Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Roger Renneberg lists the above calibers as the, “Only four officially documented factory experimental calibers” for the ’94. He notes they were all built in December, 1903.
This fascinates me. I not only wonder what happened to these rifles (or carbines) (are they in the Cody Museum?), but what were the mechanical details? Were the actions modified so they would actually feed? And if not, what would the purpose be having a ’94 single-shot in these calibers? It is very intriguing to think about a ’94 built in one of these calibers that was a working repeater! And of course, I wonder what Winchester’s motivation was, what they were trying to accomplish, etc. Does anyone know if there are records that document Winchester’s discussion of this project?
Steve,
Do you have a copy of the ARMAX Vol 5 1995 ? In it, it briefly discusses this exact topic. I have not (yet) specifically looked for the ledger record entries for those “experimental” Model 1894s, but I suppose it would be interesting to do so some day.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Steve,Do you have a copy of the ARMAX Vol 5 1995 ? In it, it briefly discusses this exact topic. I have not (yet) specifically looked for the ledger record entries for those “experimental” Model 1894s, but I suppose it would be interesting to do so some day.
Bert
Bert – I don’t have a copy. Thanks for tip. I just ordered a copy about one minute ago.
Bert H. said
Steve,Do you have a copy of the ARMAX Vol 5 1995 ? In it, it briefly discusses this exact topic. I have not (yet) specifically looked for the ledger record entries for those “experimental” Model 1894s, but I suppose it would be interesting to do so some day.
Bert
Bert how many ARMAX volumes were there? 5?
I’m picturing something based on a ’92 .32-20. A .32-20 magazine tube seems it would be about right. 🙂
Chuck said
Bert how many ARMAX volumes were there? 5?
I do not know what the total number was, but it was more than five. You might try contacting the book store at the BBHC.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
steve004 said
Bert – I don’t have a copy. Thanks for tip. I just ordered a copy about one minute ago.
Steve,
I’m also looking for a copy of Armax volume 5. Where did you order yours from?
Thanks,
Al
Good Morning Bert
Hoping you can help me date this Winchester trapper. Model 1892 saddle ring, 16” barrel, sn# A 26563 44-40. I was told manufactured 1893 I am thinking about purchasing it but, would like another opinion. Can’t send photos from my tablet right now. If you text me at 6158702227 I can send a couple photos, that all I have now.
Thanks
Mike
Mike,
The serial number you mention does not make sense. Specifically, it should not have an “A” prefix. Original Model 1892 serial numbers were numerical digits only. S/N 26563 was manufactured in March, 1894.
You can send the pictures to my email – [email protected]
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
tionesta1 said
Steve,
I’m also looking for a copy of Armax volume 5. Where did you order yours from?
Thanks,
Al
Al – I found two on Amazon – both January, 1995 – Volume 5. One (for $60) has an old Winchester poster on the cover (of a woman holding a rifle over her head) and the author is listed as Suzanne Tyler. The other (for $50) has a photo of a Winchester rifle on the cover and the author is listed as Herbert Houze. I don’t know why these would have different covers as they are supposedly both Volume 5, 1995. I didn’t purchase either. Instead, I found one on Ebay (the with the woman on the cover). I bought that one for less than $4 and with shipping it was less than $8. Unfortunately, that was the only one I found on Ebay.
Steve I have thought of buying some of these too. My recent search on Ebay and Amazon only found a couple. An earlier search I found at least a half dozen. None were over about $20. I’m just not sure which ones I would want? I really have no interest with post 1900 guns.
steve004 said
Al – I found two on Amazon – both January, 1995 – Volume 5. One (for $60) has an old Winchester poster on the cover (of a woman holding a rifle over her head) and the author is listed as Suzanne Tyler. The other (for $50) has a photo of a Winchester rifle on the cover and the author is listed as Herbert Houze. I don’t know why these would have different covers as they are supposedly both Volume 5, 1995. I didn’t purchase either. Instead, I found one on Ebay (the with the woman on the cover). I bought that one for less than $4 and with shipping it was less than $8. Unfortunately, that was the only one I found on Ebay.
Thanks Steve.
Has anyone ever put together an index of the different articles in each issue?
Regards
AlanD
Alan,
I do not believe it has been done… at least not yet. It could be a worthwhile project though.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Steve,Do you have a copy of the ARMAX Vol 5 1995 ? In it, it briefly discusses this exact topic. I have not (yet) specifically looked for the ledger record entries for those “experimental” Model 1894s, but I suppose it would be interesting to do so some day.
Bert
Bert –
The ARMAX survey didn’t provide any information on the four experimental calibers I mentioned other than that they were made in December of 1903. It would indeed be interesting to see if there is any further information in the factory ledgers.
steve004 said
Bert –
The ARMAX survey didn’t provide any information on the four experimental calibers I mentioned other than that they were made in December of 1903. It would indeed be interesting to see if there is any further information in the factory ledgers.
I would not count on any further information. The warehouse ledger records are typically quite sparse in that regard. That stated, you might try calling Jesi at the CFM records office and asking her if there is anything special in the records for them. The serial range they were made is 200227 – 204565.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
There are also a reputed two (2) in 22 high power. No verifiable proof. The one I saw at BBCH was actually 30 caliber. Nothing in the records on these.
B
BOBR94 said
There are also a reputed two (2) in 22 high power. No verifiable proof. The one I saw at BBCH was actually 30 caliber. Nothing in the records on these.B
Bob – that is interesting. It makes sense in that the .22HP should feed through the action fine with no modification needed. If the .25-35 and the .219 Zipper worked though a 94/64 action, the .22 HP should as well. This would have required special tooling to make that barrel. I have no awareness that Winchester chambered their single-shot rifle in .22HP. Acquiring a chambering reamer would have been no big deal, but they would have had to have cut a .228 barrel. I suppose the Research and Development Dept. did tasks like this on a routine basis. I’ll bet if circa 1912, a customer tried to special order a ’94 in .22HP, Winchester would have looked very dimly on such a request. Still, I’d like to take a time machine back and try it. As I suggested earlier, the barrel would have been the only modification needed (I think!). Wow, contrast this to making a 7.63 feed through a ’94 action!
Addendum – we recently discussed an auction where some very unusual M54 and M70 were offered in odd chamberings. I recall .22HP in the group. IF, these rifles were legitimate, that means Winchester had experience chambering the .22 HP.
Mike Hunter wrote an article for the Collector magazine about the two Model 1894 Carbines made in 22 High Power (S/N 604001 and 604010). The .228 bore diameter was nothing new for Winchester… the Single Shot rifles made for the 22 W.C.F. cartridge were the same .228 bore diameter.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
