Log In
December 9, 2002
Offline
I’ve been sitting on this one for a while and finally took the time to contact John Madl for his and Bert’s current Survey. According to the WACA survey info. this falls under what John is doing for all of us. The Letter I have was from the previous owner and it’s dated 12/31/1963 and it states Serial #70377 as a Rifle,.38-56 caliber, Oct. barrel, plain trigger, 1/2 magazine,(button mag.), and checked pistol grip stock. ship. date was 9/26/1892. On 9/10/1914 it was returned to the Factory for some work and returned to the Customer. The work was not described! John and I seem to agree that this is a Special Deluxe Rifle as is pretty evident IMO! From what seems to be evident and all the current information here on the forum. When the rifle was sent back to the factory the 24 inch Oct. Barrel was changed to a Nickel Steel Barrel, a Single set trigger was added as was the Lyman Tang sight. Underneath the Lyman sight on top of the Tang the Case Colors are amazing and a pleasant site. Showing that this sight was there a long time. The ass. #414 are all matching as they should be on the lower tang in front of the 3 X’s, and on the wood under the tang, and on the back of the crescent butt. With the Nickel Steel beginning on most Winchester’s in 1895 and the W/P Proof Mark inside the Win. stamped oval beginning about 1905 I did have some questions that John was able to help clarify. I’m thinking of ordering a new Letter as the other one is 50 years old and in good shape in it’s original envelope. The two might look good together. I wanted to share this with the members as the interest in the model 1886 and the information is available due to this great organization and the dedicated members who are currently and have done the searches and the survey’s for all of us.
Anthony
November 9, 2008
Offline
Anthony,
That is very nice! And I agree that when sent back, it was updated with a new barrel, as it now has proof marks. Congrats it is a gem!
November 19, 2006
Offline
cj57 said
Anthony,That is very nice! And I agree that when sent back, it was updated with a new barrel, as it now has proof marks. Congrats it is a gem!
This sums up how I feel 
December 9, 2002
Offline
It will be one of the Winchesters that I hand down to my Sons. It pleased me over the weekend that when I had it out to verify and send the information to John Madl that my oldest son took interest in it as he’s kinda partial to the Model 1873. For obvious reasons but he appreciates the historical meaning of the model 1886 and what a great model it is in it’s own rights. The rear sight is the flat top 22-j with elevator. The front sight a Lyman hunting #4 Ivory bead sight. The Lyman #1 tang sight has the “N” code stamp underneath on the base as suspected. I’m thinking that these sights might have been on the original barrel and moved to the current barrel, when the rifle was returned to the factory in 1914, with the possible exception of the front Lyman #4 Ivory bead sight that was considered an optional feature but is not stated in the 1963 letter. This is purely my speculation as a straight blade #21 front sight was considered standard. I agree with both of you gentlemen, yes it is a gem.
Anthony
September 22, 2011
Offline
You state you are thinking of ordering a new letter. What does the age of the letter mean and how would a new one differ from the one from 1963?
December 9, 2002
Offline
mrcvs,
I do like the look of the new Winchester letter as I stated I thought that it would look nice with the older letter. I do understand why you’re asking as to the idea of more information being available, is highly unlikely. IMO!
Anthony
November 21, 2014
Offline
Antonio, Beautiful piece of history you have there! Congratulations on the find. All I can add is….Jealous!
December 9, 2002
Offline
33,
I agree it’s a beautiful piece of history, and that’s why we choose to share these historical Jem’s here with each other. Sometimes we get a little envious of what the next collector or someone else might have, but I think we work hard at keeping the jealousy at bay. I understand it’s not as easy as we’d like at times, but trying is half the battle.
Antonio
December 9, 2002
Offline
Finally had a chance to remove the forearm from the rifle and inspect the stamps there. Like John Madl suggested the Cloverleaf stamp is present but at this point not sure what that means, as possibly an Irish inspectors stamp.(? just my thought), The Caliber 38-56 stamp, NS stamp, VP in a Circle, and under the Case Hardened Cap and within some gorgeous case colors was a “P” on the face of the receiver, as I’m not sure what that is.
Anthony
December 9, 2002
Offline
December 9, 2002
Offline
John Madl did get back to me between my busy schedule and his and like we thought a standard weight barrel and in his Opinion a very special rifle like many of us thought.
Anthony
April 6, 2022
Offline
That is an awesome rifle .
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Grumpy old man with a gun......Do Not Touch.
December 9, 2002
Offline
This is the original Letter that came with the rifle that I neglected to post.
Anthony
November 19, 2006
Offline
Tony – those are some beautiful markings on the underside of that barrel. Love the case color too!
December 9, 2002
Offline
I agree Steve, as the lighting was right that day!
Tony
September 22, 2011
Offline
Anthony said
I like the perceived $2.00 charge for the letter on December 31, 1963 and the fact T. E. Hall refunded it because there was actually no charge at all for a factory letter at that time.
December 9, 2002
Offline
I found that interesting also Ian.
There’s also a big difference in the letter format, as I’m sure that you noticed, compared to the years that follow, and compared to today.
Anthony
September 22, 2011
Offline
Anthony said
I found that interesting also Ian.There’s also a big difference in the letter format, as I’m sure that you noticed, compared to the years that follow, and compared to today.
I think the paragraph form of the old letters is BETTER than the row style of letters today, as it’s much easier to alter a row, when a row encompasses the width of the margins whereas alteration of a paragraph requires changes commensurate with the original type.
December 9, 2002
Offline
mrcvs said
Anthony said
I found that interesting also Ian.
There’s also a big difference in the letter format, as I’m sure that you noticed, compared to the years that follow, and compared to today.
I think the paragraph form of the old letters is BETTER than the row style of letters today, as it’s much easier to alter a row, when a row encompasses the width of the margins whereas alteration of a paragraph requires changes commensurate with the original type.
Ian, that’s an interesting perspective, that I hadn’t really thought about.
Anthony
