Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Winchester reveresed round/octagon barrel

JohnnyBGood
A continuation of the following thread.

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=402554#3188266

Bert wrote:

"Hello John,

That Model 1873 in Madis' book is not factory original. His prose 'Perhaps' is the clue that he knew that it would not letter."

Madis notes that it has a factory letter. I'll ask you the same question I asked tsr1965. Have you handled and inspected this 1873 rifle with the reversed octagon barrel?

I don't collect Winchesters but I always like to broaden my knowledge base.

John
0

Comments

10 comments

Date Votes
  • GuvamintCheese
    I would also like to see this mutant. [:D]
    0
  • He Dog
    The fact that it can be lettered means only that the factory has records of the gun being produced and when it was shipped, but does not warrent the gun is now (or at the time the letter was written) in the condition in which it was shipped from the factory.

    So, one must ask, Have you handled it? Sorry to say Madis' book is not nearly as infallible as you appear to think. That is not a slur on Madis, it is simply fact.
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by JohnnyBGood
    A continuation of the following thread.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked tsr1965. Have you handled and inspected this 1873 rifle with the reversed octagon barrel?

    I don't collect Winchesters but I always like to broaden my knowledge base.

    John

    No, I have not handled and inspected it, but I did look it up in the records myself... and it does not letter with a reverse half-octagon barrel. Madis implied that it might letter.

    As it applies to all of the books Madis wrote and the statistical information he espoused, I have discovered that at least 50% of it is not true (accurate). Based on my own research, it is readily apparent that he did very little actual research of the historical records. Instead, he relied upon what he and his cronies observed through casual examination. Much of what he portrayed as "factual researched" information was simply his own personal opinions and theories.

    Since you are relatively new to this forum, I will add that I have been collecting Winchesters for just over 30-years now, and that I have been researching and studying them in great detail for more than 20-years. For the past 15-years, I have been a member of the Cody Firearms Musuem, and an official volunteer in the research department for the past 5-years (I spend 2-weeks each summer working in the research office). During my time at the CFM, I spend all of my free time researching the surviving Winchester historical records, and I take lots of notes on what I find. I have written several articles for the Winchester Arms Collectors Association (WACA) magazine, and I am also in the process of writing a new reference book on the Model 1885 Single Shot (which is way more work than I ever envisioned). When I complete it (and it has been published), my next reference book will be a completely revised (corrected) Winchester serialization/DOM book. Recently, I assisted Robert (Bob) C. Renneberg with the research necessary to write a newly revised edition to his book "The Winchester Model 94, The First 100 Years" (which is going to publication in November). My point in all of this, is that I have spent an inordinate amount of time researching a number of different Winchester Models, and in doing so, I discovered that Madis's written works are not a credible source of information. You are free to choose what source of information that you want to believe.
    0
  • JohnnyBGood
    So nobody here has handled and inspected the rifle but you know it's not factory original. I'm not even a Winchester collector yet I seem more interested in finding the truth about this rifle than you guys.

    Here's a picture of the front end of the rifle. Not the best clarity but most of the pictures in Madis are of only average quality.

    John

    win1.jpg
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by JohnnyBGood
    So nobody here has handled and inspected the rifle but you know it's not factory original. I'm not even a Winchester collector yet I seem more interested in finding the truth about this rifle than you guys.

    Here's a picture of the front end of the rifle. Not the best clarity but most of the pictures in Madis are of only average quality.

    John

    win1.jpg


    Because you self-admittedly are not a Winchester collector, you are really showing your ignorance concerning how an old Winchester is properly researched. All that is needed to verify the original factory configuration is to look-up the serial number in the original factory warehouse ledgers... one does not need to have the rifle in hand to do that.
    0
  • JohnnyBGood
    quote:Originally posted by Bert H.
    Because you self-admittedly are not a Winchester collector, you are really showing your ignorance concerning how an old Winchester is properly researched. All that is needed to verify the original factory configuration is to look-up the serial number in the original factory warehouse ledgers... one does not need to have the rifle in hand to do that.


    Amazing. As much knowledge and experience as you have and you consider factory letters/records to be infallible.

    I, and the majority of experienced collectors, would never accept a firearm as authentic just because its configuration matched the factory letter. Nor do we immediately dismiss a firearm because it does not match the letter.

    The photo in Madis' book is credited to Tommy Rholes. Is he not a major member of the Winchester Collector's Association? Has anybody ever asked him about this very odd Winchester?

    John
    0
  • glabray
    I have pointed out several times on this forum that factory letters, especially Winchester's, are far from infallible. Johnny is correct. The only way to determine the originality of a gun is to have it inspected by an experienced collector. If the factory letter happens to agree with the collector's inspection that is great. If, however, the letter does not agree, it is a beginner's mistake to assume that the letter is correct and the gun is not as originally made. Unfortunately, there are a very few self-appointed "experts" who like to take the easy route and simply look up a serial number.

    That said, I will add that one of the easiest post-factory modifications to a Winchester to detect is the half-octagon barrel. The first thing to look for is the location of the barrel markings. Next, look at the transition from octagon to round and compare the length and contour of it to a known correct gun. Next, look for evidence of machine marks at the transition and on the round portion of the barrel. There are other things to check too but that gives you a start.
    0
  • shooter10
    It just slays me the way some folks come on this forum with a question and their own answers. If you think it real, fine. The man is telling you in all his 30+ years of experience he would say that it is not original, then that's it. Now, you didn't have to pay anything for that information and you are free to keep looking for someone that says it is original. Personally if it was mine I would take it to Cody, visit the Winchester Museum, and show it to the curator and see what he thinks. Or better yet, take some really fine closeup pictures and send them to him for a good look.

    Good luck! It would be really nice if it was original but I wouldn't bet a bent penny on it.
    0
  • DEEREHART
    hypothetically speaking how tough would it be an accomplished machinist to create this particular anomaly?
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by JohnnyBGood
    Amazing. As much knowledge and experience as you have and you consider factory letters/records to be infallible.

    I, and the majority of experienced collectors, would never accept a firearm as authentic just because its configuration matched the factory letter. Nor do we immediately dismiss a firearm because it does not match the letter.

    The photo in Madis' book is credited to Tommy Rholes. Is he not a major member of the Winchester Collector's Association? Has anybody ever asked him about this very odd Winchester?

    John

    I do not know where you got the idea that I believe that Factory letters are infallible... they most definitely are not. Nor are the original factory records 100% accurate. That said, they are by a wide margin the best source of information better than 99% of the time.

    What you fail to understand, is that any factory original Winchester that is extremely unsual (and a rifle with a reverse octagon barrel qualies as such), would be very well documented in the factory records... and the Model 1873 rifle you refer to is not.

    I do not ever blindly accept a Winchester as being original just because it letters, but I do absolutely use a factory letter or research sheet as a first step screening tool. I have encountered many old Winchesters that "letter" but were not authentic. Likewise, I have encountered a much smaller number of Winchesters that did not letter 100%, but were obviously original. A hands on inspection & evaluation is essential before plunking down a wad of $$$$, but the research letter is almost always my first or conjunctive step.

    All of that said, the Model 1873 in question is not one of those rare exceptions, and if it were real, it would be in the records.

    I personally have met Tommy, and he has never brought that rifle to any of the WACA shows that I have attended... if it truly was an authentic specimen, it would have regulary be displayed at the various Winchester shows. The fact that it never sees the light of day should tell you something about it.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity