Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
GunBroker 554097391. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=554097391
Just browsing Winchesters and saw this one. I noted the nice forestock wood that is usually(?) on takedowns. The buttstock seems to be a lesser grade of wood–pretty much straight grained without the tighter darker flares of better grades. –I’m sorry folks. I don’t know the correct terms for labeling Winchester parts and characteristics.
Another aspect of this rifle that seems uncommon to me is the darker colored collar(?) of the barrel section as apposed to the lighter color where the receiver meets the collar. What I thought was normal wear is when the collar is lighter or shows similar wear to that of the receiver near the pieces’ junction.
So, are the stocks a pair fitted at the factory to an individual rifle?
Do collars normally match forward receiver wear?
Is this a rifle as it came from the factory, or is it the result of a forestock/barrel assembly from rifle A being united with a receiver/buttstock from rifle B?
Good observations and I don’t know the real answer to your questions. The problem I have with this one is the vendor shows a Cody research form that clearly shows this is a SECOND YEAR production rifle, Sept 10, 1895, and then insists it is a FIRST YEAR production rifle, even posting the old outdated Madis information.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
I have seen the same dissimilar bluing loss on other Take Down extension rings before. I believe that it is caused by the receiver frame and the take down extension ring not having the same steel alloy content or heat treatment (hardness).
As for the stocks, I see nothing that raises any alarms for me. The forend stock does have some figure in the front half, but is relatively straight grained in the half closest to the receiver frame. The fit of the butt stock to the receiver almost 100% guarantees that it is original. The markings on the barrel are exactly correct for an 1895 production Model 1894.
In summary, I see nothing unusual or of concern about that old Winchester… it is a very nice looking second year production, second variation Take Down.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Stocks with “figure.” “Extension Rings” I’ll remember those terms. Thank you.
I noticed the forestock grain running from figured wood to straighter grain, but I thought the buttstock would have wood similar to the figured portion of the forestock.
Can takedown barrel assemblies and receivers be mixed and matched between the same caliber rifles? Between rifles of differing calibers? Is this something easily noticed? Frequently/seldom done?
There were many 1894 takedown specimens that came with 2 barrels of different calibers. Every now and then one pops up on an auction.
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/58/lid/1043
http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-2105-rare-antique-deluxe-winchester-model-1894-two-barrel-set-40286/
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Wincacher said
There were many 1894 takedown specimens that came with 2 barrels of different calibers. Every now and then one pops up on an auction.
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/58/lid/1043
http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-2105-rare-antique-deluxe-winchester-model-1894-two-barrel-set-40286/
The rifle on http://www.gunauction.com is not a factory 2-barrel set. The 20″ 30 WCF barrel is not factory original.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
The ARMAX study does not list this as advertised. That is a nice fake. Buyer Beware.
Walter
Walter, which rifle are you referring to?
gunbroker, rockislandauction, jamesdjulia, gunauction
From the Woods,
I had jury duty for 3 days this week. As you probably know, it will wear your butt out. The ’94s at RIA and gun auction are too late to letter. I agree with Bert that the 20 inch barrel in gun auction was not made buy Winchester. I will nor comment on that to help the fakers. I have a question. The serial number 15924 (Julia ) is not listed in the ARMAX study. 15430 is the only one in that range. Julia states a factory letter. Is this a survey “error” or a “fake” letter? I am confused.
Walter
1 Guest(s)
