Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I guess You gotta know I don’t have (irrefutable documentation) that these guns were factory manufactured in their current configuration, but on the other hand does any one have (irrefutable documentation) or proof they weren’t. With the proof marks being the same on the barrell and receiver on both guns, especially the one that is proofed WP and oval P , and the fit and similar, factory finish on all the parts, unless Winchester sent all the parts(barrel, receiver stocks etc. out to be assembled elsewhere, I have to believe they were factory assembled in this configuration. I understand why the majority of “advanced” collectors would dismiss these pieces as “madeup”, but they haven’t held on to them either.I may be alone in My assessment of these 2 guns but I can live with that as they’ve been in My advanced ’94 collection for a long time now and will probably stay there.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
There’s a similar model 94/64 on Guns International right now. Thoughts?
Don
Hi Henry Mero,
At the risk of stirring the wrath of some collectors I will mention that there are 2 schools of thought regarding the “P” and “WP” proof markings.
There is no dispute among researchers and collectors that the “P” alone indicates a mail order barrel that was not fitted by Winchester. Nor is there dispute that the “WP” alone indicates that the assembled gun was test fired by Winchester (barring barrel swaps of course). Existing documentation clearly supports both of those cases.
Where the difference in opinions arise is with the application of BOTH markings on a barrel. One group steadfastly maintains that ANY “P” (whether alone or in conjunction with a “WP”) means the barrel was fitted outside of Winchester. The other group believes the combination of the “P” and “WP” indicates the barrel was installed on the receiver by Winchester and then subsequently test fired and proofed with the Winchester “WP” provisional proof mark.
There is no clear evidence that supports the first theory that both proof marks were applied outside the factory. However the second theory that both proofs indicate a replacement barrel fitted at the factory has several circumstantial evidence items to support it, including the following:
1) In no known case was a “WP” provisional proof ever applied outside of the factory. By Winchester definition it was applied after successful factory test firing and outside gunsmiths, even factory authorized repair facilities, did not possess that proof stamp. There is absolutely NO supporting information that I am aware which indicates a “WP” was ever applied by an outside fitter (not including the fake “WP” stamps available on todays market).
2) At lease one former Winchester employee has stated that occasionally, when a rifle came back for repair or barrel replacement, the replacement barrel was pulled from the existing stock set aside for “mail order” replacements (which already had a “P” applied). This was done if there were no current barrels for the model in production, or if the required barrel was obsolete, and sometimes just because it was more convenient to do so for inventory purposes. Winchester did not care (nor did anyone else at the time) that the barrel ended up with 2 stamps on it.
3) An unmounted “mail order” barrel cannot be properly test-fired to earn the “WP” stamp per the Winchester procedure and there is no known Winchester procedure or process for mounting a mail order barrel for test firing and then removing it to mail out as a replacement part. The bulk of the replacement barrels were shipped with only the “P” indicating not test fired (as expected) so the dual-stamped barrels were treated “differently” somehow.
4) Dual-stamped barrels are not relegated to a single era. At least for the .22 rim fire rifles in my realm I have seen the dual marking on rifles at least from 1913 well-through WWII. Circumstantially that indicates it was likely not a practice that was performed by a single employee but might imply there was a pattern or in-house procedure which resulted in the dual stamping which differed from the standard mail order “P” replacement part.
Again, all circumstantial, hence the continued dispute among collectors.
Hope that helps, you have a nice rifle.
Best Regards,
.
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Jeff-
If I can ask a question along those lines… Some rifles, like Henry’s 94/64 hybrid in 30 WCF, have BOTH “P” and “WP” proofs on BOTH the barrel AND the receiver. To my knowledge Winchester never sent out mail order receivers, and even if they did they wouldn’t have put the definitive “WP” proof on them. Similarly, an outside fitter installing a “P” barrel (with or without a “WP” on it) would have no reason to stamp a “P” on the receiver.
So the theory that the presence of both proofs might indicate a factory rebarrel, possibly using a “P” barrel pulled from the parts inventory, seems to make sense. It would be interesting to get a photo of one of these double stamped receivers to see if the “WP” looks like it’s in the usual place, with a “P” stamp applied later (after the barrel was replaced).
I’ve seen a small number of pre-war M70s that were double proofed and still don’t know what to make of them. 
Thanks!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
Jeff-If I can ask a question along those lines… Some rifles, like Henry’s 94/64 hybrid in 30 WCF, have BOTH “P” and “WP” proofs on BOTH the barrel AND the receiver. To my knowledge Winchester never sent out mail order receivers, and even if they did they wouldn’t have put the definitive “WP” proof on them. Similarly, an outside fitter installing a “P” barrel (with or without a “WP” on it) would have no reason to stamp a “P” on the receiver.
So the theory that the presence of both proofs might indicate a factory rebarrel, possibly using a “P” barrel pulled from the parts inventory, seems to make sense. It would be interesting to get a photo of one of these double stamped receivers to see if the “WP” looks like it’s in the usual place, with a “P” stamp applied later (after the barrel was replaced).
I’ve seen a small number of pre-war M70s that were double proofed and still don’t know what to make of them.
Thanks!!!
Lou
Hi Lou,
I didn’t see a question mark in there but your point is well-taken and I agree 
I was tip-toeing the line in my initial post to refrain from indicating which camp I was in but regardless, it is probably obvious that I am of the belief that at least some, if not all of the dual-stamped barrels were fitted and then proof fired at the factory. I didn’t mention the point about Henry’s rifle being dual-stamped on both receiver and barrel because I could not see that detail clearly in his photos and thought I might have potentially misunderstood him.
Regarding receivers, Winchester actually did send out mail-order receivers (prior to 1968). Again, I can only speak about my lowly .22 rim fire realm but I have in my collection some “P” only marked single shot rifles (a Model 60 and a Model 67) where the receiver is integral to the barrel (all one piece). So, when ordering a replacement mail order barrel you “automatically” got a new receiver also. Since these did not require any fitting they were mailed directly to the end user where they could be swapped onto their firearm.
I also agree that some additional forensic analysis of the markings might be beneficial. I don’t have any photos of dual-marked receivers as I am sure they are rare but will keep my eyes open. Hopefully Henry can take some better pictures of his. I do however have lots of pictures of dual-marked barrels (again, mostly .22s) that I was tracking to see if the “P” was always applied first (behind the “WP”) which would rationally be the case if it was applied as a single stamp and the “WP” applied afterward. I was also monitoring to see if the stamps were aligned but since the Stamper would have to set down the “P” stamp to pick up the second “WP” stamp the chances of normal alignment and matching stamp angles are lessened than with a single, normally applied “WP” so that might be moot.
The practice is definitely worth more investigation although we may never have a definitive answer.
Best Regards,
Jeff
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Not the best pictures in the world but best I can do. These 2 guns have differences in that# 1299686 has the proper type 7 tang markings and it has a mod. 55/early64 forestock, a little fatter than a ’94 forestock, the barrel is stamped MOD 94. It also has , what I believe factory sling swivels but I could be wrong on that. In comparison ser#1343643 has a blank upper tang which is several thousand #’s before they were believed to be blank (as per Rennenbergs book vol.2, p126), it is barrel stamped MOD 64 and has a mod ’94 fore stock. Both guns have the mod ’55 butt plates and the unfluted mod ’94 butt stock.I would be happy to provide any other pics etc. or answer with, My opinion only, any other questions. Thank You every one for Your input and opinions on these guns. I have found over the past 55 years in this hobby that nothing is cut in stone pertaining to Winchester’s practices. I have had , literally , several thousand ’94’s over the years from ser#601 to ser#6668900 and have found many discrepancies in the manufacture of them. I definetly do not intend to cause any controversy, just stating what My thoughts are.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Louis Luttrell said
I’ve seen a small number of pre-war M70s that were double proofed and still don’t know what to make of them.
Thanks!!!
Lou
Hi Lou,
I forgot to mention, that if I was to order a barreled action from Winchester back in the day I could postulate that Winchester MIGHT assemble it for test firing before mailing out the mated barrel/action assembly. In that case I could envision it having a “P” and “WP” on both the barrel and receiver as that would match their described internal process for mail order and test firing.
Just another hypothesis……
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Henry Mero said
Hi Henry,
Thanks for the additional photos! I cannot speak intelligently about the authenticity of either of your rifles because the .30 hole in your barrel is outside my .22 knowledge base 
I was very interested in the dual-marking on both the receiver and barrel though as that provides another data point for research. Thanks again for posting.
Best Regards,
.
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Henry Mero said
Henry,
The last Model 94 with an upper tang marking was serial number 1343183. Your gun with serial number 1343643 is correct with a blank upper tang..
My observation of the gun with the double proofs on the barrel and receiver is this… the position of the “P” stamp on the barrel indicates it was applied before the “WP” proof. The position of the “P” stamp on the receiver frame ring indicates it was applied after the “WP” proof. What this leads me to believe, is that the rifle was originally manufactured and proof fired with a different barrel on it. At a later date, it was fitted with a mail order barrel (possibly Winchester factory), and proof fired & marked. However, that does not explain the “P” stamp on the receiver frame. In the past, I have seen several Winchesters with the double proof stamp on the barrel, but a simple “WP” on the receiver frame, and that makes sense for a factory rebarreled gun where Winchester pulled the barrel out of the mail order stock room. However, and based on the manufacture date for both of your rifles, it Winchester would not have needed to pull parts out of the Mail Order parts room, as the Model 94 & 64 was still in full (regular) production. New parts (barrels) were readily available. The other indicator that the rifles were not original factory work is the butt stocks & butt plates on both rifle are of Model 94 origin versus a Model 64.
In the end, we will most likely never know what the true story is behind either of those rifles, and almost anything could be possible.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Hi Jeff-
I agree that my use of punctuation leaves much to be desired??? But you answered my question anyway!!! Thanks!!!
Thank you, Henry for the added photo of the double receiver proofs. While I claim no knowledge of the M94 (or any of its variants), I’d agree with Bert that it looks like the BARREL “WP” proof was added after the “P” mail order proof, while the receiver “P” proof was added after the “WP” proof. As you said, this could indicate that a rifle was rebarreled at the factory using a “P” barrel from parts inventory, then proofed with the new barrel so as to earn the “WP”. Pure speculation, but maybe the “P” was stamped on the receiver to indicate that the rifle had been proofed with the new “P” barrel. Stamping it “WP” a second time wouldn’t have conveyed that. I guess we’ll never know unless a WRACo. document turns up specifying a procedure for replacing barrels at the factory…
What prompted my query was a M70 lot (Lot #3093) sold in the last RIA Regional Auction:
This is a very messed up gun in ways I won’t dwell on here, but the description stated “With factory “P” in oval proofs on the barrel and receiver.” The double proofed barrel “P” and “WP” is a RAMPED 250-3000 SAV target barrel. While RIA would not pull the gun apart, that would most likely make it a ’36 (or earlier) barrel, that must have been sitting in parts inventory. The reportedly double proofed receiver is S/N 51957 (1942) which is WAY too late for a ramped target rifle. What I’d speculated was that the rifle was originally chambered for something else, then rebarreled (inside or outside the factory?) to 250-3000 SAV using an old “P” barrel. Along the line it acquired “P” stamps on both barrel and receiver and “WP” on the barrel. Unfortunately, I neglected to ask RIA for a close-up photo of the proofs, although I did get sufficient additional photos to convince myself that it was a genuine ramped 250-3000 SAV barrel.
Definitely a “parts gun” but not sure who put the parts together…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I have a 1912 Model 1885 that is marked on the underside barrel flat marked with an “O.F.” which indicates it is a replacement barrel. Unfortunately the barrel was stepped back to allow a rechambering from .32-40 to .32 Ideal so no “P” or “WP” marks are visible on the barrel. The “WP” is marked on the receiver. I am curious as to when Winchester stopped placing the “O.F.” mark of mail order barrels and substituted the “P” marking or were both applied at one time?
Hi Dave,
I am curious about the answer to your question myself.
I don’t have an exact overlap date range for you but here is an internal Winchester memo from November 7, 1902 which describes the “Outside Fitting” by customers and the requirement for marking the “O.F.”
The oval “P” mail order barrel marking was initiated per Change in Manufacturing Notice #2124 and was instituted to apply to barrels (and receivers) sent out from the Mail Order Department commencing May 31, 1913.
So, your question “when was the O.F. marking discontinued?” is essential to answer the overlap question (if there was in fact any overlap).
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Chuck said
This is a very interesting topic. Really makes you think.
Agreed. A very interesting topic. I’m just digesting it all.
Dave K. said
I have a 1912 Model 1885 that is marked on the underside barrel flat marked with an “O.F.” which indicates it is a replacement barrel. Unfortunately the barrel was stepped back to allow a rechambering from .32-40 to .32 Ideal so no “P” or “WP” marks are visible on the barrel. The “WP” is marked on the receiver. I am curious as to when Winchester stopped placing the “O.F.” mark of mail order barrels and substituted the “P” marking or were both applied at one time?
I do not believe that an “O.F.” marked barrel should have a “P” stamped on it. Your rifle is early enough to have the “O.F.” marked barrel.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
I do not believe that an “O.F.” marked barrel should have a “P” stamped on it. Your rifle is early enough to have the “O.F.” marked barrel.
Bert
If there was no overlap in the use of the “O.F.” and oval “P” that would mean his barrel was replaced within the first year of its life (before June of 1913). That is possible, but odd. Why not just order it in .32-40 in the first place? And then the replacement barrel was set back and rechambered to .32 Ideal….sounds like the owner didn’t know exactly what he/she wanted, or just liked to experiment.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Dave, Jeff, Bert, et al:
Schwing states that the OF stamping ended in May1913, which was when the P in an oval stamp was used.
Looks like interesting thread, I’ll have to check it out.
James
In an attempt to use the KISS method to solve the issue at hand, i.e. if the issue is to only determine where the parts were stamped and fitted together, why couldn’t both the barrel and receiver have been proofed and stamped at the factory and then mailed to an outside party to be assembled, since both are stamped with the mail order proof?
James
JWA said
I don’t have an exact overlap date range for you but here is an internal Winchester memo from November 7, 1902 which describes the “Outside Fitting” by customers and the requirement for marking the “O.F.”
What about BEFORE 1902?
1 Guest(s)
