Log In
September 7, 2017
Offline
I’m bringing this over from another thread to see if there is any discussion to be had. Link below has an 1895 in .405 up for auction. What do ya think as to condition, correctness, description, any gotchas, other? Thanks for your response.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/851539278
Big Mac
June 26, 2013
Online
It’s a very nice 1895 in the best caliber. I surely wouldn’t mind owning it (and shooting it once or maybe twice). Only question I have would be the originality of the sling swivels. I’m not familiar with factory placement/dovetail of sling swivels on the 1895’s. They’re not mentioned in the letter either, nor is the Lyman 21 receiver sight. But we all know that things were left out of the ledgers from time to time. Beautiful gun regardless.
Don
April 15, 2005
Offline
Based on the CFM factory letter, the Lyman No. 21 receiver sight is not factory original, nor are the sling eyes. Winchester very seldom (if ever) missed noting those features in the warehouse ledgers for the Model 1895.
The sling eye mounted to the bottom of the barrel can be verified by removing it and inspecting the milled dovetail.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
May 24, 2012
Offline
deerhunter said
It’s a very nice 1895 in the best caliber. I surely wouldn’t mind owning it (and shooting it once or maybe twice). Only question I have would be the originality of the sling swivels. I’m not familiar with factory placement/dovetail of sling swivels on the 1895’s. They’re not mentioned in the letter either, nor is the Lyman 21 receiver sight. But we all know that things were left out of the ledgers from time to time. Beautiful gun regardless.Don
My thoughts exactly. What I am most concerned with, however, is what the market value of this rifle might be…whether it is original or not. I’d just like to see a dollar figure or a range.
James
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said
The sling eye mounted to the bottom of the barrel can be verified by removing it and inspecting the milled dovetail.
Bert
What would be special about such a dovetail, if it were original? I have a HW which letters with sling swivels, but the dovetail in its barrel looks like any other I’ve seen.
April 15, 2005
Offline
clarence said
What would be special about such a dovetail, if it were original? I have a HW which letters with sling swivels, but the dovetail in its barrel looks like any other I’ve seen.
98 times out of 100, the person who milled the new dovetail slot did not blue it afterwards, leaving it bare (in the white). Winchester completed all milling operations before bluing. Additionally, the milling pattern itself can often tell the story.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
deerhunter said
It’s a very nice 1895 in the best caliber. I surely wouldn’t mind owning it (and shooting it once or maybe twice). Only question I have would be the originality of the sling swivels. I’m not familiar with factory placement/dovetail of sling swivels on the 1895’s. They’re not mentioned in the letter either, nor is the Lyman 21 receiver sight. But we all know that things were left out of the ledgers from time to time. Beautiful gun regardless.Don
I have a 95 in 35 WCF with a shotgun butt. It hurts after a few rounds. I believe the 405 would be worse.
April 1, 2005
Offline
Bert H. said
Based on the CFM factory letter, the Lyman No. 21 receiver sight is not factory original, nor are the sling eyes. Winchester very seldom (if ever) missed noting those features in the warehouse ledgers for the Model 1895.The sling eye mounted to the bottom of the barrel can be verified by removing it and inspecting the milled dovetail.
Bert
Bert – just curious – was there a specific distance from the butt plate where the rear swivel stud was placed. I ask because I have 95’s that letter with swivel studs and the Lyman site but the swivel stud is closer to the butt plate than it is to the lever. On the .405 we are discussing the stud appears to be almost exactly between the lever and the swivel stud – poor photo attached but you can see what I mean.
December 14, 2009
Offline
While the .405 has the Roosevelt cachet I prefer the .35WCF because it is just about as powerful and bullets are readily available to reload. My 1895 in .35WCF is my “moose and bear “medicine”. And it does have a kick to it with the crescent butt if not positioned tightly and correctly on the shoulder.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Burt Humphrey said
Bert – just curious – was there a specific distance from the butt plate where the rear swivel stud was placed. I ask because I have 95’s that letter with swivel studs and the Lyman site but the swivel stud is closer to the butt plate than it is to the lever. On the .405 we are discussing the stud appears to be almost exactly between the lever and the swivel stud – poor photo attached but you can see what I mean.
Burt,
I also noted the sling eye in the butt stock was/is unusually positioned. In answer to your question, I suspect that Winchester did use a very specific distance, but I can not prove that belief. Of note, the letter you have for your Model 1895 is exactly what I would have expected to see for the 405 WCF rifle in question… both the Lyman receiver sight and sling eyes listed in the ledger and on noted on the CFM factory letter.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
September 22, 2019
Offline
Bert H. said
Burt,
I also noted the sling eye in the butt stock was/is unusually positioned. In answer to your question, I suspect that Winchester did use a very specific distance, but I can not prove that belief. Of note, the letter you have for your Model 1895 is exactly what I would have expected to see for the 405 WCF rifle in question… both the Lyman receiver sight and sling eyes listed in the ledger and on noted on the CFM factory letter.
Bert
Re Rear Sling Eye
The bottom left photo on page 163 in my copy of the 1895 Book indicates “in the standard factory location, 4 inches from the toe of the butt plate”.
It’s an excellent book. 
April 1, 2005
Offline
David McNab said
Bert H. said
Burt,
I also noted the sling eye in the butt stock was/is unusually positioned. In answer to your question, I suspect that Winchester did use a very specific distance, but I can not prove that belief. Of note, the letter you have for your Model 1895 is exactly what I would have expected to see for the 405 WCF rifle in question… both the Lyman receiver sight and sling eyes listed in the ledger and on noted on the CFM factory letter.
Bert
Re Rear Sling Eye
The bottom left photo on page 163 in my copy of the 1895 Book indicates “in the standard factory location, 4 inches from the toe of the butt plate”.
It’s an excellent book.
Thanks – I just measured mine – 4 inches it is. Photos can be deceiving so it would be interesting to get the measurement on the .405. As noted by Bert, I would be skeptical of the sling eyes on the .405 because they are not indicated in the records and it sounds like Winchester was pretty methodical on noting their presence in the ledger. Until recently I had 2 standard grade .405’s with the rifle butt and neither had the Lyman site or swivels.
