Winchester 1890 .22 S,L, LR Round Barrel 62A
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=246217612
Interesting lunchbox rifle here. The reciever, a late 2nd model per Schwing, is correctly not proofed at all ever. The barrel, however, was made after 1958 per West because of the barrel markings style.
The barrel would normally be proofed with a 1958 manufacturing date. 1)If the barrel was taken off an existing gun and reused it would be proof marked. 2)If it was a mail order barrel it got the mail order Oval P proof. This alerted Winchester that the barrel was sent out for outside fitting, so they were no liable. 3)If the gun was returned to Winchester and was redone on a factory work order, then Winchester normally proofed both the barrel and previously unproofed receiver at that time. ( I have such guns in my own collection, this is generally accepted fact).
So, my contention is that the gun was redone, at the factory, after hours! Or using stolen factory parts, by an employee at home. That would explain a 1958 barrel that never had a proof. I do not think this is a factory made gun!
Interesting lunchbox rifle here. The reciever, a late 2nd model per Schwing, is correctly not proofed at all ever. The barrel, however, was made after 1958 per West because of the barrel markings style.
The barrel would normally be proofed with a 1958 manufacturing date. 1)If the barrel was taken off an existing gun and reused it would be proof marked. 2)If it was a mail order barrel it got the mail order Oval P proof. This alerted Winchester that the barrel was sent out for outside fitting, so they were no liable. 3)If the gun was returned to Winchester and was redone on a factory work order, then Winchester normally proofed both the barrel and previously unproofed receiver at that time. ( I have such guns in my own collection, this is generally accepted fact).
So, my contention is that the gun was redone, at the factory, after hours! Or using stolen factory parts, by an employee at home. That would explain a 1958 barrel that never had a proof. I do not think this is a factory made gun!
0
-
It is an interesting conundrum for sure. I would not out much faith in the "per West" information though. His published information is notoriously in error.
There are a few small indicators that the work was not accomplished by Winchester.0 -
Details on that front sight? Don't think I've seen one like that before. Got a pic of what's inside the hood? 0 -
I don't have a picture but it is a very fine bead on a slender stalk like a Lyman combination ring sight. I also have never seen that sight before. 0 -
No markings of any kind?
I went through Nick Stroebel's "Old Gunsights" and couldn't find anything like it either.
Bert?0 -
No markings at all showing, maybe they are underneath the dovetail? When Lyman made sights to be factory installed by Winchester they too did not have the normal Lyman Logo. So that is a remote possibility too. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by TRAP55
No markings of any kind?
I went through Nick Stroebel's "Old Gunsights" and couldn't find anything like it either.
Bert?
I do not recognize that sight either. It is roughly similar to an older Lyman No. 17, but by the time that rifle was assembled, Lyman had switched to the No. 17A.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments