tube. I don’t see any extra numbers stamped on the tangs or under the barrel. I can post pictures in the morning when I get some light.
Thanks,
POE
March 16, 2005
Offline
Here are pictures of the proof marks and the under barrel marks.
March 19, 2014
Offline
I think the barrel is dated 1922 on the bottom (22). Must be a factory replacement as no circle P on the barrel. I have heard of a few stories of receivers laying around the factory for years before being assembled. But may be just that, stories.
May 23, 2009
Offline
I believe that is a “27” and not a “22”, as mentioned in the original post.
I think your “Theory” has weight to it.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
April 15, 2005
Offline
While it is certainly possible that it went back to the factory for a new barrel sometime in or after 1927, I would feel more confident in that theory if the barrel also had a work order number stamped on it. As it is today, there is no way to positively prove or disprove what transpired with it.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 19, 2014
Offline
Maverick said
I believe that is a “27” and not a “22”, as mentioned in the original post.I think your “Theory” has weight to it.
Sincerely,
Maverick
My BAD. It is a 27.
March 16, 2005
Offline
Wouldn’t it have had to go back to the factory for some sort of major repair to get the proof mark on the receiver ring? Or was I mistaken on when they started proof marking the receivers?
I understand that nothing can be proved without the work order numbers. It is just one of those little things I wonder about. Thanks for the input and information.
P O Emerson
April 15, 2005
Offline
tx4445 said
Wouldn’t it have had to go back to the factory for some sort of major repair to get the proof mark on the receiver ring? Or was I mistaken on when they started proof marking the receivers?P O Emerson
Not necessarily. There are countless numbers of aftermarket proof mark stamps out there in the hands of restoration shops, and the illicit Fakers.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
