Never say Never (Winchesters)
This is in reference to the following two previous threads.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=402554#3188266
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=402951
To briefly recap here, in the prior threads I had mentioned a Model 1873 Winchester pictured in "The Winchester Book" by George Madis which has a very unusual reversed part round/part octagon barrel. By reversed it means that the round portion is at the breech and the octagon part towards the muzzle (see a photo in the previous threads).
It was very quickly stated by others here on the forum that this M 1873 pictured in Madis was not factory original. I asked if anybody had inspected the rifle, wanting to know what clues gave it away as being non-original. As it turned out none of the forum members have handled or inspected this rifle, yet I was assured that it was not factory original, that Winchester would never make such a rifle.
Instead of being curious in knowing the truth about this M 1873, members here seemed more interestd in bashing Mr. Madis [V], or telling me that I was showing my ignorance on how to properly research a Winchester. So, I took it upon myself to see if I could shed more light upon the originality/non-originality of this particular Winchester.
The ownership of the rifle in Mr. Madis' book is credited to Tommy Rholes of Van, Texas. Mr. Rholes began collecting guns in 1966, and in 1970 became a full time dealer in mostly Colts and Winchesters. His web site, http://www.trueguns.com/ is a treat to look through. In 1980 Mr. Rholes founded the Colt Collectors Association.
I called Mr. Rholes this morning, introduced myself and that this reversed barrel rifle was being discussed by some fellow collectors. He no longer owns the rifle, but he does certainly remember it. I asked him if it was factory original and he replied that it was, indeed, all original and very probably one of a kind. I then asked if there was anything about it that was questionable or that might cast doubt as to its originality, and he replied very boldly, "absolutely not."
I did not ask who the present owner of the rifle is as I felt it was not my business, but Mr. Rholes did volunteer that the rifle now resides in New Zealand. If others wish to pursue further information about this rifle perhaps they could make contact with Mr. Rholes at some of the gun shows he attends. He is a very pleasant man to talk with, and thanked me for calling him about the unique Winchester he once owned.
John
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=402554#3188266
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=402951
To briefly recap here, in the prior threads I had mentioned a Model 1873 Winchester pictured in "The Winchester Book" by George Madis which has a very unusual reversed part round/part octagon barrel. By reversed it means that the round portion is at the breech and the octagon part towards the muzzle (see a photo in the previous threads).
It was very quickly stated by others here on the forum that this M 1873 pictured in Madis was not factory original. I asked if anybody had inspected the rifle, wanting to know what clues gave it away as being non-original. As it turned out none of the forum members have handled or inspected this rifle, yet I was assured that it was not factory original, that Winchester would never make such a rifle.
Instead of being curious in knowing the truth about this M 1873, members here seemed more interestd in bashing Mr. Madis [V], or telling me that I was showing my ignorance on how to properly research a Winchester. So, I took it upon myself to see if I could shed more light upon the originality/non-originality of this particular Winchester.
The ownership of the rifle in Mr. Madis' book is credited to Tommy Rholes of Van, Texas. Mr. Rholes began collecting guns in 1966, and in 1970 became a full time dealer in mostly Colts and Winchesters. His web site, http://www.trueguns.com/ is a treat to look through. In 1980 Mr. Rholes founded the Colt Collectors Association.
I called Mr. Rholes this morning, introduced myself and that this reversed barrel rifle was being discussed by some fellow collectors. He no longer owns the rifle, but he does certainly remember it. I asked him if it was factory original and he replied that it was, indeed, all original and very probably one of a kind. I then asked if there was anything about it that was questionable or that might cast doubt as to its originality, and he replied very boldly, "absolutely not."
I did not ask who the present owner of the rifle is as I felt it was not my business, but Mr. Rholes did volunteer that the rifle now resides in New Zealand. If others wish to pursue further information about this rifle perhaps they could make contact with Mr. Rholes at some of the gun shows he attends. He is a very pleasant man to talk with, and thanked me for calling him about the unique Winchester he once owned.
John
0
-
I don't know beans about Winchesters. It seem to me the rifle in question, would have had to be a special order gun. If it doesn't appear in the Winchester records as a special order piece, there is no real way to resolve this. This controversy just degenerates into a he said/she said kind of situation. Being the rifle is now in New Zealand, there is no easy way for a number of knowledgeable Winchester collectors to do a actual hands on, to try and authenticate it or acknowledge it as a fake. 0 -
Bravo to you JohnnyBGood on your tenacious research. Sounds like another can of worms is about to be opened. I, for one have enjoyed Mr. Madis's books (especially the one on Model 12s). Good information, even though the serial number dating was not accurate. I would love to know why someone would order such a barrel though. 0 -
Way to go Johnny for following up on your own question. There is an expert or two on this forum that could learn from your lesson. Please don't put all of us into the self-impressed, Madis bashing category though. Some are just jealous that Madis was the type of first class researcher that they will never be. Small people often think it makes them look bigger to trash talk the big guy. Of course they waited until Madis had passed away so they didn't risk facing him. 0 -
I think you will find with most subjects there will always be differences of opinions . no one does any research with the intent of passing on incorrect information HOWEVER if some information is opinion and other conflicting information is from the horses mouth"FACTORY RECORDS" then I for one go with the records. The rifle in question can not be proven to be factory original unless you can talk to the factory employee that built the rifle. I believe the factory record on one item MAY be in error but to a range of hundreds if not thousands of records state dates that conflict with Madis book then Madis is the one who was misinformed and passed on faulty information. The more knowledgeable one becomes the more opinionated they can become. I for one have enjoyed this post but lets not degrade to a PISSING contest. GIVE IT A REST PLEASE 0 -
quote:Originally posted by glabray
Way to go Johnny for following up on your own question. There is an expert or two on this forum that could learn from your lesson. Please don't put all of us into the self-impressed, Madis bashing category though. Some are just jealous that Madis was the type of first class researcher that they will never be. Small people often think it makes them look bigger to trash talk the big guy. Of course they waited until Madis had passed away so they didn't risk facing him.
I have warned you more than once about your spineless cheap-shot verbal attacks. Even though you will never understand it, I started my research long before Madis passed away, and I personally spoke with him on two different occasions about his "research" on several models... his response was to stop talking to me and walk off. I harbor no jealously what-so-ever about George Madis or his piss poor research skills... my only desire is to educate the open-minded collectors that a fair amount of what he wrote is full of flaws and mistakes. You have demonstrated nothing but pure close-mindedness to learning that Madis was not the so called "expert" he claimed to be, and you exhibit a strange paranoid blind faith in everthing that he wrote. In an odd way, I pity you.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments