Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I have looked everywhere but I can’t find a list of model 94 production numbers by caliber. If somebody has that handy please
post
Hello,
Here are the results from the ARMAX survey which looked at the first 353,999 Model 1894 rifles Manufactured:
1:2 (45.92%) was a 30 W.C.F. (162,568)
1:5 (22.80%) was a 38-55 (80,734)
1:9 (11.31%) was a 32-40 (40,023)
1:9 (10.45%) was a 25-35 W.C.F. (36,999)
1:11 (8.77%) was a 32 W.S. (31,050)
I am sure that Bert will have some extrapolated numbers for the balance of production from 354,000 to 2,700,000.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Well that makes sense with 32 WS being the least production since they didn’t start until 1902. It will be interesting to see numbers that Bert extrapolated from production thru 1963
twobit said
Hello,Here are the results from the ARMAX survey which looked at the first 353,999 Model 1894 rifles Manufactured:
1:2 (45.92%) was a 30 W.C.F. (162,568)
1:5 (22.80%) was a 38-55 (80,734)
1:9 (11.31%) was a 32-40 (40,023)
1:9 (10.45%) was a 25-35 W.C.F. (36,999)
1:11 (8.77%) was a 32 W.S. (31,050)I am sure that Bert will have some extrapolated numbers for the balance of production from 354,000 to 2,700,000.
Michael
Interesting that for this range of numbers, it was the rarest chambering. Of course, for many of these years of production – about 8 – it wasn’t available.
What I find interesting is the lowest serial number for the 32 WS is 10,675 but it was made 8/23/02. Maybe worth the search to find out why 10,675 was made in 1902? The serial number is on the receiver, big factories do strange things.
Is it an antique firearm? The serial number applied date according to the web sight is 1895. T/R
Interesting that .32 Special is the rarest but yet the least desirable.
Edit: This is only up to 353,999. After that they are likely considerably more. But still a very underrated caliber.
mrcvs said
Interesting that .32 Special is the rarest but yet the least desirable.Edit: This is only up to 353,999. After that they are likely considerably more. But still a very underrated caliber.
But as you know, many a .32 Special owner that actually hunts with his rifle (or carbine) would debate that statement 🙂
mrcvs said
Interesting that .32 Special is the rarest but yet the least desirable.
If rarity determined desirability, or collector interest, or value, then S&W revolvers would surpass Colts. Demand, & only demand, determines desirability, or (to be crass) value.
Based on my research survey, the 32-40 is the least common of the (5) standard cartridges;
| ARMAX Survey for Serial Numbers 1 – 353999 | |||
| Caliber | Qty | % | |
| 30 WCF | 162,658 | 45.949% | |
| 38-55 | 80,741 | 22.808% | |
| 32-40 | 40,023 | 11.306% | |
| 25-35 WCF | 36,999 | 10.452% | |
| 32 WS | 31,052 | 8.772% | |
| Blank | 2,067 | 0.584% | |
| Other | 275 | 0.078% | |
| Rec/Parts | 184 | 0.052% | |
| Total | 353,999 | 100.000% | |
| My Survey of Serial Numbers 354000 – 1079689 | |||
| Caliber | Qty | % | Extrp Qty |
| 30 WCF | 4,780 | 54.368% | 394,540 |
| 32 WS | 1,704 | 19.381% | 140,648 |
| 25-35 WCF | 869 | 9.884% | 71,727 |
| 38-55 | 699 | 7.950% | 57,695 |
| 32-40 | 661 | 7.518% | 54,559 |
| 38-55/30 WCF (2-Bbl sets) | 2 | 0.023% | 165 |
| 38-55/32 WS (2-Bbl sets) | 3 | 0.034% | 248 |
| 30 WCF/32 WS (2-Bbl set) | 1 | 0.011% | 83 |
Combined caliber totals from 1894 through 1931;
| Extrapolated Caliber Totals for Serial Numbers 1 – 1079689 (1894 – 1931) | ||||
| Caliber | ARMAX Qty | Survey Qty | Total Extrp Qty | % |
| 30 WCF | 162,658 | 394,540 | 557,198 | 51.668% |
| 32 WS | 31,052 | 140,648 | 171,700 | 15.921% |
| 38-55 | 80,741 | 57,695 | 138,436 | 12.837% |
| 25-35 WCF | 36,999 | 71,727 | 108,726 | 10.082% |
| 32-40 | 40,023 | 54,559 | 94,582 | 8.770% |
| 38-55/30 WCF (2-Bbl sets) | 2 | 165 | 0.015% | |
| 38-55/32 WS (2-Bbl sets) | 3 | 248 | 0.023% | |
| 30 WCF/32 WS (2-Bbl set) | 1 | 83 | 0.008% | |
For years 1932 through 1963;
| S/N Range | 30 W.C.F. | 32 W.S. | 25-35 W.C.F. | 38-55 | 32-40 | Total in Range |
| > 1079689 | 985,664 | 408,994 | 47,852 | 1,961 | 490 | 1,520,322 |
| % | 64.83% | 26.90% | 3.15% | 0.13% | 0.03% |
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
It is interesting to see how the popularity of the .32 Special grew a good bit.
steve004 said
It is interesting to see how the popularity of the .32 Special grew a good bit.
Keep in mind that the 32 WS was not introduced until 1902 and the ARMX survey data includes 8 years of production which occurred before there was the possibility of the 32 WS being a choice. It would be more meaningful to look at only the time period AFTER the 32 WAS introduction in the ARMAX “time period” (which the survey does not have) and then compare that percentage to the data from 354000 to 1079689.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
Keep in mind that the 32 WS was not introduced until 1902 and the ARMX survey data includes 8 years of production which occurred before there was the possibility of the 32 WS being a choice. It would be more meaningful to look at only the time period AFTER the 32 WAS introduction in the ARMAX “time period” (which the survey does not have) and then compare that percentage to the data from 354000 to 1079689.
Michael
I have to agree with Michael. Those figures would be of more interest to me. I am a fan of the 32WS & always have been.
Rick C
How many cartridges did Winchester develop that they named, “Special”? Yup, Winchester considered this one SPECIAL!
Edit – let me add some cartridge trivia. The Bullard .32-40 cartridge – which is a bottleneck cartridge and quite different from the standard .32-40 – including a different bullet diameter, was called in at least one Bullard catalog, the “.32 Special”. The rifles were not marked thusly and I can’t recall seeing a box of cartridges marked with the Special nomenclature.
steve004 said
How many cartridges did Winchester develop that they named, “Special”? Yup, Winchester considered this one SPECIAL!
Calling it “.32 WCF” would have been logically consistent with the “.30 WCF” designation, but since the “other” .32 had been previously available, that name might have lead to caliber confusion, which this entirely new name “Special” avoided.
clarence said
steve004 said
How many cartridges did Winchester develop that they named, “Special”? Yup, Winchester considered this one SPECIAL!Calling it “.32 WCF” would have been logically consistent with the “.30 WCF” designation, but since the “other” .32 had been previously available, that name might have lead to caliber confusion, which this entirely new name “Special” avoided.
Good call Clarence. Never really thought why it was designated that way but totally makes sense.
Rick C
Or, maybe they thought it was really SPECIAL. 🙂 Actually, they might have also been trying to hype it and build some enthusiasm in their newest cartridge.
The way I look at the 32 SPL is that it may be a great cartridge but the guns are not antique. When you look at the antique 94’s a lot of collectors prefer the 38-55. In some cases the 32-40 is preferred over the 30 WCF.
January 26, 2011
Offline
Just for fun, here’s the table I have for just the ’94 short rifles I’m surveying. The fellows that bought the chopped down specials were clearly 30 WCF guys. We must keep in mind that over 28% of the short rifle survey are ELW models and the 30 WCF completely dominates that group …. over 86%. Any ’94 short rifles that are not 30 WCF are good property, in my narrow-minded opinion.
| Total 25-35 | 47 | 6.85% |
| Total 30 WCF | 456 | 66.47% |
| Total 32 WS | 88 | 12.83% |
| Total 32-40 | 32 | 4.66% |
| Total 38-55 | 63 | 9.18% |
| No cal. Listed | 13 | 1.86% |
~Gary~
pdog72 said
Just for fun, here’s the table I have for just the ’94 short rifles I’m surveying. The fellows that bought the chopped down specials were clearly 30 WCF guys. We must keep in mind that over 28% of the short rifle survey are ELW models and the 30 WCF completely dominates that group …. over 86%. Any ’94 short rifles that are not 30 WCF are good property, in my narrow-minded opinion.
Total 25-35 47 6.85% Total 30 WCF 456 66.47% Total 32 WS 88 12.83% Total 32-40 32 4.66% Total 38-55 63 9.18% No cal. Listed 13 1.86%
That’s great information – interesting. It helps explain when I see a short rifle for sale, I’m always let down when it turns out the be a .30 WCF.
1 Guest(s)
