Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
These seem to go rather cheaply even now at auction, often in the 3 figure range. This one is discounted for the Holidays and it’s still nearly $1800, and that’s before sales tax, FFL fees, etc.
Am I missing something?
Offline
They’ve been reading Bert’s appraisals, & it’s in very nice cond.
But what’s this pompous “for your consideration” BS in all Cabela’s ads? Is that supposed to be carriage-trade palaver?
It is slightly overpriced in my opinion. If it was one of the 11,419 that were sold to the U.S. Army and ordnance marked, it would be slightly underpriced.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
It is slightly overpriced in my opinion. If it was one of the 11,419 that were sold to the U.S. Army and ordnance marked, it would be slightly underpriced.
I thought it was now priced almost double what it is really worth. These must have gone up in value recently and there seems to be a great deal of variation in pricing. I thought it to be a $900 or possibly $1000 rifle. What do you value it then if slightly overpriced? $1500?
November 7, 2015
Online
Nice Musket, if it were US marked I’d be interested.
Mike
TXGunNut said
Nice Musket, if it were US marked I’d be interested.
Yes, I agree. And, THAT’S the distinction! Where it’s priced at would be a compelling price, even underpriced, if it had the “U.S.” markings. Absent that, I had thought half where it’s at, and maybe that was a bit too harsh. Probably $1200 to $1400. Others more knowledgeable than I might think a bit more. But this is a bit out of my wheelhouse; however, owning one at the right price is certainly a possibility—preferably with the “U.S.” markings.
mrcvs said
TXGunNut said
Nice Musket, if it were US marked I’d be interested.
Yes, I agree. And, THAT’S the distinction! Where it’s priced at would be a compelling price, even underpriced, if it had the “U.S.” markings. Absent that, I had thought half where it’s at, and maybe that was a bit too harsh. Probably $1200 to $1400. Others more knowledgeable than I might think a bit more. But this is a bit out of my wheelhouse; however, owning one at the right price is certainly a possibility—preferably with the “U.S.” markings.
Just my opinion, but the subject Winder Musket would be a reasonable buy up to about $1,500.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I have a very nice martially marked one in the standard .22 short caliber that I would part with for what I paid for it 5 years ago ($1,250 plus shipping to your FFL). Great bore and no rust/pitting anywhere. About 90% condition overall.
If there is any interest let me know and I’ll send detailed pictures.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all our WACA friends
Rick & Georgia
WACA Life Benefactor Member
NRA Life Member
I see the Cabelas rifle has now been discounted to just under $1300. Seems in very decent shape – from what I can tell from the photos.
steve004 said
I see the Cabelas rifle has now been discounted to just under $1300. Seems in very decent shape – from what I can tell from the photos.
That is now a very reasonable price.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert, please explain to me, again, about which ones were high walls that got machined down?
Chuck said
Bert, please explain to me, again, about which ones were high walls that got machined down?
All of the 3rd variation (low-wall) Winder Muskets (Government contract and commercial sales) a.k.a. Model 87s were milled down high-walls. They were specifically made that way to satisfy the U.S. Army’s request.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert, please explain to me, again, about which ones were high walls that got machined down?
All of the 3rd variation (low-wall) Winder Muskets (Government contract and commercial sales) a.k.a. Model 87s were milled down high-walls. They were specifically made that way to satisfy the U.S. Army’s request.
I’ve spent well over half a century being interested in Winchesters and bought my first copy of Flayderman’s Guide when I was in my teens. And during all of that time, I hadn’t the slightest clue about the fact presented above about the milled down high walls. Amazing fact!
steve004 said
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert, please explain to me, again, about which ones were high walls that got machined down?
All of the 3rd variation (low-wall) Winder Muskets (Government contract and commercial sales) a.k.a. Model 87s were milled down high-walls. They were specifically made that way to satisfy the U.S. Army’s request.
I’ve spent well over half a century being interested in Winchesters and bought my first copy of Flayderman’s Guide when I was in my teens. And during all of that time, I hadn’t the slightest clue about the fact presented above about the milled down high walls. Amazing fact!
Steve,
Winchester did it because it was much less expensive to remill the receiver frames and then continue to use the exact same large shank barrels, forend stocks, and other minor parts (barrel bands, stock tenons, etc.) that they had used to manufacture the 2nd variation high-wall Winder Muskets.
In addition to reducing the side-walls, they also milled the tops of the breech blocks to the same contour, and they also milled the sides of the hammer to lighten them up as well.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
steve004 said
I’ve spent well over half a century being interested in Winchesters and bought my first copy of Flayderman’s Guide when I was in my teens. And during all of that time, I hadn’t the slightest clue about the fact presented above about the milled down high walls. Amazing fact!
Mine is the 1st (’77) ed, & I was past my first divorce when I got it; STILL use it all the time for quick reference on all sorts of subjects. But I knew when I bought it, it was never intended to cover details such as this, because it was primarily meant to be a price guide, not the “last word” on all these thousands of different guns. As a price guide, it was a failure on the day it was published, most values being well below those I was seeing in such sources as Shotgun News & Gun List.
November 7, 2015
Online
May be a good price but I’m still holding out for a US marked one. I would certainly ask for more pictures before pulling the trigger on this one. Good call, Darrin. Rick is making a very generous offer.
Mike
TXGunNut said
May be a good price but I’m still holding out for a US marked one. I would certainly ask for more pictures before pulling the trigger on this one. Good call, Darrin. Rick is making a very generous offer.
I think a good collection should have an example of each, one “U.S.” marked and one not. Also, although these are both .22 Short, examples in .22 LR would also be appropriate.
No, I don’t have such a representative collection, but with time, and not an overly great sum of money, such a collection could be assembled.
Perhaps Bert has this as a subset of his Model 1885 collection. I’ve become a big fan of the Model 1885 over the years ever since I saw my first one at the local gun shop when I was about 15 years old. The problem then was money came from gardening and mowing lawns and since money was tight, you had to “make every shot count”, so to speak. And, that wasn’t going to happen, as it was in .25-20 SINGLE SHOT, this being before possibly obtaining brass for an obscure cartridge was even an option, as Al Gore hadn’t invented the internet yet.
Does anyone care to elaborate about civilian production of this model? Typical customers for these, etc?
I am guessing the popularity of this rifle in .22 short was so they could be fired regularly within city limits? Limited power, limited decibels.
So, it’s just after WWI, such as when the example provided for this thread was manufactured. Who was the customer? The Boy Scouts? A local gymnasium with a pool hall, the American Legion (which was founded in 1919), or…???
mrcvs said
I am guessing the popularity of this rifle in .22 short was so they could be fired regularly within city limits? Limited power, limited decibels.
The Army wanted it for regimental Armory practice in those magnificent “castles” built in major cities in the late 19th C for use by the local state militias; most included an indoor range. For a similar reason, many high-walls were chambered in Short for Gallery competition in private indoor ranges which, before WWI, were common in cities with a large German pop, such as Zettler’s in NYC where Pope often shot. (Big Larry had such a HW until he sold it to JWA.) Popularity of these matches & all Schuetzen comp was destroyed by the anti-German hysteria whipped up by the Wilson adm.
After WWI is when the Army informed WRA that no more orders for Winders would be placed, leading to the development of the Model 52, which it was hoped the Army would buy to replace the Winder; instead, the Army designed its own bolt-action .22 repeater.
November 7, 2015
Online
My interest in the martially marked 87 is three-fold; it helps illustrate the history of Winchester and our country. It is also an interesting example of the Single Shot. Lastly it is a rimfire and fun to shoot. As my collection is not focused on Single Shots or muskets there is not a hole where this 87 should be. I think it would have made a fine marksmanship training rifle for a Boy Scout or school shooting program and I believe that’s where many of them went. One likely problem would have been competing with the government surplus coming onto the market but I’m not sure of the timing. I’m glad interest seems to be growing for this rifle.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
