Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
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
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
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
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.
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/
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
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.
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
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)
