Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

winchester 1894

Comments

12 comments

  • tandmtigger
    Just acquired a Win. Model 94, 925,164, Serial Number
    32 WS (32 Special?) 20" barrel, full length magazine and saddle ring. Bore is bright and rifle seems mechanically sound. Barrel and magazine blueing are 80 percent plus but on blue remaining on lever and receiver is around saddle ring and a few other "protected places". Steel butt plate has number 92 on underside and stock is stamped the same beneath. Marble front sight and Lyman tang on rear. Unsure if forward hole for tang sight is factory or after sale. Prior owner was considering reblueing which I advised against assuming this would not help the value. Interested in your opinion. Assuming shoots safely and with reasonable accuracy I'll be using for some deer hunting this fall. Any idea about when it was made and what approximate value might be?
    Thanks,
    Rob

    Rob
    0
  • Bert H.
    Serial number 73419 was manufactured in the latter part of the year 1899, and serial number 857538 was manufactured in May of 1917.

    For those who interested, I have the actual month-by-month Model 1894/94 production numbers for the December 1906 through December 1945 period. I also have the daily production numbers for the Model 55 from June 1924 through March 1928. In simple terms, this means that I can determine the exact month & year of manufacture for all of the Models 55, 64, and 1894/94 made up through December 1945.
    0
  • GuvamintCheese
    quote:Originally posted by Bert H.
    Serial number 73419 was manufactured in the latter part of the year 1899, and serial number 857538 was manufactured in May of 1917.

    For those who interested, I have the actual month-by-month Model 1894/94 production numbers for the December 1906 through December 1945 period. I also have the daily production numbers for the Model 55 from June 1924 through March 1928. In simple terms, this means that I can determine the exact month & year of manufacture for all of the Models 55, 64, and 1894/94 made up through December 1945.
    Bert, I would love to have that data. You can email it or snail mail it with my WACA registration. Thanks Todd
    0
  • kimi
    I'd like to have that too, Bert, if you don't mind.
    0
  • WIN 1894
    Bert: Would like to have a copy of this data you have for the 1894/94 etc. email me and let me know the cost for it shipped to me and will get payment to you. Thanks[:)][:)]
    0
  • jakedaniel
    http://www.armscollectors.com/sn/winlookup.php

    According to the site I just linked to #73149 was made in 1896. It may not have left the warehouse till 1899 but it's a Pre-1899 rifle. Pre-1899's are more valuable, as you know. Use this link for Winchester manufacture dates
    0
  • Spider7115
    quote:Originally posted by jakedaniel
    http://www.armscollectors.com/sn/winlookup.php

    According to the site I just linked to #73149 was made in 1896. It may not have left the warehouse till 1899 but it's a Pre-1899 rifle. Pre-1899's are more valuable, as you know. Use this link for Winchester manufacture dates


    That website is notoriously WRONG in its information. Rely on Bert for accurate manufacture dates.
    0
  • jakedaniel
    73149 is a 5 digit number. 1899's start at 147xxx. I'm not wrong on this

    http://www.rawles.to/Pre-1899_FAQ.html

    Is he wrong too? Check this link out for pre 1899 dates
    0
  • jakedaniel
    I think what you guys are talking about is the date the rifle was assembled and left the warehouse. That could very well be 1899 or 1900. Sorry for the confusion.
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by jakedaniel
    I think what you guys are talking about is the date the rifle was assembled and left the warehouse. That could very well be 1899 or 1900. Sorry for the confusion.


    No, I am not referring to the date the rifle was assembled and/or left the warehouse! The dates I provide were taken directly from the Polishing Room Serialization Record Books (located at the Cody Firearms Musuem).

    The internet websites that you refer to all use George Madis' published information (found in several of his various books). Madis' published information is flat out wrong. David Kennedy (the former curator of the Cody Firearms Musuem and a personal friend of mine) wrote an article discussing the errors in Madis' published books. You might try reading the Sticky Posts that I (and he) wrote, and found at the top of this forum. If you would like a copy of the article, send me a PM with your email address, and I will forward you a copy.

    Lastly, I am a volunteer research assistant at the Cody Firearms Musuem (several weeks each summer). As such, I have personal access to the actual records.
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by jakedaniel
    http://www.armscollectors.com/sn/winlookup.php

    According to the site I just linked to #73149 was made in 1896. It may not have left the warehouse till 1899 but it's a Pre-1899 rifle. Pre-1899's are more valuable, as you know. Use this link for Winchester manufacture dates


    It is NOT a pre-1899 rifle!!!

    The link you provided to John Spangler's and Marc Wade's website is not an accurate source of Winchester DOM information. I have personally spoken with John about updating the Winchester section of his website.

    The vast majority of the other Winchester serialization/DOM listings found on the internet and in the various reference books (such as the Blue Book) were all formulated using the flawed (inaccurate) information that George Madis published back in the 1960s. I am slowly putting together a new Winchester serialization versus Date Of Manufacture (DOM) reference book. The number of records to compile is staggering to say the least.
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by jakedaniel
    73149 is a 5 digit number. 1899's start at 147xxx. I'm not wrong on this

    http://www.rawles.to/Pre-1899_FAQ.html

    Is he wrong too? Check this link out for pre 1899 dates


    Yes, you are incorrect concerning this issue, and Yes, www.rawles is also wrong.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity