does anybody have exact numbers of how many 1885s were made for the 45-120-550 or the 45-110 Sharps cartridge and in what years, possibly?

I think these are absolutely fascinating cartridges... 

My hopes are on Bert  😀 

Thank you so much! 

I wonder what different rear sights were used (which numbers?) for the 1886 model and why.

I am aware that out of the box the 45-70 used the ladder rear sight (similar to the carbine sight) the 50-100-450 used a three leaf express sight - the rest buckhorns. Does anybody know which numbers they were? 

And why did they use different sights in the first place? 45-70 has a high trajectory as well as the 50-100-450- so why use a different sight with less adaptability for the 50? 

Thank you for your thoughts 

James Fenderson said
Here a couple bolt face pictures of a factory center fire 1866
  

The second picture of the bolt face is similar to the pic I sent.  It takes care of the excessive head space.  The Factory made several different CF's according to Madis.  The Winchester Book 1 of 1000, 1885 version on page 100 he shows some pictures and describes the variations. 

But here is another thing to think about.  Some of the very earliest 1866's might have been center fire too.  Read the section on the 1866 in Herbert Houze's book, The Winchester 1876 Centennial Rifle.  Especially page 33.  

James Fenderson said
Here a couple bolt face pictures of a factory center fire 1866
  

This appears to be a very nice example.  Can you provide close up shots of both sides of the receiver as well?

Very nice looking carbine.  And thanks for the visual example - very helpful.

I believe that is why vintage Winchesters (and probably other makes as well) will always appeal to the discriminating collector. We just don't often see the level of craftmanship today that we see in old Winchesters. When you realize "power tools" were belt driven by overhead shafts it boggles my feeble mind. When we realize Winchester employees and contractors made virtually every part of their firearms down to the last screw and pin we realize it was a different time, indeed. They even made many of the tools used to make the parts! Awhile back I bought a "98%" stock that was one flick of a pocket knife away from a perfect fit so it is possible to get a good fit with today's technology and workforce. At today's price points, labor costs and overhead most manufactured goods cannot have much skilled labor involved. IMHO we have a shortage of people who will bother to learn the skills to work with their hands. 

Mike

mrcvs said
Machines and jigs set up to cut each piece precisely the same way to minimize the amount of hand fitting.  Also, in the 19th Century, labor was cheap, raw materials were expensive.  Now, in a relative sense, it’s the other way around.  Labor costs much more now.
  

So after they pulled a stock off the shelf, there was still some hand-fitting required? This implies to me that the hand-fitting would occur before staining and varnish?

I don't think we can say Winchester stocks are necessarily perfectly interchangeable.  

I did an internet search and it doesn't appear anyone sells a stock for a Model 1894 that isn't any closer than 98% inletted.  

I was watching a video from Wyoming Armory and imbedded in it, Mark provides a great explanation and illustration of what is involved in fitting new wood to a Winchester rifle.  This greatly helped me understand why a quality restoration costs so much - the immense amount of time involved. One can see what is involved to make a stock fit to the same level that Winchester did.  So my question is - how did Winchester do it?  Surely they didn't have someone spend 20 hours on fitting a Model 1894 stock?  Yet they must have been using hand tools?  We know many stocks were interchangeable from rifle to rifle (e.g. not only among the same models but across some models - such as between the M1892 and Model 1894).  It perplexes me further when I think about the machinery (and electricity!) available today vs. 100 - 150 years ago.

I always thought they had racks of finished stocks.  But how did they get those stocks cut to such exact dimensions?  It sure seems that can't be done today - otherwise a person would just order one vs. pay a restoration gunsmith a couple thousand dollars to trim 2% of the wood off a 98% inletted stock?

It's at the 6:30 point in the video that Mark discusses this topic:

If you're thinking profound male hypogonadism you're probably right!!!  For all the "T" prescribing I've done over the years I have never tested myself... Wouldn't surprise me at all if it was "unmeasurable"!!!

Lou