Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
While I can not positively prove when the “O.F.” was first used, I believe that it was well before 1902.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Offline
Bert H. said
While I can not positively prove when the “O.F.” was first used, I believe that it was well before 1902.
Bert
My only “hard” date in my file for O.F. is the 1902 memo so I really don’t have an answer for use before that, but trying to learn. What leads you to believe it was used much earlier?
Best Regards,
Jeff
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
My only “hard” date in my file for O.F. is the 1902 memo so I really don’t have an answer for use before that, but trying to learn. What leads you to believe it was used much earlier?
Best Regards,
Jeff
Physical examination of a lot of Model 1885 rifle barrels. The style of the barrel address marking was changed many times throughout the production run, and I have encountered “O.F.” marked barrels with the early style address marking on them. This leads me to believe that the “O.F.” marking was used well before the turn of the century.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Excellent observation, thanks!
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Page 614 of The Winchester Book, “All barrels and receivers which were furnished for fitting by outside parties were marked with the mail order proof, a letter P in an oval, from 1912 and on.”
James
James,
The initial date of the circle “P” of May 31, 1913 came from C. E. Blizard in a Winchester internal memo, I tend to believe it more than a “1912” statement by Madis with no associated source reference. Just my opinion….
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
James,The initial date of the circle “P” of May 31, 1913 came from C. E. Blizard in a Winchester internal memo, I tend to believe it more than a statement by Madis with no associated source reference. Just my opinion….
Best Regards,
Jeff, the purpose of the Madis statement was to point out that receivers, like barrels, were proofed at the factory, which ties to my first post about double stamps.
James
I
jwm94 said
Jeff, the purpose of the Madis statement was to point out that receivers, like barrels, were proofed at the factory, which ties to my first post about double stamps.
James
Hi James,
The C. E. Blizard memo stated the circle “P” was applied to both mail order receivers and barrels, no question. I mentioned that earier in this thread. The fact that there are also mail order receivers that are marked with the “P” was not really in question but appreciate your input and agree with your barreled action theory. I will post the actual memo when I get back to my computer in the morning for your file if you don’t have it.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
I
Hi James,
The C. E. Blizard memo stated the circle “P” was applied to both mail order receivers and barrels, no question. I mentioned that earier in this thread. The fact that there are also mail order receivers that are marked with the “P” was not really in question but appreciate your input and agree with your barreled action theory. I will post the actual memo when I get back to my computer in the morning for your file if you don’t have it.
Best Regards,
Thank you for the response, Jeff.
Yes, please post the memo up when you can. I’d appreciate seeing it.
James
jwm94 said Thank you for the response, Jeff.
Yes, please post the memo up when you can. I’d appreciate seeing it.
James
Hi James,
Here is the memo for your file. I highlighted the passage in discussion. The original memo is located at the BBCotW (McCraken Research Library) in the Winchester MS20 collection, box 23, folder 26. This is one of the memos (among others) I paraphrased in my post #32 in this thread. I can email my original scan to you if you would like an unannotated copy.
Best Regards,
Jeff
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Here is the memo for your file. I highlighted the passage in discussion. The original memo is located at the BBCotW (McCraken Research Library) in the Winchester MS20 collection, box 23, folder 26.
What this memo doesn’t explain is the logic of changing a marking with a clear, unambiguous, meaning, that anyone could understand & remember, “OF,” to one that requires an explanation. In most other firearms applications, a “P” marking is understood to mean “proved,” but as used here, it actually means “un-proved.” Blizard (if it was his idea) was fixing something that wasn’t broken.
JWA said
jwm94 said Thank you for the response, Jeff.
Yes, please post the memo up when you can. I’d appreciate seeing it.
James
Hi James,
Here is the memo for your file. I highlighted the passage in discussion. The original memo is located at the BBCotW (McCraken Research Library) in the Winchester MS20 collection, box 23, folder 26. This is one of the memos (among others) I paraphrased in my post #32 in this thread. I can email my original scan to you if you would like an unannotated copy.
Best Regards,
Jeff
Thank you for the copy and source information as I did not have it. This is much better than the original scan alone.
James
steve004 said
Agreed. A very interesting topic. I’m just digesting it all.
Me too.
I made a error when I described the 1885 as having been manufatured in 1912. It has been a while since I looked at it in my collection. It was in fact made in 1905 serial #101574. It letters as having been originally a 3 weight barrel in .32-40. So the replacement barrel also a # 3 in .32-40 would have been sent prior to 1913? Very interesting. It does seem strange that a new barrel was needed just 8 years after the gun was made. My understanding is that the rifle was used for target competitions as it was ordered with vernier mid range sights and set trigger, so perhaps the owner felt that a new barrel would improve his scores. Why or when the barrel was rechambered to .32 Ideal is unknown as well. All is lost in the midst of time as the person that I bought it from was killed in a vehicle accident 48 years ago and he wasn’t the original owner.
I can think of several scenarios where a barrel would be replaced with a like barrel. In addition to being “shot-out” (which is unlikely with an 8-year old rifle) there could have been corrosion in the bore and/or chamber due to poor cleaning or using blackpowder. The bore could have been damaged by a squib load or other cartridge problem. It also could have been replaced due to physical damage from some sort of accident. No way of knowing but the 8 year use before replacement is not nearly as odd as replacing it within the first year as originally indicated.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
I can think of several scenarios where a barrel would be replaced with a like barrel. In addition to being “shot-out” (which is unlikely with an 8-year old rifle)
Best Regards,
That isn’t necessarily true. I don’t shoot competitions but I have put 1,000 rounds through my gun in 6 months. Even with today’s metallurgy a barrel can be shot out somewhere between 2000 to 4000 rounds for serious competitors. I have a 25-20 single shot that is set up for target shooting and believe me the rifling in this gun is shot out. I do not know how long it took though.
I stand corrected. I shoot .22s and can easily put 5000 rounds through one with very little effect on the rifling. I get detrimental throat erosion long before shooting out a .22 barrel.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Chuck said
That isn’t necessarily true. I don’t shoot competitions but I have put 1,000 rounds through my gun in 6 months. Even with today’s metallurgy a barrel can be shot out somewhere between 2000 to 4000 rounds for serious competitors. I have a 25-20 single shot that is set up for target shooting and believe me the rifling in this gun is shot out. I do not know how long it took though.
I would assume the wear is significantly less when lead bullets are used?
JWA said
I stand corrected. I shoot .22s and can easily put 5000 rounds through one with very little effect on the rifling. I get detrimental throat erosion long before shooting out a .22 barrel.Best Regards,
It makes sense to me that the chamber is ordinarily going to go before the barrel rifling, and it can happen overnight. For example, I had to give up my M-1 two days before the Western Division Matches at Camp Pendleton was to start in ’71. My coach was Gunner PIETROFORTE, famous USMC marksman. He was, of course, accustomed to shooting fist sized rapid fire groups from the 2 and 300 yard line, and I had begun to match them in size, and a day later the groups had become huge and show up in different locations…chamber shot out in a day.
James
JWA said
I can think of several scenarios where a barrel would be replaced with a like barrel. In addition to being “shot-out” (which is unlikely with an 8-year old rifle) there could have been corrosion in the bore and/or chamber due to poor cleaning or using blackpowder.
Corrosion, yes, but probably not the result of BP–in fact, guns shot exclusively with BP stood a much better chance of being spared corrosion, provided they were cleaned in the traditional way with water. But early smokeless shooters were under the false impression that “nitro solvents” were adequate for bore cleaning, unaware that only water could remove the salt deposited by chlorate primers. Sporting mags of the time reported countless accounts of bores being ruined by only a few rounds of smokeless, even when the shooter cleaned diligently with one of the new bore solvents introduced concurrently with smokeless cartridges.
1 Guest(s)
