Don,

The barrel currently on that rifle is not original.  It is a 1932 (or later) production replacement barrel.  The original barrel was Nickel Steel, and marked “30 U.S.”

Bert

Maverick said

Tedk said

Bert,

What is the significance of the definitive proof on the 1901 receiver? Was the barrel replacement a factory R&R?   

That would be my assumption and that it wasn’t documented in the factory records ledger book. 

Which makes me wonder if there ever was a point in the company’s history if they abandoned making notations or updating the original warehouse shipping book ledgers. I know late in production they stopped using ledger books and serial number information was kept of 3×5 Cards or something similar to that.

I wonder if the Cody Museum has ever looked at what the most recently dated entry is for the ledger books. 

I do know that Tom Hall did make some additional notations in blue pencil on some 1of1000s records in 1950-51. Of course this was when the Winchester Museum was still located in New Haven, Conn.

The old style ledger book records where abandoned in 1910 (the Single Shot model was the last to use them).  Most of the other models transitioned from the ledger books to the 3×5 cards in the latter half of the year 1907. Specifically, the Model 1894 transitioned in May of 1907.

I have found “R&R” entries in the Single Shot records dated as late as December 1921, but nothing later than that.  According to several references I have read, Edwin Pugsley had all of the old ledger records transferred from the factory to the Winchester Museum sometime in the early 1920s.  If that is true, any/all of the firearms originally documented in the ledger records would not or could not have been updated in the 1930s or later.  Therefore, an “assumption” can be made that the subject rifle was reworked by Winchester, but it cannot positively be verified to be the case.

Bert

Rick Lindquist said
Bert, Might that also indicate why the sights don’t match the cody letter either? The letter indicates Beeches front and no mention of the spirit level mid sight. Cody letter states Lyman front and rear. If documentation was found that Winchester rebarreled the gun the pricing might fly. IMO too much money W/O that documentation, heck IMO it’s likely that it’s factory work but as you stated, no way to prove that. It will be interesting to follow this auction.

  

Almost anything is possible, but in the case of this rifle it cannot be proved.

Bert

steve004 said

Rick Lindquist said

His text states 14 K is his starting price, it’s listed POR. I’d not part with that amount without proof positive the gun is all Winchester. It PROBABLY is all Winchester but I would NEVER represent the gun that way because that can’t be proved. In fact if advertised that way a disgruntled purchaser’s legal representatives may be in touch soon. 14 K with a story, no thanks. I would advise that the owner contact Pauline Murrle she has records no one else has, to include the custom shop. EMail her with the SN, no charge if she has no data.

  

I read his ad.  Interesting that he states he is starting at $14,000 – but Gunsinternational is not an auction site.  

In past threads we’ve discussed variation Winchesters where parts have been swapped.  All the parts are Winchester, but not all the same parts were present the date the gun was shipped.  Say for example the rifle is not in a letterable range, if all of the parts are period correct (and finishes match), sometimes this is only detectable because someone else here has previously seen the rifle in a different configuration.  

  

In this case, and even though all of the parts might be of Winchester origin, they are definitely not all “period correct”.  Specifically, the barrel is 30+ years newer than the rifle.  A quick peek at the bottom of the barrel would reveal a barrel date and tell us when it was manufactured.

Bert