Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I recently picked up an 1894 38/55. Seems to be a typical sporting rifle with 26” round barrel, but I wondered if the barrel was of normal weight…
I don’t own or have access to another 26” 38/55 of this vintage, but the barrel seems heavier/larger in diameter than I expected.
The muzzle end measures .96 inches.
Joel,
What is the serial number ? If it is < 354000, you can have it researched (or lettered) by the CFM records office.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Silly me, I thought my 1895 vintage 94 in 38-55 had a round barrel. 
When was your rifle made?
Mike
Bert H. said
Joel,What is the serial number ? If it is < 354000, you can have it researched (or lettered) by the CFM records office.
Bert
Oops, forgot that part.
The serial number is 466245
TXGunNut said
Silly me, I thought my 1895 vintage 94 in 38-55 had a round barrel.Mike
?
Mine was made around 1907 I believe.
Serial number 466245
Joel Goodrich said
?
Mine was made around 1907 I believe.
Serial number 466245
Joel,
That makes it a late 1910 production rifle.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Joel,
That makes it a late 1910 production rifle.
Bert
Thank you Bert.
I figured you would have a more accurate production date than what I could come up with.
Anyone out there have a lettered, or “known to be factory original” heavy round barrel 38/55 that can shed some light on what the barrel width is?
Thanks
As for heavy barrel 1894’s there is only a couple that have cropped up in publications.
Ive got an 1894 in 38-55 (round barrel rifle) that is a little more than hundred digits off from yours (466098) that measures .692″ at the muzzle and .885″ where it threads into the receiver. Most round barrels will fall in the .685″ to .7″ range with a little variance of course.
Are you sure its .96″ at the muzzle? Looking at the photos the front sight and magazine retaining band would look undersized if it was a heavy barrel.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1892TD:
I agree with your comments on how it should look in relation to the band and sight. I’ll have to give it another measure tonight to double check.
Thanks
If it does measure .96″ at the muzzle, post a few pics of the barrel markings, rear sight area, and barrel/receiver.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
So after bringing home another caliper from work and rechecking the muzzle width, I came up with a measurement of .696” !!!
?
Evidently I had a longer weekend than I thought…
When looking at the first caliper, I only read the hundredths and thousandths place dial (which read .096”) and entirely forgot to read and account for the tenths place on the slide portion of the caliper (which read .6”).
I took the .096” reading from the dial and wrongfully assumed it read .96” ??
It probably won’t be my last mistake!
Not a problem, I can understand how that happens. Just knew from the size of the barrel compared to the magazine tube and the size of the sight in relation to the barrel there was something awry.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Joel,
Ive only seen two heavy barrel 1894’s, the first in Madis’ The Winchester Handbook on page 141, SN 481257 and the second is featured in Mike Hunter’s article in the Fall 2017 The Winchester Collector , SN 15147. I imagine there could be a few more out there that remain undiscovered. If anyone knows of any others, sure would be nice to know.
Chris
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1 Guest(s)
