Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

14 comments

Date Votes
  • WWllVet
    Would like to get DOM of '92 Winchester serial number 7762
    Thank you
    wwllvet
    0
  • p.muerrle
    According to Winchester factory documentation:
    Your M92 ser. no. 7580 was made in 1892.
    The other M92 was made in 1893.
    The M97 was made in 1924.
    0
  • GuvamintCheese
    Bert is in Cody this week and busy dry firing the 1885's.
    0
  • Bert H.
    Hello WWIIVet,

    Unfortunately, the original Winchester factory records do not agree with the information that Pauline posted. According to the Polishing Room Serialization Record Books (PRSRB) the dates are as follows;

    1. Model 1892 serial number 7580 - January 14th, 1893

    2. Model 1892 serial number 51802 - November 20th, 1895

    3. Model 1897 serial number 737190 - September 29th, 1920

    I will be in the Cody Firearms Museum research office for several hours tomorrow, and I will look up the "Received in warehouse date" for both of the Model 1892s. There are no warehouse ledger records for the Model 1897 beyond serial number 377,999. The Warehouse ledger records provide the exact date that the gun was received from the Assembly Room, and will typically be several weeks later than the PRSRB date.

    edited information
    0
  • p.muerrle
    All the records I retain are original factory documents. Polishing records show when a serial no. was assigned to a gun. They are not a date of assembly and finish. Many receivers sat for years with out being assembled.
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by p.muerrle
    All the records I retain are original factory documents. Polishing records show when a serial no. was assigned to a gun. They are not a date of assembly and finish. Many receivers sat for years with out being assembled.


    You are correct in that the PRSRB data is nothing more than the date that the serial number was stamped on the receiver or lower tang, but I very much disagree with you in that "many receivers sat for years without being assembled".

    Based on a comparison of the PRSRB records versus the Warehouse ledger records, the percentage of receivers that sat around unused for greater than 6-months was less than 0.5% (one half of one percent).

    Regardless of how long the receivers may have sat around, the dates of manufacture you provided for the three guns in question are not accurate, most notably for the two Model 1892s... both of which were verifiably not manufactured in the years you stated. You yourself have stated that the received in warehouse date is the "date of manufacture". Please refer to my following post for the DOMs for the Model 1892s.

    I will respectfully point out that the serial number records you retain are not "original" factory documents... the true "original" documents are held here at the Cody Firearms Museum (in the vault next to the McCracken Research Library).
    0
  • Bert H.
    Model 1892 serial number 7580 is listed as follows;

    Received in warehouse: January 19th, 1893
    Type: Rifle
    Caliber: 38 WCF
    Barrel: Octagon
    Triger: Plain
    Shipped: October 6th, 1893
    Order No: 1314
    5-days from the Polishing Room to the warehouse.

    Model 1892 serial number 51802 is listed as follows;

    Received in warehouse: December 7th, 1895
    Type: Rifle
    Caliber: 38 WCF
    Barrel: Octagon, 28"
    Triger: Plain
    Shipped: December 12th, 1895
    Order No: 2558
    17-days from the Polishing Room to the warehouse.

    As can be seen, neither of the receivers sat in the factory for any length of time before being assembled into completed rifles.
    0
  • p.muerrle
    Therefore I must assume you are calling me a liar? My records came DIRECTLY out of the facrory in most cases, and from retired Winchester employees in others. I have been collecting original documents for the last 20 yrs. As a former Winchester employee I can assure you there are a ton of records out there that Cody doesn't have in there possession. Just this morning I looked a numerous blueprints in a former employees home that Cody wanted for the museum. This fellow was a director in product service and will leave these and countless other documentation to his son.
    0
  • perry shooter
    Please Ladies and Gentalman. BOTH of you are too important to this forum to let conflicting records escalate into name calling . It is my believe THAT both of you are correct Just like Colt during WW II at some times the factory may be Pressed for Frames because the orders and workforce are turning out guns faster then the frames can be made but at other times when Demand is slow frames may set in the parts room for months if not years before made into a complete gun. I have two S&W No.3 single action targets that were both Made before 1898 but one was not shipped until 1906. . I don't know when the date made is reported to BATFE but at the time frame we are talking about Very few people cared as long as the gun they bought was NEW IN THE BOX when they plunked down the CASH. If two people went into Two stores in Two different States on the same day and got 2 new Rifles on the same date ALL you could say was one had a higher serial number then the other. I beg you BURY THE HATCHET . I am one of the most SELFISH persons you know and I want to read BOTH of your post on this forum for years to come. Please Perry Shooter + everyone else.
    0
  • p.muerrle
    I personally have no problem with Bert. The problem I have is if you have conlicting data with what he has, you are the one who must be wrong.
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by p.muerrle
    Therefore I must assume you are calling me a liar? My records came DIRECTLY out of the facrory in most cases, and from retired Winchester employees in others. I have been collecting original documents for the last 20 yrs. As a former Winchester employee I can assure you there are a ton of records out there that Cody doesn't have in there possession. Just this morning I looked a numerous blueprints in a former employees home that Cody wanted for the museum. This fellow was a director in product service and will leave these and countless other documentation to his son.


    Pauline,

    I am neither calling you a liar, or insuating that you are a liar... Instead, I am simply stating that you do not have in your pesonal possession the "original" factory Warehouse ledgers or the Polishing Room Serialization Record Books. Those documents were turned over to the Cody Firearms Museum by Winchester back in the mid 1970s (while we were both still in high-school).

    These original Warehouse ledgers and PRSRB records are the only verifiable (accepted) source of historical information for determining the "official" dates of manufacture, and they are used exclusively for creating a Factory Letter. I do not understand why you so steadfastly continue to dispute the validity of those records. They are the standard by which nearly all serious Winchester collectors evaluate their guns.

    To conclude this discussion, I am in a unique position that allows me unfettered access to these records whereas you are not. To continually challenge the information that I provide to the many people who come to this forum seeking accurate information concerning Winchester dates of manufacture is ill-advised at best. If you would like to see copies of the actual documents that I used to provide the DOM information, please let me know via email or phone call.
    0
  • p.muerrle
    Sorry Bert. This time you are wrong. I have in my possesion Polishing room records for the following Models, ALL original:
    1892, Lee Enfield, M17, M12, M21, M70, M88, M40, M42, M50, M52, M56, M61, M62, M63, M74, M75, M07, M20, M24, M25, M39, 1910, 1911, M100, M120, M1400, M71. I almost forgot M94 including dates from Jan. 1946 to March 1967. You know the ones you state on your "sticky" were lost in a fire? Don't know who told you that but they weren't. They are all locked up in my safe.
    0
  • kylew
    Stop it you two! I agree with Perry in this. You both have the same goal, a thankless job I know. I for one would like to thank both of you for your insights. I would have never come to learn as much as I have without the input from you both. (Are you sure your not married to each other?) (weak attempt at humor) Thanks again, Kyle
    0
  • p.muerrle
    I agree. I'm done with it. I can think of alot better ways to spend my time.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity