Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I’m not a catalog guy. I am curious if the .33 was listed as available in carbine version in any of the catalogs. I suppose this would be from about 1902 to the end of the M1886 production. My 1916 catalog reprint lists the ’86 carbine available, “all calibers except .33.” And at $19.00 – quite a bargain. In 1916 the .33 rifle would cost you $30 in takedown version and $25 in solid frame version. So in 1916, two .50-110 carbines would cost just $8 more than one .33 takedown rifle.
My question is was the .33 ever listed as available in carbine version and how much? My thought is if it was, and the price was the same as the other chamberings in the carbine, we would see a lot more .33 carbines than we do (which is I believe, two).
Bert – can you remind me how many single-shot rifles we figure were made in .33.
And yes, I would like a carbine in .33 WCF 
The January 1902 catalog does not list a .33 cal. round, the March 1903 catalog lists a.33 Winchester,Smokeless soft point with 200 grain bullet. No mention in either catalog of a carbine in .33 cal
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
I also checked 1902-10 and no mention of 33 carbine, list price for carbine 19.00, round rifle 19.50, 33 SF 25.00, so I suspect they would charge around 5.00 extra to add 33 to a carbine, nickle steel barrel and some internal fitting. The 94 BP carbine was 17.50 and smokeless (nickel steel) 21.00.
Thanks Henry and CJ. I suspect that had the .33 carbine been listed in the catalog as available, there would be more out there. I wonder why they didn’t chamber it. Compared to the modifications the .50-100 and .50-110 required, you wouldn’t think it would have been that different to build it. The receiver would require no modifications. As far as the barrel, they already made M1886 carbines in .375 caliber, so down to .338 caliber isn’t much of a stretch. Just take a carbine barrel and do nothing more than bore it to .338 and chamber it in .33 WCF. All of the tooling was readily available and in use to accomplish this. What am I missing?
Of course it would be wonderful to actually examine one of the existing .33 SRC’s out there and see just how they did it – barrel dimensions, etc.
steve004 said
Thanks Henry and CJ. I suspect that had the .33 carbine been listed in the catalog as available, there would be more out there. I wonder why they didn’t chamber it. Compared to the modifications the .50-100 and .50-110 required, you wouldn’t think it would have been that different to build it. The receiver would require no modifications. As far as the barrel, they already made M1886 carbines in .375 caliber, so down to .338 caliber isn’t much of a stretch. Just take a carbine barrel and do nothing more than bore it to .338 and chamber it in .33 WCF. All of the tooling was readily available and in use to accomplish this. What am I missing?Of course it would be wonderful to actually examine one of the existing .33 SRC’s out there and see just how they did it – barrel dimensions, etc.
Let me add, I don’t think Marlin chambered any of their M1895 carbines in .33. In fact, if memory serves me, Marlin didn’t chamber the .33 in their ’95 carbine until 1912.
steve004 said
Bert – can you remind me how many single-shot rifles we figure were made in .33.
Five that letter, and just one (so far) above the letterable serial range.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
steve004 said
steve004 said
Thanks Henry and CJ. I suspect that had the .33 carbine been listed in the catalog as available, there would be more out there. I wonder why they didn’t chamber it. Compared to the modifications the .50-100 and .50-110 required, you wouldn’t think it would have been that different to build it. The receiver would require no modifications. As far as the barrel, they already made M1886 carbines in .375 caliber, so down to .338 caliber isn’t much of a stretch. Just take a carbine barrel and do nothing more than bore it to .338 and chamber it in .33 WCF. All of the tooling was readily available and in use to accomplish this. What am I missing?
Of course it would be wonderful to actually examine one of the existing .33 SRC’s out there and see just how they did it – barrel dimensions, etc.
Let me add, I don’t think Marlin chambered any of their M1895 carbines in .33. In fact, if memory serves me, Marlin didn’t chamber the .33 in their ’95 carbine until 1912.
Steve
You are correct, Marlin offered the 33 in 1912, in the the 1913 catalog the carbine is listed in all cals except 33 for 15.00, oct rifle 16.75 and 33 and 45-70LW 18.50 solid frame, 22.00 take-down. In the 1915 catalog, only the 33 and 45-70 LW are listed, no carbines or other cals. Carbines are very scarce! I have never seen a 33 carbine, but who knows! 1 may show up
Here’s the one in My rack
, obviously not a .33., so I can’t help You out Steve.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
cj57 said
steve004 said
steve004 said
Thanks Henry and CJ. I suspect that had the .33 carbine been listed in the catalog as available, there would be more out there. I wonder why they didn’t chamber it. Compared to the modifications the .50-100 and .50-110 required, you wouldn’t think it would have been that different to build it. The receiver would require no modifications. As far as the barrel, they already made M1886 carbines in .375 caliber, so down to .338 caliber isn’t much of a stretch. Just take a carbine barrel and do nothing more than bore it to .338 and chamber it in .33 WCF. All of the tooling was readily available and in use to accomplish this. What am I missing?
Of course it would be wonderful to actually examine one of the existing .33 SRC’s out there and see just how they did it – barrel dimensions, etc.
Let me add, I don’t think Marlin chambered any of their M1895 carbines in .33. In fact, if memory serves me, Marlin didn’t chamber the .33 in their ’95 carbine until 1912.
Steve
You are correct, Marlin offered the 33 in 1912, in the the 1913 catalog the carbine is listed in all cals except 33 for 15.00, oct rifle 16.75 and 33 and 45-70LW 18.50 solid frame, 22.00 take-down. In the 1915 catalog, only the 33 and 45-70 LW are listed, no carbines or other cals. Carbines are very scarce! I have never seen a 33 carbine, but who knows! 1 may show up
CJ –
Interesting point. I had never considered there could be a Marlin .33 carbine out there. They weren’t cataloged, but neither were Winchester ’86 carbines cataloged in .33. Yet they exist.
It’s also interesting that Marlin chambered the same cartridges in their M1895 as the Winchester M1886 – with the exception of the .38-70 and the .50 calibers. Some say they didn’t chamber the .40-70 but I had two of them.
I was aware of the Winchester M1886 in .33 since I was a small boy, given my Dad bought his before I was born. My mom tells the story that when I was a young boy (early grade school I think) I had the German measles and the chicken pox at the same time. I was pretty sick and the doctor came to our home to see me (this was after it was common for doctors to make home visits). Anyway, as the story goes, the Doctor spotted my Dad’s .33 and tried to buy it from him. I recall telling my 7th grade English teacher about my Dad’s .33. He asked me to let my Dad know he would like to buy it. I can still remember him saying, “tell your Dad I’ll give him $100 for it.” I suppose these early experiences led to my ascribing a value and desirability to .33’s that didn’t line up completely with other collector’s attitudes toward .33’s.
Back to Marlins, I wonder how old I was when I became aware that Marlin had manufactured a .33. I was probably well into my 20’s before I saw one. I bought Flayderman’s book in my late teens and I suspect reading his section on Marlins was when my awareness was triggered. Of course, awareness can very quickly lead to desire. Here’s two .33’s I’ve had for a good while:
This one has a newness to it, but I love the unusual wood on the other one:
Henry Mero said
Here’s the one in My rack
Henry –
VERY nice carbine! Not a .33, but a .45-70 is a darn nice caliber to have in a carbine.
Steve,
Very nice 95s! I to have an attraction to 33s, I was working at a gun shop after high school and a 86 33 TD came in with a canvas case and box of ammo, the boss sold it to me, and that started on the Winchesters and other makes, and I have a few 1895 Marlins also!
steve004 said
I’m not a catalog guy. I am curious if the .33 was listed as available in carbine version in any of the catalogs. I suppose this would be from about 1902 to the end of the M1886 production. My 1916 catalog reprint lists the ’86 carbine available, “all calibers except .33.” And at $19.00 – quite a bargain. In 1916 the .33 rifle would cost you $30 in takedown version and $25 in solid frame version. So in 1916, two .50-110 carbines would cost just $8 more than one .33 takedown rifle.My question is was the .33 ever listed as available in carbine version and how much? My thought is if it was, and the price was the same as the other chamberings in the carbine, we would see a lot more .33 carbines than we do (which is I believe, two).
Bert – can you remind me how many single-shot rifles we figure were made in .33.
And yes, I would like a carbine in .33 WCF
Steve, two is the perfect number! 1 for me and 1 for you.
. Also I might be tempted to fall into the single shot trap if I found one in 33wcf. But seriously I can’t believe Winchester didn’t exploit the 33. Maybe it was the demographics of the time or the fact they put their bank into the model 1894 with the smaller smokeless cartridges and basically abandoned the heavy hitters of the time.
In regard to the Single Shot, the 30 U.S. Army (30/40 Krag) had a very big jump on all of the other smokeless cartridges that were eventually chambered for it. In terms of ballistic performance, the 33 WCF with its 200-gr bullet factory load could not compete with the 30 U.S. and its 220-gr bullet. From a raw numbers standpoint, the 30 U.S. outsold all other smokeless powder cartridges chambered in the Single Shot combined!
1. 30 U.S. = 1,083
2. 30 WCF = 48
3. 32 W.S. = 29
4. 25-35 WCF = 72
5. 303 British = 24
6. 33 WCF = 6
7. 35 WCF = 14
8. 405 WCF = 47
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
In regard to the Single Shot, the 30 U.S. Army (30/40 Krag) had a very big jump on all of the other smokeless cartridges that were eventually chambered for it. In terms of ballistic performance, the 33 WCF with its 200-gr bullet factory load could not compete with the 30 U.S. and its 220-gr bullet. From a raw numbers standpoint, the 30 U.S. outsold all other smokeless powder cartridges chambered in the Single Shot combined!1. 30 U.S. = 1,083
2. 30 WCF = 48
3. 32 W.S. = 29
4. 25-35 WCF = 72
5. 303 British = 24
6. 33 WCF = 6
7. 35 WCF = 14
8. 405 WCF = 47
Bert
Bert – very interesting data and to see it put in perspective.
cj57 said
Steve,
Very nice 95s! I to have an attraction to 33s, I was working at a gun shop after high school and a 86 33 TD came in with a canvas case and box of ammo, the boss sold it to me, and that started on the Winchesters and other makes, and I have a few 1895 Marlins also!
CJ –
I am very envious of your acquiring a .33 at such a young age. I am also envious that you were able to work at a gun shop after high school – that was a dream of mine – that I was never able to fulfill.
Online
I purchased my first 1886 rifle, this being in .33 Winchester, 2 weeks after my 17th Birthday, this being in .33 Winchester. I shot at least 8 deer with it and still own it.
mrcvs said
I purchased my first 1886 rifle, this being in .33 Winchester, 2 weeks after my 17th Birthday, this being in .33 Winchester. I shot at least 8 deer with it and still own it.
That’s my kind of story. In fact, I’ll bet it very closely resembles my Dad’s story. I’m thinking he was right at 17 when he purchased his first (and only) .33 and I’m sure he shot at least 8 deer with it. He had it his entire life but did upgrade to a Remington .280 M740 autoloader in his early 20’s. Fortunately, his .33 still saw action as he let his younger brother use it after he purchased the Remington.
steve004 said
mrcvs said
I purchased my first 1886 rifle, this being in .33 Winchester, 2 weeks after my 17th Birthday, this being in .33 Winchester. I shot at least 8 deer with it and still own it.
That’s my kind of story. In fact, I’ll bet it very closely resembles my Dad’s story. I’m thinking he was right at 17 when he purchased his first (and only) .33 and I’m sure he shot at least 8 deer with it. He had it his entire life but did upgrade to a Remington .280 M740 autoloader in his early 20’s. Fortunately, his .33 still saw action as he let his younger brother use it after he purchased the Remington.
Great stories guys! I hunted with my 33 also, and I still have it
1 Guest(s)
