Log In
May 21, 2026
Offline
Hello to all,
Link to Pictures
April 15, 2005
Offline
The URL to the pictures does not work correctly. The pictures are not viewable without being logged into the account. Please send the pictures directly to my email.
In response to your question(s), it is a second year Model 1894 (May 1895), and as such, it is most likely a 32-40.
Bert – [email protected]
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
May 21, 2026
Offline
Bert H. said
The URL to the pictures does not work correctly. The pictures are not viewable without being logged into the account. Please send the pictures directly to my email.
In response to your question(s), it is a second year Model 1894 (May 1895), and as such, it is most likely a 32-40.
Bert – [email protected]
Bert,
Thank you for the confirmation of year and for the month of production.
I just sent you an email and please do let me know which image hosting works best as I do not have much experience with this.
Alex
November 9, 2008
Offline
The photos opened for me and you can see the caliber marking 32-40, it has no finish on metal left and cleaned heavily with steel wool and or emery paper. The wood has a very poor refinish job and the bore is not very good, but may still shoot ok. I would pass or not pay very much for it
August 14, 2021
Offline
Agreed, pass, too rough, unless you can get it for a song.
May 21, 2026
Offline
cj57 said
The photos opened for me and you can see the caliber marking 32-40, it has no finish on metal left and cleaned heavily with steel wool and or emery paper. The wood has a very poor refinish job and the bore is not very good, but may still shoot ok. I would pass or not pay very much for it
Steven Gabrielli said
Agreed, pass, too rough, unless you can get it for a song.
Yes you are both correct and Bert has also confirmed this. Unfortunately it’s not for sale cheap so will have to pass on it.
Just a shame that someone down the line treated this rifle so roughly.
November 19, 2006
Offline
That carbine has seen some weather! A top, “poster child” candidate for the descriptor, “weathered appearance.” Also a poster child for, “glossy revarnish.” Were it mine (which likely wouldn’t happen) I get rid of the varnish very quickly.
December 9, 2002
Offline
steve004 said
That carbine has seen some weather! A top, “poster child” candidate for the descriptor, “weathered appearance.” Also a poster child for, “glossy revarnish.” Were it mine (which likely wouldn’t happen) I get rid of the varnish very quickly.
Steve,
I also noticed that shiny varnish that looks terrible on it. Like, cj57 said, the heavy cleaning that was done with the steel wool and emery paper, is obvious. How about the wood to metal fit that’s pretty obvious as the sanded rounded corner on the wood, hence the heavy varnish being applied, as a cleaned up example and a poor refinish job over dirt and debris, maybe to make it possibly look older or more antique sh !
Tony
November 19, 2006
Offline
Anthony said
steve004 said
That carbine has seen some weather! A top, “poster child” candidate for the descriptor, “weathered appearance.” Also a poster child for, “glossy revarnish.” Were it mine (which likely wouldn’t happen) I get rid of the varnish very quickly.
Steve,
I also noticed that shiny varnish that looks terrible on it. Like, cj57 said, the heavy cleaning that was done with the steel wool and emery paper, is obvious. How about the wood to metal fit that’s pretty obvious as the sanded rounded corner on the wood, hence the heavy varnish being applied, as a cleaned up example and a poor refinish job over dirt and debris, maybe to make it possibly look older or more antique sh !
Tony
I agree Tony. I think that what’s been done to it takes it out of the realm of, “character” carbine – which is the most it could be.
1 Guest(s)
