Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Bert,
After two weeks priority mail shipping, the Red Book of Winchester values finally arrived today.
My compliments to you and your partner for what must have been an incredible amount of work.
I am enjoying it very much.
A few nights ago, I posted a pic of 1942 Model 94 with after marked sight holes drilled into the receiver. These holes were noted to be white after your suggesting to remove one of the screws.
It seems to me based on the grade conditions described in the book the gun is in otherwise very good condition. Bluing, bore, wood, etc.
But do these non factory holes knock it down to just a good condition or a lower class of very good or something else?
I bought the rifle at an auction and didn’t pay a lot for it and I really love it so my concern is not so much about valuation specifically, but how these holes affect its grading and pricing too.
How do you as an expert grade such changes?
Again, my compliments for a terrific publication.
-Mike
Mike,
Thanks for the compliment.
In answer to your question, the non-factory drilled & tapped holes in the receiver frame drop the graded condition to no better than 30%. For many collectors, those non-factory holes are unacceptable at any price.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Years ago when my brother and I used to do the gun show circuit in Alaska he referred to any extra holes in a Winchester as a ‘thousand dollar hole’
Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.
Bert H. said
In answer to your question, the non-factory drilled & tapped holes in the receiver frame drop the graded condition to no better than 30%.
All owners of pre-war Model 70s with drilled receiver bridges take note; I’m waiting to take them off your hands.
clarence said
Bert H. said
In answer to your question, the non-factory drilled & tapped holes in the receiver frame drop the graded condition to no better than 30%.All owners of pre-war Model 70s with drilled receiver bridges take note; I’m waiting to take them off your hands.
Clarence,
My reply that you quoted above was in response to a question concerning a Model 94 lever-action… not a pre-war Model 70.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Clarence,
My reply that you quoted above was in response to a question concerning a Model 94 lever-action… not a pre-war Model 70.
I understood that, but many (not me) turn up their noses at pre-war 70s that have had one hole drilled in the bridge to mount a Redfield Jr. scope mount–the same hole the factory drilled on the post-war 70s! But I know it’s not a 60% downgrade! Probably about 25% however.
Yeah that wouldn’t turn me off to the extent that 4 holes in the side of a lever gun receiver would.
Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.
Hi again Bert,
I read the previous few comments about a Model 70 with a non factory hole that was later added by the factory as standard.
And the 94 we are talking about has tapped holes with screws in the same location that were later added by the factory in later manufactured models.
And I have seen Model 94’s with the four extra holes for mounting a scope in the receiver as was mentioned also above.
So are these two holes on the 1942 gun judged the same as the four extra holes in terms of grading, or frankly are extra holes considered all the same even if added by the factory in later guns?
Thanks,
Mike
November 7, 2015
Offline
Mike-
My unsolicited dos centavos is that holes in the same position as later models has less effect on the value BUT if you plan to sell the gun someday it’s best to view it as the most conservative collector would to avoid limiting your target market.
Mike
[email protected] said
…are extra holes considered all the same even if added by the factory in later guns?Thanks,
Mike
No they’re not, because logic doesn’t apply in collecting, guns or anything else.
94s are a special case anyway, because the action isn’t designed for scope use. Want a scope on a lever gun? Get a side-ejecting Marlin.
Bert said previously that these two holes we are talking about were added aftermarket for a receiver mounted peep site and a few years later the same holes became factory drilled.
I totally get it about scopes on a Model 94. The gun just doesn’t look right.
I am pretty new to all this. So learning a lot here and appreciate all the input I receive.
If the gun is ever sold, it likely won’t be sold my me.
Mike
Mike,
In my opinion, adding the two extra holes for mounting a receiver peep sight is not nearly as detrimental as drilling (3) or (4) extra holes for a side mount scope. To some buyers, it will have little affect on their decision to purchase the gun in question. However, for many of the purist collectors (and there are a fair number of them), the extra holes will “kill the deal”. There are simply way too many unmolested Model 94 Carbines out there to choose from, so why settle for one that has been altered unless the price is reduced?
In regards to the Model 70, Model 71, Model 43, and Model 94 guns that started out production with no factory holes for mounting a scope or peep sight, and then later in production were factory drilled & tapped, that shows that Winchester was willing to bend to the desires of the shooting public (not always as quickly as some would have preferred).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
In regards to the Model 70, Model 71, Model 43, and Model 94 guns that started out production with no factory holes for mounting a scope or peep sight, and then later in production were factory drilled & tapped, that shows that Winchester was willing to bend to the desires of the shooting public (not always as quickly as some would have preferred).
Bert
I guess you could say “better late than never,” except that Winchester’s long involvement in promoting the use of scopes (by making & selling them!) makes this much harder to understand. Especially true with respect to the Model 70–by the time it came along, many hunting scopes & mounts were available, so it was not a “fringe market.” It wasn’t a case of “not thinking ahead,” but of looking backward.
1 Guest(s)
