Here it is.....
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:12 pm
So, the Winchester 1892 I bought...... here's a few pics.
It's a 1899 vintage in .25-20wcf. She's got a 24" round barrel which because of the relatively tiny .25 cal hole down the middle, you could call it "heavy". I had been looking for a Marlin 1894 in this caliber, but in short, I couldn't find one in the UK over the last 5 years.... I'll probably happen over several now!
Anyway, all's nice and tight, but I may have to replace the main spring and the mag tube spring as they do feel a little weak. On the receiver there are traces of blue, but most turned to a brown patina, that's actually a little rough..... No doubt rusted at some stage. But the barrel and the mag tube, even though show a patina, there are still a lot of traces of the original finish.
Now I know that Marlin case hardened the receivers of all their rifles after 1889, but I believe that Winchester did not as staqndard, but offered it as an extra. I'm wondering if this is why the receiver seems to have worn differently than the barrel and tube? Different finish? Don't know.....
Here's one next to an 1894 Marlin in .32-20, which is 5 years older....... I still think the Marlin is a better looking rifle than the Winchester..
It's a 1899 vintage in .25-20wcf. She's got a 24" round barrel which because of the relatively tiny .25 cal hole down the middle, you could call it "heavy". I had been looking for a Marlin 1894 in this caliber, but in short, I couldn't find one in the UK over the last 5 years.... I'll probably happen over several now!
Anyway, all's nice and tight, but I may have to replace the main spring and the mag tube spring as they do feel a little weak. On the receiver there are traces of blue, but most turned to a brown patina, that's actually a little rough..... No doubt rusted at some stage. But the barrel and the mag tube, even though show a patina, there are still a lot of traces of the original finish.
Now I know that Marlin case hardened the receivers of all their rifles after 1889, but I believe that Winchester did not as staqndard, but offered it as an extra. I'm wondering if this is why the receiver seems to have worn differently than the barrel and tube? Different finish? Don't know.....
Here's one next to an 1894 Marlin in .32-20, which is 5 years older....... I still think the Marlin is a better looking rifle than the Winchester..
