Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Recently I purchased a low grade W92, serial 656887, which carries Australian WW2 impressment markings and a W marked flaming bomb barrel dated 11-17. This type of barrel is the first I have seen on an Australian 1892 and I’m trying to work out whether the barrel was put on by the US military during or after WW1 or whether the barrel is a US surplus item sold to Australia during or after WW2, at the time this firearm was impressed.
Stamped into the stock are the numbers 5 / 1435 indicating the 5th Military District (Western Australia) and rack or issue number 1435. On the receiver is another number, possibly a central register number, 3706. These numbers indicate a gun impressed from a civilian owner in 1941 or 1942 and disposed of after the war as surplus.
The barrel shows the Winchester W at the muzzle, flaming bomb underneath and below that 11-17. I am told that during or after WW2, many 32-20 guns in Australia were subject to barrel replacements with ex-US military barrels in 310 Cadet, which was a plentiful type of ammunition at a time when 32-20 was very hard to get. I had assumed this was one of those barrels but having read the old thread from 2012 about a P17 with exactly the same markings at the muzzle (and a date of 11-18), I am wondering how this gun was put together, where and when.
The left side of the barrel forward of the forearm bears a VP mark and the initials RSS (I assume Viewed and Proved with the inspector’s initials). There are no other barrel markings. The barrel is 22 inches long and crowned with the rounded type crown. A 32-20 round slips into the chamber easy enough but I do not
have a 310 to check for fit. I’m told you can fire one in the other, but not the other way around. Cody tell me the SNA date is 8 March 1912.
The gun has a half magazine which is almost standard on the Australian 1892s, suggesting that this gun came out as a standard 32-20 but was rebarelled in Australia using a US surplus barrel (either 32-20 or 310) rather than rebarrelled in the USA around the time of WW1.
Has anyone got any information about what was going on with this gun or others like it?
Hi Richard,
That barrel did indeed start life as a US Government Model 1917 Winchester barrel chambered in .30-06. It has been cut-down, refitted and re-chambered for the Model 1892. It is not original to the rifle and was probably a thrifty repair/replacement for the original 1892 barrel.
Since there are no additional proof marks other than the original (VP) which was applied by Winchester there is no way to determine if it was done by the Australian military armorers or a commercial gunsmith. It sounds like that rifle sure does have an interesting history though.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
I have my grandfathers Model 1894 in 30-30 that has been rebarreled with a war surplus 1917 or Springfield barrel. He said it was a good shooter.
G’day Richard
As you may know not just .303 rifles were impressed in the war but rifles in .310 and .32/20. .310 ammunition was made here in Australia during the war in FMJ to comply with the rules of war and was widely available after the war whereas .32/20 was not. .310 was not a calibre that was well known in the USA nor were any rifles made there in that calibre to the best of my knowledge.
I suspect that you rifle was not well looked after during its impressed military service and had a new barrel fitted after the war using a converted Model 1917 30/06 barrel, by a civilian gunsmith. If the military did it- which would have been too much trouble for minimal reward – it would bear a military proof mark of crossed pennants and letters.
Regards
Alan David
Sydney
Thanks for the comments, guys. It does sound like a commercial job done on the firearm after it was disposed of by the Australian Army. I guess someone had a surplus barrel from M1917 production and it was cut down. The M1917 barrel, so I read, was 26″ long. That would leave room to cut off the 30-06 chamber and rechamber in 310 Cadet or 32-20 at 22″ length. The presence of a Lithgow No 1 sight adds weight to that supposition. As it happens, the barrel is totally black and devoid of rifling for about two inches from the muzzle and there is a rust ring about half way down which prevents a 30 cal jag/patch from going through. Ironic that the replacement barrel should end up being as badly cared for as I assume the original barrel was.
1 Guest(s)
