Winchester 94 early SN & Tang Stamp Contradiction
In researching an early Winchester 94, I am finding conflicting information. The serial number is 5731. The CFM information (which war rechecked) does not agree with the current configuration. The barrel is marked 30 W.C.F. and it has a 20" Octagon short barrel, with the correct short 8&3/8" forearm. The barrel cuts including the front sight and magazine ring all appear to be factory and are at the correct locations. Magazine is also correct for the short barrel. The following CFM information is for a 38-55 and no mention of short barrel is made.
WINCHESTER MODEL 1894 - SERIAL NUMBER 5731
Serial number applied on August 09, 1895
Type: Rifle, Caliber: 38/55, Barrel Type: Octagon, Trigger: Plain
1. Contradiction: It is now a 30 WCF, not a 38-55, and a short rifle, not indicated in the Records.
The barrel, including caliber, could have been changed, however, its patina and condition match the receiver. It was well used but not abused. There is no date stamp on the bottom of the barrel.
2. Contradiction: The tang markings and serial number do not agree.
The stamping on the upper tang is:
MODEL 1894
-WINCHESTER-
TRADE MARK REG. IN U.S. PAT. OFF.
This corresponds to a much later tang stamping, 500.000 or later. Cannot explain this contradiction. The SN has been examined under magnification by several individuals.
Other information:
3. The barrel markings just below the rear sight are:
----NICKEL STEEL BARREL----
ESPECIALLY FOR SMOKELESS POWDER
(The 2-line front barrel markings are not readable, but both lines are the same length.)
4. Between these markings and the receiver is: 30 W.C.F.
5. There are no WP proof marks on the barrel or receiver.
Could the Tang markings in item 2 above correspond to this early serial number.
Thanks, Don
WINCHESTER MODEL 1894 - SERIAL NUMBER 5731
Serial number applied on August 09, 1895
Type: Rifle, Caliber: 38/55, Barrel Type: Octagon, Trigger: Plain
1. Contradiction: It is now a 30 WCF, not a 38-55, and a short rifle, not indicated in the Records.
The barrel, including caliber, could have been changed, however, its patina and condition match the receiver. It was well used but not abused. There is no date stamp on the bottom of the barrel.
2. Contradiction: The tang markings and serial number do not agree.
The stamping on the upper tang is:
MODEL 1894
-WINCHESTER-
TRADE MARK REG. IN U.S. PAT. OFF.
This corresponds to a much later tang stamping, 500.000 or later. Cannot explain this contradiction. The SN has been examined under magnification by several individuals.
Other information:
3. The barrel markings just below the rear sight are:
----NICKEL STEEL BARREL----
ESPECIALLY FOR SMOKELESS POWDER
(The 2-line front barrel markings are not readable, but both lines are the same length.)
4. Between these markings and the receiver is: 30 W.C.F.
5. There are no WP proof marks on the barrel or receiver.
Could the Tang markings in item 2 above correspond to this early serial number.
Thanks, Don
0
-
No WP proof, is there a P in an oval proof?
Sounds like the tang is from another rifle.0 -
It looks to me, like you have a very early receiver, that has been rebarreled with a factory barrel of the same configuration, and time frame.
The 30 W.C.F., was originally designed for smokeless powder, and most likely marked Nickel Steel.
As for the tang markings, they seem to be correct, but Bert will set the record straight. I believe it was in the 19-teens, they changed it from Model 1894, to Model 94.
Best0 -
Don,
Somebody has monkeyed around on that rifle.
The serial number (5731) was originally a standard Sporting Rifle in 38-55.
That stated, and based on the upper tang marking, I would be willing to bet good money that somebody intentionally removed the first and the last digit off of the serial number. The upper tang marking you describe was first used in January of 1910 (circa serial number 449100), and was last used in late 1914 (circa serial number 700000).
Can you post or send me a clear picture(s) of the serial number? There is slight (but noticeable) difference in the size, spacing, and style of the font used for the early serial numbers as compared to those used in the upper 5-digit and later serial numbers.
To answer your question quote:Could the Tang markings in item 2 above correspond to this early serial number the answer is No.0 -
Proof Marks: There are no WP or P proof marks on the barrel or WP on the receiver. And no indication they have been removed.
Other Marks: If front of the trigger on the lower tang is a "30".
On the bottom side of the upper tang is a small "o" within a larger "O".
I will get a picture of the SN and send it.
Thank, Don0 -
Thanks for replies. Bert examined pictures I sent and concluded the serial numbers had been altered. Actually all numbers were removed and 4 new incorrect ones stamped. They were the wrong font for the time. The Barrel stamping and the upper tang stamping date it from about 1910 to 1914 according to Bert. It is good to know we have knowledgable and helpful individuals. it is sad to know we have some who will mess up a great gun for some selfish return. Thanks to all. Don 0 -
Isn't an altered serial number illegal, no matter when or by whom? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hawk Carse
Isn't an altered serial number illegal, no matter when or by whom?
Not necessarily.
In the case of a theft recovery or recent acquisition an owner can apply for an alternate number through the ATF. If the original number is known, and can be proven, then that number can be re-struck. In any instance there is paperwork submitted to, and returned by, ATF that the owner would be wise to retain.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments