winchester 94

rcdis

June 16, 2003 12:10

Hello Bert,
I recently obtained a Winchester model 94 carbine,serial number 1762061,caliber stamp .30-30 Win., serrated hammer, flat checkered steel butt plate, short fore end wood, not tapped for receiver sight, blank upper tang. I'm hoping this Winchester is from 1951 also my birth year, am I close? Thanks, Greg LaHaie

0

• 

  rcdis

  June 16, 2003 12:10

  I have the chance to buy a Winchester 94 like new in box from my brother. He said he has fired about 8 rounds through it. It's got the cross bolt safety and is .45 LC. I think it's a trapper because it's short. He said he would take $350 for it. How much is it worth now and how much will it be worth now that they wont make them anymore?

  0
• 

  mrmike08075

  June 16, 2003 15:23

  winchester had a habit of running up/manufacturing recievers, and "wharehousing" them for later assembly. the best example of this is the model 52 bolt action rifle. my reciever dated many years before the gun was assembled or manufactured.
  
  winchester would also wharehouse finished guns. it was not unheard of to by a gun "new in box" that was 10 years old, and had been in storage with winchester. best regards, mike.
  
  What other dungeon is so dark as ones own heart, what jailer so inexorable as ones own mind.

  0
• 

  wundudnee

  June 16, 2003 19:11

  mrmike is right, also I have read that Winchester would box up a lot of recievers and then use out of the box at random. The serial # was just an indicator of receiver manufacture date, not completion or sale date.
  You see this on a lot of their older 22s, model improvements and receiver dates of manufacture and patent dates often don't coincide.
  
  When they quit making a particular model and started cleaning up old parts they made many puzzles. Thats what makes the old guns interesting.
  
  ....................
  Old? First you forget names; then you forget faces; then you forget to pull your zipper up; then you forget to pull your zipper down.

  0
• 

  rcdis

  June 17, 2003 21:04

  Thanks for the replys
  
  rcdis

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.