Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I believe it’s rock stock original. The only thing that looks a little off is the forearm cap and magazine band. Closer pics of those would clarify. Possibly just the lighting but the finish looks dull and a bit off color. Just my .02……….
Erin
There is no mention in the description of the cracked forestock. Omissions of flaws makes me wonder what else is not mentioned.
Stocks–can’t tell for certain that they have been sanded–better photos needed. With the wood hinting of a well-used/dinged appearance, better photos of the barrel are needed. Just can’t see the details. (I guess the indistinct pictures give this rifle a Dreamy aura!)
Clear photos of the entire rifle would tell a buyer a better story.
Seems the screw-heads are fine. Attractive bluing remaining.
Since the auction has a reserve price, and if that price is high enough, that might answer whether or not one should attempt to purchase this rifle.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Nice looking gun, as far as we can tell. I wonder if the note from Winchester is an earlier search result reply note. Bore looks pretty outstanding for the era.
Mike
The letter or note was made up by the seller or someone else. Its not from Cody. For one the 1899 year is wrong. The gun has a nice look to it. The wood is the only detraction I see but you can’t zoom in on the pictures
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
TXGunNut said
Bore looks pretty outstanding for the era.
Early smokeless guns tend to be the worst, because many shooters stopped cleaning with water, as they’d done with BP, thinking that one of the new “nitro” cleaners like Hoppe’s was the only thing needed. But since they were petroleum-based, they could do little to remove the salt deposited by chlorate primers. Took several yrs & countless ruined bores to figure that out.
Just wondering how one arrives at a ‘Year of manufacture: 1899” with a gun with a serial# of 178,284 that was serialized on 4/27/1903?
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Good question, especially when the Cody factory letter clearly shows that it was received in the warehouse a few months after the serial number applied date, and that it shipped several moths after it was received. All three dates on the factory letter show 1903. The “1899” date comes from the George Madis’ book.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
