Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1124
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
October 17, 2015 - 3:23 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

  I seen the b.a.t.f. lists My Win. mod. 94 #421470 as a carbine but it is and letters as a rifle. As a Canuck I don,t need the clearance letter from a.t.f.                 Bert        Here are 2 more Ser#,s for your survey, guns I,ve had recently, #845743 15″ in 30 cal., #937575 15″ in 30 cal. neither gun have clearance letters. Thanks for all the info.     Henry

W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11077
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
2
October 17, 2015 - 7:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Henry,

I do not have serial 421470 listed in my Trapper survey because it is in fact, a special order “Short” rifle.  I truly appreciate the information on the other two Trappers.

Thanks,

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
December 14, 2015 - 1:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Henry

 I would like to have more info on the short rifle, s/n 421470 to include in the survey of short rifles. Barrel length, round or oct, cal., forearm length, type of butt plate and any other extra features. Another WACA member has picked up the short rifle survey and he may also like the info. You also say you have a letter on this rifle. Would love to see a copy of that.

Thanks

Paul

ps: Can send info by e-mail if you like.  [email protected]

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1124
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
December 14, 2015 - 3:33 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The 14″ ’94 letters as rifle, 30 cal., 14″, oct. bbl., full mag. cres. butt, 73/8 forearm ,no other features. I also have a  Mod. 1892 ,15″ rifle ser#102645. It letters as rifle, 38cal., rnd. bbl. 15″, plain trig., with a full mag. 73/8″ forearm and a cres. butt. This rifle I am selling and will be taking it to Louisville if I still have it. I really like these little guns but I prefer saddle ring carbines to rifles even though the rifles are much scarcer.   Henry

W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11077
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
5
December 14, 2015 - 3:40 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Paul,

First, it is great to see you back on the forum, and back to hunting down details on unique Model 1894s. During your absence, I started an expanded survey of the Model 1894 serial numbers 354000 – 999999 (to compliment my long running survey of serial numbers 1000000 – 2600011). In the survey of serial numbers 354000 – 999999, I have found a fair number of factory short rifles, and have compiled them into a separate list. Thus far I have (113) recorded in that range, and (19) more that are > serial 999999. I just recently sent Gary a copy of my survey so that he can add them to his survey list. If you would like a copy, send me an email.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
December 14, 2015 - 5:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert:

Hope you are doing well. I would like to get your info on short rifles. Gary once offered to send his info but, at the time I wasn’t ready to get back into it.

I can’t find your email address among my papers right now. They have been put away for awhile. The first things I came across when getting on the forum was a member that says his 1894 with s/n 137206 has proof marks. The letter doesn’t show an R&R but it could have been sent back and then proofs added but was never entered in the ledger.The second thing is this 14″ short rifle with s/n 421470 which he says he has a letter for. Have they located more info at Cody that would include this high of a s/n?  My email is  [email protected]

Paul 

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11077
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
7
December 14, 2015 - 8:23 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Paul,

I am doing well, albeit busier than I would like to be.  I will send you a copy of the Short Rifle survey shortly.

Serial number 137206 with no R&R entry, but with proof marks is something that would be worrisome to me…

In regards to serial number 421470, I am not of the belief that he has a true Cody factory letter for it.  No new warehouse ledger records have been discovered by the CFM.  It is possible that he has a serialization date letter, but that will not have any configuration information on it. It is also possible that he has a George Madis letter.

Bert

[email protected]

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1124
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
December 15, 2015 - 2:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Paul & Bert   I can’t send You a copy of the factory letter on the 14″ rifle for 2 reasons #1 Idon’t know how to do that on this stupid computer and 2nd, I sold the little gun in Novi Mi. a couple of weeks ago to a collector. However it does have a factory letter that states rifle 14″ oct. bbl. and being shipped in 1905.. I think I made a typo (I did say I’m not good on computer}, the ser# is 321470 not 421470 ,that would cause a little confusion, sorry. Jesi will verify the info on the factory letter.       Henry

W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1124
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
December 15, 2015 - 3:10 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert    on ser#137206, in what way would this gun be”a little worrysome” ? The gun presents itself exactly as it letters and appears  unaltered except for no mention of the R & R. I purchased a 94 in 100k ser# range from Bud Davis, who was a neighbor and good friend of Mr. Madis, that had no factory information available at all. Mr. Madis said it was a sales sample gun and had been returned to the factory many times as it had several otherwise unexplainable alterations that were obviously factory done. I have a 94 in the ser#98k range that does not mention the pist. grip. nor the takedown but does mention checkering and shotgun butt. In fact I have had several 94,s that have features that the factory letter don’t mention but are 100% factory correct . Istill Maintain the factory information letters from Cody are not infallable and should be used along with some good judgement and expertise.    Henry

W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
December 15, 2015 - 3:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Henry:

 There is no doubt that things have gotten missed in the original Winchester ledgers but, s/n 137206 from 1902 should not have proof marks. That gun was made about 2 years and 10 months before they started using proof marks. I think I sent you a PM about this.

Paul

Avatar
Ontario Canada
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
December 15, 2015 - 5:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

When a proofed barrel that should not be proofed is on a proper un proofed receiver this is a definite red flag of a non original barrel

but when both are proofed out of ser # range l think this is most likely an un recorded factory R&R

with the receiver with ser # before proof era and un messed with underneath ,  what outsider could get a factory proof stamp to Newly stamp the receiver and what would be the purpose ?

To go to the extreme length of indicating a fake R&R to validate the switched barrel ? This would have to be very well done and not look new

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11077
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
12
December 15, 2015 - 5:55 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Henry Mero said

Bert    on ser#137206, in what way would this gun be”a little worrysome” ? The gun presents itself exactly as it letters and appears  unaltered except for no mention of the R & R. I purchased a 94 in 100k ser# range from Bud Davis, who was a neighbor and good friend of Mr. Madis, that had no factory information available at all. Mr. Madis said it was a sales sample gun and had been returned to the factory many times as it had several otherwise unexplainable alterations that were obviously factory done. I have a 94 in the ser#98k range that does not mention the pist. grip. nor the takedown but does mention checkering and shotgun butt. In fact I have had several 94,s that have features that the factory letter don’t mention but are 100% factory correct . Istill Maintain the factory information letters from Cody are not infallable and should be used along with some good judgement and expertise.    Henry

Henry,

The fact that it is a 1902 production rifle with proof marks on it bothers me… they should not be on that rifle.  Additionally, the location of the proof mark on the barrel bothers me.  The proof mark stamp on the barrel should be forward of the caliber stamp, not beside it.  The fact that the rifle letters correctly is a good indication that it did not go back to Winchester for a R&R.  I do agree with you in that the factory ledger records are not always 100% complete (accurate), and that some features or details may not have been recorded in them.  That however, does not give a free pass to the rifle in question, or bless it as being completely correct… in my opinion.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11077
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
13
December 15, 2015 - 6:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

25-20 said

When a proofed barrel that should not be proofed is on a proper un proofed receiver this is a definite red flag of a non original barrel

but when both are proofed out of ser # range l think this is most likely an un recorded factory R&R

with the receiver with ser # before proof era and un messed with underneath ,  what outsider could get a factory proof stamp to Newly stamp the receiver and what would be the purpose ?

To go to the extreme length of indicating a fake R&R to validate the switched barrel ? This would have to be very well done and not look new

Phil,

You would be shocked to know how many sets of non-original (fake) proof mark stamps are out there being used by various people.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1124
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
December 15, 2015 - 7:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Everyone has the privliage of expressing their informed opinion. I am standing here with this gun in My hands believing that it is 100% factory correct based on My observations and experience with the 1200 plus ’94 Winchesters I have owned over the years, and that there are many exceptions to the “normal” when it comes to these old guns.     Henry

W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11077
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
15
December 15, 2015 - 8:18 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Henry Mero said

Everyone has the privliage of expressing their informed opinion.      Henry

Henry,

I most certainly agree with you, and we try to encourage that exact type of interaction here on the WACA forums.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Texas
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 102
Member Since:
August 5, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
December 17, 2015 - 1:54 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Henry Mero said

Bert    on ser#137206, in what way would this gun be”a little worrysome” ? The gun presents itself exactly as it letters and appears  unaltered except for no mention of the R & R. I purchased a 94 in 100k ser# range from Bud Davis, who was a neighbor and good friend of Mr. Madis, that had no factory information available at all. Mr. Madis said it was a sales sample gun and had been returned to the factory many times as it had several otherwise unexplainable alterations that were obviously factory done. I have a 94 in the ser#98k range that does not mention the pist. grip. nor the takedown but does mention checkering and shotgun butt. In fact I have had several 94,s that have features that the factory letter don’t mention but are 100% factory correct . Istill Maintain the factory information letters from Cody are not infallable and should be used along with some good judgement and expertise.    Henry

Henry – can you describe for us what you mean when you state the gun presents itself exactly as it letters?  The Cody letter does not list the checkered stock or pistol grip.  Nor does it appear to mention what some presume to be is some R&R work.

For full disclosure I “tentatively” purchased this rifle from Henry just over a year ago.  At the time of purchase, I had a set of pictures he emailed me and the Cody letter.  I then received the rifle and saw those proof marks on the receiver and barrel, with the barrel proof mark off to the side of the caliber stamp (see pictures below).  Those proof marks, combined with the Cody letter not matching the rifle, gave me concern.  Henry swapped out another rifle for this one to keep me whole.  I walked away satisfied (I hope Henry did as well).

But my question gets back to the concept of originality…the rifle has significant features not on the Cody letter and a set of proof marks.  The barrel proof was my red flag.  I think most or all of us have seen unusual circumstances with Winchester rifles and Cody letters.  But to state this rifle presents itself exactly as lettered has me scratching my head.

GregCaliber-WP1024x576.jpgImage EnlargerReceiver-WP1024x576.jpgImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
Avatar
Ontario Canada
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
December 17, 2015 - 3:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Sorry to belabour the situation    Im just thinking that if someone is a professional gun faker and has the proof stamp why would he proof the barrel in the wrong spot, and why proof at all ? / If the barrel and receiver were supposed to be unproofed . Surely even a mediocre faker with posession of a stamp would know this

I could see the possible situation of a barrel being swithched (having  a proof where none should be )and having to then proof stamp the receiver to indicate a fake R&R where both would be proofed at the factory ( to validate the switched barrel with proof)

I can see the bad stamping job in the pic by spursfan as being an unrecorded R&R being stamped by a sloppy  apprentice not thinking it mattered as long as it shows proof on both barrel and receiver at R&R (I was an apprentice once too)

 

Phil

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11077
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
18
December 17, 2015 - 5:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Phil,

All discussion is good.

I take the opposite view on this for a number of reasons.  I personally find it much less likely that a Winchester employee (or apprentice) would have incorrectly stamped the proof mark on the barrel, or that Winchester would have allowed their apprentices to perform “sloppy” work. 

In regards to the “fakers” out there, you would be shocked how ignorant some of them are. Over the years, I have encountered a surprising number of mistakes made by some of them, and when confronted, some of them are unbelievably arrogant about it.  Never underestimate what people with poor morals can and will do!

As others in this discussion have pointed out, there are just too many “oddities” about the subject Winchester to just brush under the rug so to speak. While I agree that the factory ledger records are not always 100% complete or accurate, they are the only credible document that we have available to use.  If you step back and look at this rifle subjectively, there are too many things that do not add up cleanly,making it an “excuse” gun.  From my learned perspective, making excuses for “why” something is not ordinary or documented on a seemingly desirable collector grade Winchester is a losing proposition.  And again, it is entirely possible that the rifle is 100% legitimate, but it will never be such in my mind.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1124
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
December 19, 2015 - 4:42 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi guys and Hi Greg, it’s good to hear from You. I don’ know if You had this gun apart while You had it but I am sitting here with it on my lap, in pieces, along with 2 other 94’s on the bench for comparison. I know the letter doesn’t say pistol grip or checkered stock but the assembly #13865 is stamped on the lower tang and also on the stock under the upper tang . The tang is also stamped “xxx” which the wood is & “OHH” at the rear of the tang. The only other marks on the receiver is the ser# 137206 & 27 ahead of the trig., under the bbl.is 4 dots . . . . , VP in a circle, & l in a triangle and 6N or G N next to the takedown flange. All the bluing and fit and finish of the gun is such that it says to Me that it has not been messed with outside the factory. However I guess that’s open to interpretation and opinion. All that being said I believe this is one of those guns that the letter should have stated “etc.” in the features. Also this is only the 3rd or 4th early 94 I have found that the letter says the “serial number application date not available”. It’s all a little odd but that’s what keeps it interesting. I am in the middle of a deal to aquire 5 Mod. 73,s, 2 engraved, 2 other high cond. deluxes and a s.r.c. that letters with 2 stocks, rifle stock and carbine stock. The letter for one of the deluxes states all it’s features and then says “ETC.”  Ya gotta love it.   Henry        

W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 55
Member Since:
November 7, 1987
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
December 19, 2015 - 7:08 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Robert Renneberg’s book,2nd edition page 106 has a picture of a proof mark under the caliber mark.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6624
TXGunNut: 5264
Chuck: 4731
steve004: 4391
1873man: 4357
Big Larry: 2380
twobit: 2326
mrcvs: 1803
TR: 1738
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 13025
Posts: 113848

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1819
Members: 8998
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation