Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
Win 1895 .405, what do ya think?
January 16, 2020
9:32 pm
Avatar
Virginia
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 151
Member Since:
September 7, 2017
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

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

January 16, 2020
10:12 pm
Avatar
Troutdale, OR
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 947
Member Since:
June 26, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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

January 17, 2020
1:27 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 10344
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

January 17, 2020
1:56 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1105
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

January 17, 2020
3:22 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1931
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

January 17, 2020
4:14 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 10344
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

January 17, 2020
4:25 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1831
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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. 

January 17, 2020
4:41 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 124
Member Since:
April 1, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

model95.jpgImage Enlargermodel-95.jpgImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
January 17, 2020
4:37 pm
Avatar
Northwestern Ontario
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 213
Member Since:
December 14, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

January 18, 2020
1:58 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 10344
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

model95.jpgImage Enlargermodel-95.jpgImage Enlarger  

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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

January 18, 2020
2:18 pm
Avatar
CANADA
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 81
Member Since:
September 22, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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. Laugh

January 18, 2020
8:07 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 124
Member Since:
April 1, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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. Laugh  

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.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: wally, Henry Mero, Big Mac, RickC, morsece, marcweiss1@icloud.com
41 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 7627

Posts: 63606


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1040

Members: 9536

Moderators: 5

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 4441

twobit: 2578

TXGunNut: 2496

clarence: 1931

Chuck: 1831

Maverick: 1619

Big Larry: 1445

JWA: 1356

steve004: 1216

Wincacher: 1185

Navigation