Here’s one I haven’t photographed before. Serial number applied 28 July 1906, no other information available due to a gap in the records. Round barrel, full magazine, shotgun butt, capped pistol grip stock, no checkering.
Nice looking rifle for sure. The the SNA date corresponds to mid 1906 I can pretty much guaranty that the rifle was not fully assembled until some time after 1910. During 1906 both the caliber stamp and the barrel address stamp were located on the top of the barrel. It wasn’t until during 1908 that the caliber stamp was repositioned to the left side and then not until 1910 that the barrel address was moved also. So either your receiver was serialized and sat around for several years or the rifle had a new barrel put on it after 1910. I have attached a small portion of my survey spreadsheet for the range of gaps in the ledger data. You can see just how out of sequence the position of the barrel markings are compared to other rifles in the sequence. Can I please get an image of the upper tang on your rifle?
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Steve, I agree with you on the .32 Special so called fan club. The rifles that you posted, and shared for comparison, are a great reminder of some nice Winchester’s in the many different configurations, that we’re available.
Keep sharing pictures from a wonderful collection and showing the differences available, even including what many consider a standard rifle available at the time. I bet you’re glad you bought what you did, when you did as many are drying up, unless you choose to pay the Auction prices including the Juice!
Here’s one I haven’t photographed before. Serial number applied 28 July 1906, no other information available due to a gap in the records. Round barrel, full magazine, shotgun butt, capped pistol grip stock, no checkering.
Ian, Thanks for starting this thread, as it’s enjoyable for us, and the ones who have added their comments!
Anthony
Here is the photograph of the upper tang.
When I pulled this rifle out a few days ago I thought the barrel address seemed more forward than I might expect.
Mine is also the only .38-40 on the portion of the survey you provided.
Michael (twobit), what does this upper tang marking tell you?
mrcvs said
mrcvs said
Here is the photograph of the upper tang.
When I pulled this rifle out a few days ago I thought the barrel address seemed more forward than I might expect.
Mine is also the only .38-40 on the portion of the survey you provided.
Michael (twobit), what does this upper tang marking tell you?
It is the correct tang stamp for the serial number range of the rifle. I just wanted to make certain that it did not have the later #3 styel which would have been VERY unusual and difficult for us to explain how that would have happened with our current understanding of the production stream for these rifles.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
mrcvs said
mrcvs said
Here is the photograph of the upper tang.
When I pulled this rifle out a few days ago I thought the barrel address seemed more forward than I might expect.
Mine is also the only .38-40 on the portion of the survey you provided.
Michael (twobit), what does this upper tang marking tell you?
It is the correct tang stamp for the serial number range of the rifle. I just wanted to make certain that it did not have the later #3 styel which would have been VERY unusual and difficult for us to explain how that would have happened with our current understanding of the production stream for these rifles.
Thank you.
The components of this rifle are consistent with regards to fit and finish. In other words, it doesn’t appear to have a replacement barrel. Suggesting all components were together since original assembly. So, the question is, how likely, or unlikely, would a 1906 production receiver be assembled into a rifle after 1910, and the even bigger question is why—why keep an errant receiver on hand for 4+ years?
mrcvs said
twobit said
mrcvs said
mrcvs said
Here is the photograph of the upper tang.
When I pulled this rifle out a few days ago I thought the barrel address seemed more forward than I might expect.
Mine is also the only .38-40 on the portion of the survey you provided.
Michael (twobit), what does this upper tang marking tell you?
It is the correct tang stamp for the serial number range of the rifle. I just wanted to make certain that it did not have the later #3 styel which would have been VERY unusual and difficult for us to explain how that would have happened with our current understanding of the production stream for these rifles.
Thank you.
The components of this rifle are consistent with regards to fit and finish. In other words, it doesn’t appear to have a replacement barrel. Suggesting all components were together since original assembly. So, the question is, how likely, or unlikely, would a 1906 production receiver be assembled into a rifle after 1910, and the even bigger question is why—why keep an errant receiver on hand for 4+ years?
In my studies of the Winchester 1892 ledgers I have notice several small batches and some individual rifles which did not enter the warehouse (fully assembled receivers into rifles) until more than a year after they were serialized. In some rare instances as much as 3 and 4 years later. I have not specifically kept track of all instances of this but I do recall that the guns tend to be special order rifles and in many instances loaded with special features. My theory is that once the receivers were finished that they were deemed to be of superior finish and purposely set aside for use in special order rifles. I have one such rifle takedown frame 1892 that was in the warehouse 19 months after its serialization date.
I would suggest that if someone has lettered 1892’s that fit into this sort of scenario (plus 12 months at least between SNA and warehouse entry) please contact me so that I can begin a new page of data to keep these recorded. Like I need something else tot keep track of!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
mrcvs said
twobit said
mrcvs said
mrcvs said
Here is the photograph of the upper tang.
When I pulled this rifle out a few days ago I thought the barrel address seemed more forward than I might expect.
Mine is also the only .38-40 on the portion of the survey you provided.
Michael (twobit), what does this upper tang marking tell you?
It is the correct tang stamp for the serial number range of the rifle. I just wanted to make certain that it did not have the later #3 styel which would have been VERY unusual and difficult for us to explain how that would have happened with our current understanding of the production stream for these rifles.
Thank you.
The components of this rifle are consistent with regards to fit and finish. In other words, it doesn’t appear to have a replacement barrel. Suggesting all components were together since original assembly. So, the question is, how likely, or unlikely, would a 1906 production receiver be assembled into a rifle after 1910, and the even bigger question is why—why keep an errant receiver on hand for 4+ years?
In my studies of the Winchester 1892 ledgers I have notice several small batches and some individual rifles which did not enter the warehouse (fully assembled receivers into rifles) until more than a year after they were serialized. In some rare instances as much as 3 and 4 years later. I have not specifically kept track of all instances of this but I do recall that the guns tend to be special order rifles and in many instances loaded with special features. My theory is that once the receivers were finished that they were deemed to be of superior finish and purposely set aside for use in special order rifles. I have one such rifle takedown frame 1892 that was in the warehouse 19 months after its serialization date.
I would suggest that if someone has lettered 1892’s that fit into this sort of scenario (plus 12 months at least between SNA and warehouse entry) please contact me so that I can begin a new page of data to keep these recorded. Like I need something else tot keep track of!
Well, mine is a special order rifle and so maybe correct.
1 Guest(s)
