Henry Mero said
Don ; I like Your gun , even with the excuses. I don’t take the information on “factory letters” as gospel, I have a few guns that don’t match the letter to a tee. This hasn’t worried Me to much knowing the gun is correct and the letter is in error, and I’m not saying that is the case with Your gun, and I would want to have it “in My hands” before I would offer an opinion, but some times the “letter” errors are just plain obvious. There are several mis calibre stamps documented. Yes it’s always nice when everything matches up to the “factory letter”, but sometimes a person has to use Their own “hands on” experience to make a judgement call. Here’s a couple examples: ser#335378, no mention of Pistol grip or s.g.b. or rubber b.p.. Ser# 137206 again no mention of the pistol grip, but it does mention the rubber plate. I have some other models with similar omissions  or conflicting information, one 1876 deluxe in particular with several dicrepancies, gun to letter, that I’m still trying to cypher the ledger entry. I have a few similar but not in that exact configuration, 1/2 o.b., r.b., s.g.b. , etc. with a plain stock and 1/2 mag. I typically pay in the $5,000.00 – $6,000.00  Cdn. unfortunatly that would translate in the $3500.00 to $4500.00  U.S. It would cost a few bucks to replace the lettered sights on You gun though, which I would endevor to do, if it were Mine. Let Me know if and when You’re going to part with it.       My humble opinion only.  

You Have To, HAVE TO view the letter as gospel, even if you don’t think it’s right.  And even, with logical explanation, it’s forever an “excuses” firearm.

Best save the interpretation for those that don’t have letters on them.  In those cases, valid explanations either make sense—or they don’t.

Blue Ridge Parson said
I would be happy to own that rifle in its present state, and would lose no sleep about the discrepancy between the rifle and the letter, as the R&R gives a very plausible explanation.  Others here hold differing opinions, but there are many other collectors (like me) who would be happy to own that rifle.

BRP

I would be happy to own it, too, but can’t have invested in it what one that letters properly.

Bert H. said
Don,

I have not ever (yet) encountered an early production Model 1894 with a barrel marked “94” on the underside.  The other stamped markings you mention could easily be replicated. 

The fact that it does not have a caliber marking on the underside of the barrel and no markings to indicate it was an R&R replacement barrel, there are simply too many red flags for me to ever be comfortable describing it as an authentic Winchester Model 1894 rifle.  If is forever destined to be an “excuse” rifle.

Bert

  

Regarding the “94” stamped on the underside of barrels, they are there for as many Ive gone back to reference. 

Regarding the lack of a caliber stamp, it appears prevalent for the 30WCF to not include a caliber stamp on the barrel, but calibers other than 30 WCF are indeed stamped on the underside of the barrel.  Maybe others can confirm on their 30WCF rifles/carbines.

Here are a couple of photos of 30 WCF rifles that lack the caliber stamp. 

The question I have is the “27” or “24” on the OP barrel.  You do see numbers stamped on that portion of the barrel, but they are usually a single digit and commonly rotated 180 degrees. 

I, as others, have had guns that were 100% right but one little piece was recorded wrong or didnt match.  The OP rifle has an R&R recorded, doesnt necessarily mean IMHO it has to have something denoting the R&R change order on the barrel–Ive never seen that unless it was a change by JJP.  But yes, we have seen rifles/carbines with several sets of assembly numbers on the Tang or buttstock, etc., potentially confirming R&R work was done, and confirmed by the letter.  Not saying these are hard and fast statements, just an observation. 

Regardless, the rifle is a great looking firearm.  Was the barrel changed out under the R/R, who knows.  At least it mentions an R/R on the record.  The change in sights could have happened prior as a lot of dealers tend to do, they are less problematic.   

Chris

Here are a few 30WCF barrel markings–incidentally, each of these rifle barrels did not have the “94” stamp. 

88153 – TD, PG, Checked, 24″ bbl

599080 – TD, 20″ bbl

858376 – 20″ BBL

As a fan of the 1894 and obsolete cartridges I’m hesitant to consider the 30WCF the “default” cartridge for the early 1894. There was no need to mark early 1873’s or 1876’s as the initial production was one and only one cartridge each. As most of us know, the 30WCF, while always identified with the Winchester Model 1894, was not the initial chambering, or even the second. When this rifle was R&R’d the 30WCF may have been the “default” chambering but IMHO it’s anything but a sure thing. For later guns the 30WCF was indeed dominant but the early cartridges were anything but a distant memory at the time of the R&R’s. Then, as now, those “obsolete” cartridges had their loyal followers. I find it interesting a previous owner found the 25-35 not to his liking and elected to upgrade his hunting rifle to the “modern” 30WCF. We can only surmise that many 1894’s were rechambered from 38-55, 32-40 and even 25-35 to the 30WCF. As those records are not available we’ll never know how common this “upgrade” may have been. My fantasy is that someday these repair orders will be found and thousands of “excuse” guns will regain their legitimacy. Folks much smarter than me just smile and nod when I tell them about my wish but we all know some records escaped the company furnace. 

Never say “Never”.

Mike

deerhunter said
It’s too bad all factory letters aren’t like this one:

  

Here’s an interesting letter that I’ve posted before, but since we’re on the topic: