re blue?
Can someone explain what I'm seeing? On the auction side # 125824016 the description reads "receiver shows some flaking" what would cause bluing to come off like that? and why are the butt plate and forearm cap white? the proof marks are also white. Is this a crappy cold blue job followed by varnish slopped on the forearm and barrel address?
0
-
I think there's a digit missing from the number you posted (12584016) and it doesn't appear to be the digit on the end (least significant). 0 -
Yep your right, try this 125824016 Sorry 0 -
Don't all 94 winnies flake like that?[;)] 0 -
looks to have been redone and had excess oil when redone but dont hold me to that. Just looks like something that happened to me on my first reblue. 0 -
Gentlemen,
That rifle does not look right.
Yep, the old Winchesters did have flakey receivers, but this one does not look right. It has plenty of scratches on the receiver. The splotchy "flaking" reminds me of all of the Winchesters that I have seen that were put away wet. The forend cap appears to be scratched, also. The wear & scratches on those parts does not match the wear on the rest of the rifle, particularly in the surrounding areas. The same goes for the upper tang.
The white proofmark, and the number "35", by the trigger, look unnatural. However, the serial number is deep & clear.
Reblue? I don't know.
A little fishy? Yep.0 -
Nice wood, looks like a nice candidate for a restoration. Perhaps a bit overpriced in my opinion. 0 -
THE BLUING WAS REMOVED BY WATER OR BLOOD (RUSTED), NOT LEFT ON LONG ENOUGHT TO PIT. BLUING ITSELF CANN'T 'FLAKE' AS IT IS PART OF THE BASE METAL BUT IT CAN BE CHEMICLY REMOVED. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by marlinman93
Don't all 94 winnies flake like that?[;)]
No, just those made in the 1920 - 1932 era.0 -
quote:Originally posted by hk-91
looks to have been redone and had excess oil when redone but dont hold me to that. Just looks like something that happened to me on my first reblue.
It has not been reblued or refinished (the steel parts). The condition of the blued finish on that 1930 vintage Model 94 is very common and typical.0 -
Observation: The forearm cap and receiver look exactly like a painted firearm (like the Brits painted their Webley's, etc). Cap has most paint worn off. See pic #18 for comparision of blueing and painting. Now, would the paint be easy to remove? Dunno. Rifle shows evidence of being crudely dis-assembled.
Opinion: I'd buy it, but would pay $350.00...and no higher. Joe
EDIT:
Thanks for the 'splaination, Bert. I'm never too old to learn (ref: post below). Best, Joe0 -
quote:Originally posted by BigLoop22
Gentlemen,
That rifle does not look right.
Yep, the old Winchesters did have flakey receivers, but this one does not look right. It has plenty of scratches on the receiver. The splotchy "flaking" reminds me of all of the Winchesters that I have seen that were put away wet. The forend cap appears to be scratched, also. The wear & scratches on those parts does not match the wear on the rest of the rifle, particularly in the surrounding areas. The same goes for the upper tang.
The white proofmark, and the number "35", by the trigger, look unnatural. However, the serial number is deep & clear.
Reblue? I don't know.
A little fishy? Yep.
I disagree... that rifle looks exactly like it should for its vintage. It is neither "fishy" or been messed with as far as the bluing is concerned. The stocks have been lightly sanded and refinished though.
Yes, the bluing did actually flake off the receiver frames. The proof mark and inspection stamp "35" were stamped after the bluing process had been completed, and that is why the metal is bare. It should have been Winchester's first clue that the bluing solution they were using at the time was not going to hold up.
The reason the bluing flaked and was so easily scratched was due to the change to the steel alloy Winchester developed and began using immediately following WW I. The increased nickel content of the steel did not allow the bluing solution to work properly. It took Winchester a number of years to realize that the bluing solution need to be changed. If you examine most Winchester models that were made in the 1920 - 1932 timeframe, you will see the same thing on them as on this rifle. Putting the gun away wet did not cause the bluing to flake.
The reason the forend stock nosecap and the butt plate look different is due to them not being made of the same steel alloy as the receiver frame, and that is why the coloration is different.0 -
quote:Originally posted by givette
Observation: The forearm cap and receiver look exactly like a painted firearm (like the Brits painted their Webley's, etc). Cap has most paint worn off. See pic #18 for comparision of blueing and painting. Now, would the paint be easy to remove? Dunno. Rifle shows evidence of being crudely dis-assembled.
Opinion: I'd buy it, but would pay $350.00...and no higher. Joe
Hello Joe,
You are off the mark. The nosecap was blued, and has lost it bluing due to being sanded. If you look closely, you can see that the forend stock has been lightly sanded and a coat of varnish applied. The person who did it was too lazy to remove the nosecap and the stock before refinishing it (which is why the forward end of the receiver frame has the same indications of being sanded... especially on the right hand side).0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
13 comments