Log In
August 12, 2022
Offline
I have only begun to take a serious interest in the Model 1895 in the last year or so, and I have two fairly early (30k and 38k serial range) 1895 Winchesters in 30-40 Krag that have a number of differences in the handguard shape and also features of the sights. I’m trying to ascertain whether one/both/neither of these handguards are original or not, but also why the variances seen in the sights and why so much potential change in a fairly small serial range.
In the attached photos, the rifle in the 30k range is on the left and the one in the 38k range is on the right.
The 30k one has at least some parts that as I understand it, were originally intended for Muskets as the buttplate is stamped KSM. I also think it had a different (perhaps Lyman) rear sight on the receiver at some point as two holes have been plugged on the receiver. The handguard on it has a noticeably longer cutout for the rear sight, which is also embedded deeper within it heightwise.
The 38k one has a noticeably smaller cutout for the rear sight, which also seems more form-fit. The wood I am fairly certain has been sanded down significantly as well.
There are also some other variances noticeable on the rear sights. Both of them appear to be what Pirkle refers to as Type 1 bases, but the elevator on the 30k rifle has two additional adjustment screws not present on the 38k rifle, and there are noticeable differences in the lettering styles between the two.
I greatly appreciate any guidance from this group and would be happy to take any additional pictures that might help answer my questions.
September 19, 2014
Offline
Grant, I have been hoping to hear from Mark Douglas, or Rob Kassab on your question. In the mean time, I can positively say, I am unsure! While I have a fair number of model 1895 Winchesters, I have relatively few carbines. My IMPRESSION is the carbine on the left (actually on top as the photos were rotated) may have a replacement hand guard and rear barrel sight. But I would not say positively yes or no on it. The hand guard and rear barrel sight on the bottom carbine appears to me to be what I have on a couple of mine that have later serial numbers. Seems to me there was more variance in fine details on rear barrel sights for the model 1895’s than you would normally think, but that is me and my impression only. Either way, I would say you have some interesting carbines with interesting properties and you should feel fortunate. Tim
May 23, 2009
Offline
Just my opinion here, but I suspect the bottom handguard maybe a replacement. I don’t like the color, grain, and finish of its wood when looking at other guards.
Here is an array of some various handguards. But will also add that I am not 95 handguard expert. There was a guy selling repo handguards with the metal clasp springs in them a few years back on Ebay.
All these photos are from the internet.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
September 19, 2014
Offline
Maverick, You are always astute in your observations. I appreciate your input greatly. Grant had stated he was pretty sure the one hand guard had been fairly well sanded down and refinished, which may account for your observation, in which I concur but saw no need to restate. I used to know the name of the fellow who had the repro hand guards made and sold them. Seems his name was Buckingham. He died some years back, his entire inventory was purchased, and the hand guards showed up on computer driven sales sites. I had purchased one with the notch delete option (missing the rear sight) so it at least looked better. Sold as a shooter only. My observation at the time was the hand guard was accurately duplicated and hard to tell from an all original. NOTE: he also had repro Krag hand guards, so they may have ended up on model 1895’s when those ran out, but not sure of the fit, etc. Krags are not in my wheel house. Your picture of the .405 SRC is of carbine serial number 63145, which is a fair ways serial number-wise from either SRC Grant has pictured. My inclination on saying my IMPRESSION of the top carbine is a replacement, etc, is the fit with the sight plus the buggered screws on the sight. Is it really? I would really want to have the firearm in hand and compare the wood, etc. for BOTH. I am not good seeing things in photos. Tim
August 12, 2022
Offline
Tim and Maverick – I apologize for the tardiness of my reply, but I greatly appreciate the opinions, insight and photos from you both! I had hoped to not have a semi-draw, but that’s what it sounds like we may have. It’s a real toss up for me still.
I am far from an expert of wood-fit unless it is staring me in the face, but, the 38k/lower carbine fit seems slightly better than the 30k/upper carbine on the buttplate, yet the wood on the 30k looks well aged (and a nice crack to boot in the handguard on the left), so if it was replaced, I’m inclined to think it was a long time ago. The one thing I do feel fairly comfortable about is that the color of finish and overall appearance of the handguard vs. other wood are consistent on each carbine, so it’s likely either all original or all not.
In any case, the photos give me at least some pause in that there appear to be even more variations than I would have anticipated. Now it appears I need to see where I can find repros for sale and confirm/disprove that either of these match those, as well as sample other carbines for sale.
It is rather amazing to me though how few of the SRCs I see for sale have the handguard still, so, I am happy whatever I have, and either one will make a nice shooting companion to the Krag-Jorgensen that my Great-Grandfather bought as surplus in the 1920’s that I still enjoy taking out to the range.
1 Guest(s)
