Dinosaur
| quote: Originally posted by Scooter123:
Lets clear up a few things about the 1873 Winchester.
First, that receiver was originally Flame Colored, NOT BLUED.
Second, there isn't any hint of oxidation in those scratches. So those scratches are less that 10 years old and likely were done less than 3 years ago. The sideplates in the white, that was likely done between 10 and 20 years ago but environmental factors such as humidity could throw that way off.
Sadly there is no value of this rifle as a collectable. At this point I would be thinking about sending the Barrel and Receiver to Ford's for a proper refinish and start soaking that wood in acetone to draw out all those years of oil. From what I can see of the grain in that butt stock it would make for a rather pretty rifle. Note, all I would do to the stock and forearm is to draw out all the old oil hiding the features of that wood and apply a fresh coat or three of tung oil. I would not try to sand out any dents or do any filling on the stock, this is an old rifle with many years of use and it deserves to look it's age.
First off, color case hardening was an option. Your subsequent musings couldn’t be more wrong either. You’re calling me a liar simply because you lack the smarts to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Smug, rude and stupid all in one post. Quite an achievement. |
| | |
Member
| quote: Lets clear up a few things about the 1873 Winchester.
First, that receiver was originally Flame Colored, NOT BLUED.
Yes, let us clear up a few things about the 1873 Winchester... From The Winchester Handbook by George Madis: "Polished blue steel parts and bright brass parts were the standard for this model. Hammers, triggers, and levers were case hardened, as were most of the internal moving parts. Color case hardening was available on special order as an extra. Most internal parts were polished bright, as were muzzles. Plating on the entire gun or on parts specified by the customer was offered. Nickel, silver or gold plating was rarely ordered but may be found. Browning was a special feature which, although offered for many years, is exceedingly rare." |
| | |
Dinosaur
| I believe an apology is in order, Scooter123, or are you really doubling down on dumbass? Don’t think you can call members liars out of stupidity and then cowardly slink off rather than admit you fucked up like a man. |
| | |
Member
| I will apologize concerning my lack of knowledge. I have a 1904 vintage 1892 Winchester that was originally flame colored. I made the mistaken assumption that all Winchesters in this time frame were flame colored. So I made a bad assumption and will admit it. I won't apologize for calling someone a liar because you will not find the word liar in my initial post. I also will not retract my opinion that this particular rifle was "Bubba'd" within the past 20 years. If those scratches were 133 years old and still have a high luster that receiver would have to have been made of stainless steel. BTW, in the 1908-1913 time frame several steel manufacturers were working on developing/discovering Stainless steel. Most common date for announcement of this new material was 1913. Anyhow that receiver is not stainless. If you scratch any carbon steel and leave it exposed to air after 133 years those scratches will show corrosion. Looking at the pictures posted I see reflections from the lights used for the photograph in these scratches, which means that they look fresh. If you really want to settle this take that rifle to the Cody Museum and ask their experts if they think those scratches are 133 years old. You may also want to ask yourself if a Texas Ranger who just spent a months salary on a new rifle would have taken his knife to that brand new rifle and scratch it up.
I've stopped counting.
|
| | | Posts: 5647 | Location: Michigan | Registered: November 07, 2008 | 
IP
|
|
Dinosaur
| quote: Originally posted by Scooter123:
I will apologize concerning my lack of knowledge. I have a 1904 vintage 1892 Winchester that was originally flame colored. I made the mistaken assumption that all Winchesters in this time frame were flame colored. So I made a bad assumption and will admit it.
I won't apologize for calling someone a liar because you will not find the word liar in my initial post. I also will not retract my opinion that this particular rifle was "Bubba'd" within the past 20 years. If those scratches were 133 years old and still have a high luster that receiver would have to have been made of stainless steel.
BTW, in the 1908-1913 time frame several steel manufacturers were working on developing/discovering Stainless steel. Most common date for announcement of this new material was 1913.
Anyhow that receiver is not stainless. If you scratch any carbon steel and leave it exposed to air after 133 years those scratches will show corrosion. Looking at the pictures posted I see reflections from the lights used for the photograph in these scratches, which means that they look fresh. If you really want to settle this take that rifle to the Cody Museum and ask their experts if they think those scratches are 133 years old. You may also want to ask yourself if a Texas Ranger who just spent a months salary on a new rifle would have taken his knife to that brand new rifle and scratch it up.
You made a lot of bad assumptions. I made it clear that my father, who happened to be a very honest man, told me he bought it in that condition in the early 1930’s and that I personally first saw it in that very condition in 1963 when it came out of storage, was fired, and returned to storage. It became mine upon his passing in 1979. When the markings were made prior and by whom, I have no idea and as I said I believe any connection to the Rangers is wild speculation and a waste of time to pursue. I trust my father’s word about when he bought it and it’s condition then, and I know personally as an eyewitness that it hasn’t been molested since 1963. In other words, my friend, you think you know what you’re talking about but I know for a fact that you don’t. Feel free to send someone from the Cody Museum to inspect it and I’ll reimburse you the costs if they don’t concur that you’re talking out of your ass, because why should I pay for your stupidity? I’m not the stubborn fool here. |
| | |
Dinosaur
| To be fair to Scooter123, while wracking my brain over how such a straight up member could be so obstinate I got around to enlarging the photos I posted and it really does kind of look like it was done around 4:30 pm yesterday, which I can only attribute to them being taken with my son’s cell phone under lighting conditions unknown to me. In one’s hands it looks exactly like what it is, a standard no frills rifle owned at some point prior to 1932 or 1933 by someone who should have been carving on trees instead of rifle receivers, that has been frozen in time since. Nothing more or less and that’s all I have to say but the Cody Museum offer does remain open and I’m also open to side wagers. |
| | |
Member
| It's not a defense but I missed your third post about your father. Now that I've read it I do believe what you've posted I can only say that your father knew his stuff when it comes to preserving steel firearms. In most homes those scratches would be lines of rust. I'll also rescind the suggestion that you send the rifle to Ford's for a proper restoration. This is your fathers rifle as it was when he acquired it so if you wish to keep it as it is I can understand that. Just keep in mind that I don't have a high opinion of whoever butchered that rifle, they should be strung up by their toes.
I've stopped counting.
|
| | | Posts: 5647 | Location: Michigan | Registered: November 07, 2008 |
IP
|
|
