Bert –

Thank you for your reply.  I find this rifle intriguing and would like to sort out what aspects are likely to be true vs. a level of speculation that requires a leap of faith.  The barrel is one topic in this regard.  We know from the museum letter that it was originally shipped in 1890 with a special order 28 inch octagon barrel in .40/82 caliber.  We now know it has a special order 28 inch .45/70 octagon barrel.  We know that the factory ledger note a return in 1896.  The seller asserts the barrel was changed by the factory during that return:  “was almost certainly done during the 1896 return to the factory listed in the letter, as it is obviously a factory barrel with the unique shape of the “5” in the caliber marking, and the barrels condition is completely consistent with the rest of the gun.”  The seller essentially admits that his assertion is speculation, “was almost certainly.”  How much do we agree with that speculation?  To the point of, “almost certainly”?   The points in that direction would seem to be the factory notation of a return, the caliber was changed to a more popular caliber, the same barrel configuration and special order length was used, and as the seller suggests, the overall condition matches well.  Curiously, he mentions the letter, “5” in the caliber marking – as evidence that the barrel is a, “factory barrel.”  I’m not sure what to make of this.  Wouldn’t the barrel address provide greater evidence of this? Specific thoughts about the letter, “5”?

Bert – again thank your for your thoughts.  They were of interest and highlight how much I appreciate the educational value of this site. 

There is another feature of this rifle that leaves me with even greater curiousity:

“As noted in the auction description, the lever is not color case hardened and the bolt is not blued. Per the Cody info they were nickle plated at the factory and it appears that Winchester deliberately darkened the exposed surfaces with nitre bluing. You can really see this in the photo of the open bolt.”

What we know is that the museum letter specifies, “Nickeled bolt, finger lever and buttplate.”

I observe that the bolt (when pictured from the side) does look nickel plated.  This leads me to believe that the bolt is original to the rifle and Winchester did nickel plate it.  However, other surfaces, such as top of the bolt look dark or blued vs. nickel plated.  The seller speculates “Winchester deliberately darkened the exposed surfaces with nitre bluing.”  Another leap of faith, but what would be the various explanations for the appearance of the exposed surfaces on these three parts? For me, the options would be Winchester darkened the exposed surfaces of these nickel plated parts at the time of original manufacture (although there is no notation of this in the factory ledger – which would be a very special unique special order request); Winchester did it at the time of the return (which has some logic – perhaps the owner didn’t like the shiny nickel exposed appearance of these parts); or, the finish was changed by an aftermarket gunsmith.  Do we have any known examples of Winchester, “darkening” nickel plated parts? 

Good points Bert.  Do you think some finish was added after the nickel plate was removed?  This is where having the rifle in one’s hands vs. looking as so-so photos is critical.  To me, the top of the bolt looks like it has a blued finish.  Also, from what little I could see of the finger lever, that appears to have a blued finish as well.  Overall, this looks like big money for a piece with many questionable aspects to it.  Still, it is a lot better than that, “doesn’t get any better” M1876 we were recently discussing here.