
December 9, 2002



























Anthony

December 9, 2002

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

December 9, 2002

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

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

September 22, 2011

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

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
1 Guest(s)
