1886 Winchester Barreled in 348

[missionary5155]

Good morning
In all this 1886 is one interesting find ! That scope setup is without doubt a unique approach.

Smokey That was a good observation on the carrier / bolt face issue. Forgot all about the 50-110's. If that is an original 50-110 receiver they are in that "somewhat" rare category. Still a very nice rig to be the proud owner of.
Mike in Peru

[W.R.Buchanan]

Ed: that sounds like the most logical explanation. It also seems logical that Winchester would have been the ones to re-barrel that gun, as I doubt there were that many Winchester .348 barrels just floating around from 1935 to 1949. Kind of a specialized thing as most people back then used 30-30's or .30-06's for hunting.

The scope mount is definitely cool and if it repeats its position well enough to shoot 3-4" groups at 100 yards then I'd say you are good to go.

.348 Win is not known for tack driver accuracy, it is more about power in the woods for larger game and a great brush cartridge.

I almost bought a Deluxe Model 71 ( Receiver Sight and Checkering) about 20 years ago which was in real nice condition but they wanted $1400 for it and wouldn't budge. Bet they'd want $3500+ for it now.

That is definitely a unique gun and I would seriously send Pics to Turnbull and see what they think about it. They have seen just about everything during their restoration business, and maybe could shed some more light on the gun. I know they are easy to talk to and would probably be helpful.

Randy

[Eddie17]

I will contact Turnbull with pictures an detail, sounds like a good plan!
But my real reason of this post is how to get the Whittmore rings off the Weaver 2.5 scope. I do not what to lose the pieces of this "unigue scope mount" .
Also who would repair an bring the scope up to usable condition?
All input is greatly appreciated!
This is something that's been on the back burner, I'd like to get it done!
Thanks,
Ed

[Shawlerbrook]

I would also opt for a Cody letter. I have a 1894SRC made in 1906 that was rebarrelled at the Winchester factory to 25 35 in the 30's. There are some markings on the barrel that tell the story.

[Eddie17]

Thank you, will try to contact with info.

[Old-Win]

I really doubt that Winchester would rebarrel that rifle. First, it was born during the BP era and those rifles operated at about 26-28,000 PSI. Steels were not nearly that good at that time. By the time the .33 Winchester came out with smokeless powder, pressures started to rise. Chrome moly steels were in use and advertised as "Winchester Proof Steel" in the barrels and probably the actions. By the time the Model 71 came out, Winchester was advertising "Winchester Proof Steel" for added strength. The operating pressure of the .348 Winchester approaches 44,000 PSI. I have a hunch, that the reason Winchester used the large base on the .348 is so it could not be easily fitted to another rifle. The 45-70 case that the .33 Winchester is based, on has plenty of room for powder to match the .348 so why didn't Winchester just neck down the 45-70 case to .348 and build the Mod 71 on that case. This is just conjecture on my part but something you may want to look in to.

[Eddie17]

Old-Win, wouldn't the receiver of the day, a 1886 design be able to handle the pressures? With a new barrel?

[skeettx]

Get a Cody letter and all will be solved
https://centerofthewest.org/explore/...earms-records/

[Malamute]

There was a change in the material and heat treat of the 86 receivers. They are sometimes referred to as black powder and smokeless powder receivers, but that's a general term as to period, I don't know that there weren't any smokeless chambered guns made in the early type, though that may have been the point that they started with 33. Elmer Keith and others mentioned the differences, and suggested loads appropriate for each type when handloading higher powered handloads for hunting.

Ive heard Winchester would re-barrel some 86s to 33 and perhaps 348, but I seriously doubt they would do so with a non-factory made barrel. Barrels were sold for gunsmiths or whoever to change them, its not terribly uncommon to see guns with factory barrels that weren't factory installed. Someone mentioned the difference in proof marks that tell the tale.

I agree, it looks to be refinished at some point. The pics aren't super detailed, but what I could tell, it doesnt look too bad. There were good people at polishing a gun for bluing, and bad. Most are familiar with the bad ones. If well done, its hard to tell other than things like the rust pitting on the tang with good blue right next to it. Whoever blued it was a fair hand at polishing and not ruining the markings and edges. An up close examination may reveal more clues, but that's my take from the pics we have available. At the top end of the refinishing scale, a factory refinish looks like a factory finish. Those guys are literally pros that do it all day every day. I don't think its factory refinish, just making the point about quality of work. Not all reblues are poor work.

[woodbutcher]

And the adventure continues.That`s a swell looking rifle.Please keep the updates coming as you are able.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[Eddie17]

Thank you Sheettx for the link. Fillled out the form online, they replied and will send invoice for payment. So will be interesting to find some history on what the gun was when it left the factory.
Still looking for help on the Weaver 2.5 scope rebuild or repair.
Thanks to all, again for the help.
Ed

[pietro]

Still looking for help on the Weaver 2.5 scope rebuild or repair.

If you read through the description Whittemore provided with his patent application, you could most likely be able to noodle out how to remove the scope from the mount/rings, so it can be sent out for refurbishing.

https://www.google.ch/patents/US2451266


.

[skeettx]

As for the rings, study the info on the Stith mounts.
http://www.hallowellco.com/stith_mou...definition.htm

This early Weaver K-2.5 did not have centering cross hairs.
I would check for a set screw under the front mount ring.
Mike

[Eddie17]

Just paid my invoice, wait time may be up 4 weeks for letter.
Will look at scope rings closer.
Anyone have a source for a quality rebuilder on the Weaver Scope?

[skeettx]

CALL here and check
http://parsonsscopeservice.com/

[TXGunNut]

Old-Win, wouldn't the receiver of the day, a 1886 design be able to handle the pressures? With a new barrel?

Very unlikely. The 71 receiver was manufactured to handle pressures of the 348, much higher than anything the 1886 was chambered for. Firing factory or full-strength hand load 348 ammo in this rifle would likely eventually damage the weaker 1886 action. The repair shop gunsmiths at Winchester were certainly aware of this and most likely would not install a 348 barrel on an 1886 action.

[Eldon]

There are 100s of K2.5s for sale out there that are in great condition. For what you could buy a fine one for the cost and wait to get it repaired are hardly worth it.

Here's one that will close out at around $100.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Weaver-K2-5-...AAAOSwmo5ZpKi-

You won't live long enough to get a scope fixed by Parsons.

[Eldon]

Other weird Winchesters exist.

I just bought a "64" deluxe rifle that is ALL 64 except the receiver was made in 1908 and says "1894" on the tang.







So did someone send an ancient 1894 carbine/rifle back to New Haven and had it redone OR did a really skilled person build this.?

Note complete lack of ovaled holes, bunged up screw heads etc..

[TXGunNut]

So did someone send an ancient 1894 carbine/rifle back to New Haven and had it redone OR did a really skilled person build this.? -Eldon

The Cody museum will likely have records of your rifle but it will likely be SNA (serial number applied) date only and it will be listed as an 1894 if your production date info is correct. (381524-429757) The barrel markings could be helpful in unravelling this mystery. A "P" in a circle will indicate a mail order barrel, the WP proof is a factory barrel but it could have been taken off a 64 or replaced at the factory. The receiver sight is not original and a 1908 receiver did not have holes to accommodate it. Your "64" is a very nice restoration, IMHO.

[smokeywolf]

Eldon, the receiver obviously being a Model 94, may I ask what it says on the barrel? Pretty much all the Model 64s had "Model 64" stamped on the barrel along with the caliber.