Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Proof marks on 1894 SRC
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 12
Member Since:
March 16, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
September 6, 2022 - 1:26 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10616
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
September 6, 2022 - 1:59 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 12
Member Since:
March 16, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
September 6, 2022 - 2:24 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 12
Member Since:
March 16, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
September 6, 2022 - 4:21 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Here are pictures of the proof marks and the under barrel marks.

IMG_0195.JPGImage EnlargerIMG_0197.JPGImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 216
Member Since:
March 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
September 6, 2022 - 5:53 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1541
Member Since:
May 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
September 6, 2022 - 6:14 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10616
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
September 7, 2022 - 1:01 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 216
Member Since:
March 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
September 7, 2022 - 1:40 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 12
Member Since:
March 16, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
September 7, 2022 - 5:08 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10616
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
September 8, 2022 - 1:20 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6151
TXGunNut: 4867
Chuck: 4517
1873man: 4259
steve004: 4097
Big Larry: 2290
twobit: 2284
TR: 1690
mrcvs: 1656
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12504
Posts: 108547

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1727
Members: 8718
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation