Log In
November 19, 2006
Offline
They certainly seem to match with the rest of the carbine. However two things hold me back from calling them original. First, they are not mentioned in the Museum letter. Second, they didn’t tend to add sling swivels when a sling ring was present.
Opinions?
April 15, 2005
Offline
Steve,
The fact that the screw eyes are not mentioned on the CFM letter is very damning evidence that they are not original.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
Bert, do these look like Winchester pieces?
April 15, 2005
Offline
Chuck said
Bert, do these look like Winchester pieces?
They do, but were most likely installed outside of the factory.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
A good picture of the rear sling eye would probably be helpful, outside inletting is seldom as good as factory.
Mike
November 17, 2011
Offline
Also the rear sling swivel is to close to the butt plate. Should be at least another inch forward towards the receiver.
November 2, 2009
Offline
Not having the sling eyes mentioned in the letter is a fairly common thing. I’ve had and still have several 1876 models with factory installed sling swivels and will only find them listed on a very small percentage of factory letters. Maybe it’s different for the 1886 model. The front sling eye is correct for a carbine in all models, but without having a better photo of the rear, I can’t really tell if it is an eye or a stud like those found on modern bolt guns, used for a quick-detach sling As far as the distance from the toe of the butt, my carbines are all 2 3/4′ to 3′ from the toe, where as my rifles are all 4″ to 4 1/4″ to the center of the swivel. All of my rifles (1873’s and 1876’s) have swivels, no eyes. My carbines have eyes only, which were made to accept the fish hook swivels, like those shown with this 1886 Express.
1 Guest(s)
