Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Bert

elubsme
saw a winchester 32 rimfire octagon barrel and striped receiver only no markings on tang. barrel had a 2 line address and 32 rimfire and the winchester proof mark on it.it did have a front sight and a rear sight which looked like a buck horn sight barrel did have rifling let but was pretty dark and looked pitted it measured 26" long not sure if it was a high wall or low wall i dont know alot about these rifles he wanted a 100.00 for it mabe i should have bought it????barrel had no pits on out side but mostly in petina the receiver did have 1 pitted spot not real bad had no camera with me..Thanks
0

Comments

9 comments

Date Votes
  • elubsme
    well my pawinlaw tells me i am the proud owner of the lowall? highwall 32 rimfire barrel and striped receiver he picked it up today i am 250 miles from him so soon as i get it ill post pic for a price check and to find out which it is..Thanks
    0
  • Bert H.
    The Winchester DOM booklet you have was undoubtedly published by George Madis... who is now notorious for his inaccuracies. Consider this... the original Winchester records at Cody are available up to serial number 59,999, which from memory was made in 1907. I do not have the records for the later production Model 1895s (yet), so I can not say if 1927 is correct for a serial number in the 417000 range. Have you tried removing the forend stock and checking for a 2-digit year stamp?
    0
  • elubsme
    You are correct about Madis writing this booklet. I also have U.S. military arms dom by him too. Are both of these fiction? How about Colts dom by R.L. Wilson (all rights reserved by Madis)? Are all three full of bogus information? btw, I was going to look you up at the Reno show, but we had to cancel our trip. Eddie
    0
  • ruger41
    R.L. Wilson made some nice books but I dunno how accurate all of his info is either--especially since he was in prison for fraud for inflating gun values. http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/stories/index.html?id=539
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by elubsme
    You are correct about Madis writing this booklet. I also have U.S. military arms dom by him too. Are both of these fiction? How about Colts dom by R.L. Wilson (all rights reserved by Madis)? Are all three full of bogus information? btw, I was going to look you up at the Reno show, but we had to cancel our trip. Eddie


    I trust nothing that Madis wrote, and even less by R.L. (I am a Crook) Wilson. All of my Winchester data is derived directly from the records at the Cody Firearms Musuem.

    I will be in Reno next April.
    0
  • p.muerrle
    In regards to George Madis, he is one of the few Winchester authors that actually spend a load of time in the plant. He interviewed in person many employees. He was in every inch of the place including "the tunnels", and sub basements. If it wasn't for him alot of the info at Cody wouldn't be there. He never even kept original material, he made copies and gave originals to Cody. Like me he rescued a ton of stuff out of the dumpsters. The problem is not Georges inaccuracies, it is the fact that new info is being discovered all the time. Georges work is not definitive. No author's is. Alot of his work is spot on and a good reference. As more info comes out some things may be proven wrong but he certainly is a great source of info for collectors. I see no reason to discredit all of his research over serial no. discrepancies which may not have been available at the time of publication.
    0
  • elubsme
    Thanks Bert, I will be in Reno tomorrow & Friday and probably many days in the future. My wife's doctors are in Reno. We live in Susanville, Ca. 80 miles north. Eddie
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by elubsme
    Thanks Bert, I will be in Reno tomorrow & Friday and probably many days in the future. My wife's doctors are in Reno. We live in Susanville, Ca. 80 miles north. Eddie


    I pass through Susanville on my way home from Reno... it is a pleasant little town.
    0
  • Bert H.
    quote:Originally posted by p.muerrle
    In regards to George Madis, he is one of the few Winchester authors that actually spend a load of time in the plant. He interviewed in person many employees. He was in every inch of the place including "the tunnels", and sub basements. If it wasn't for him alot of the info at Cody wouldn't be there. He never even kept original material, he made copies and gave originals to Cody. Like me he rescued a ton of stuff out of the dumpsters. The problem is not Georges inaccuracies, it is the fact that new info is being discovered all the time. Georges work is not definitive. No author's is. Alot of his work is spot on and a good reference. As more info comes out some things may be proven wrong but he certainly is a great source of info for collectors. I see no reason to discredit all of his research over serial no. discrepancies which may not have been available at the time of publication.


    Pauline,

    Please do not get me wrong... I personally liked George, and he did indeed do a tremendous amount for the Winchester collecting community. I do not discredit "all" of what he wrote, but with that said, the inaccuracies he published unfortunately go way beyond just the serial number discrepancies. His so called "rarity" tables are as equally flawed, as are many of his personal hand written letters of authenticity. I wholeheartedly agree with you in that all of the new material being discovered is of great value to those of us who are earnestly researching it.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity