gun fraud? 1924 made 357 magnum?

[sthwestvictoria]

From reading Fryxells books and others my understanding was the 357 magnum was not born to Elmer Keith until 1935.

http://i46.tinypic.com/258miir.jpg

Is this a re-barrel job?

[square butte]

Yes, or rebored. Many 1892 winchester were rebarreled in .357 mag. The serial number will confirm the original manufacture date - but not the conversion to .357

[StrawHat]

A lot of 1892 Winchesters were rebored to handle the 357 and 44 Magnum cartridges. This appears to be one of them.

I have a Winchester 1895 rifle that was built in 1900. It is currently chambered for the 405 WCF, a cartridge that came out in 1904.

[gewehrfreund]

The sling swivel studs also look very 1924:rolleyes:

[bob208]

strawhat your 95 could be right. the custom shop would pull a batch of receivers from the line and use them if a new cal. came out it would get put on a receiver in stock.

the 92 is a modified rifle. it was very common to rebarrel or rebore .25-20s and .32-20 s to .357.

[ReloaderFred]

Prior to Marlin chambering their 1894's to .357 Magnum, the only way to get a rifle in that caliber was to have one of the old ones either rebored or rebarreled. It's probably not fraud, just custom made.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[EDK]

I had a junker 1892 WINCHESTER in 32/20 converted to 357 back around 1966. The first commercial 38/357 lever guns I encountered were 1866 replicas in 38 special around 1974. I got my first 1894c MARLIN around 1980.

It looks good, but way too high a price for me. You may have a different situation in Australia and it might be a bargain THERE. Mike Venturino's SHOOTING LEVER ACTION RIFLES OF THE OLD WEST is a good reference ... and entertaining reading.

:redneck::cbpour::2gunsfiring_v1:

[TXGunNut]

How do you say "caveat emptor" in Australian? Looks like a shooter, not a collector. I'm not a collector so I like it, just can't get past the price.

[405]

Without a doubt it's a rebore or rebarrel (my guess would be a rebarrel as it looks very heavy in oct. form to have ever been on a 92 originally). The thing that bothers me about the ad is that it states, "Rare model 92, 16" heavy octagonal barrel..." I don't know if that is clever wordsmithing, simple omission of fact or does border on deceit.

It appears to be a well done modification including what looks like a button mag set up. It may be a very good and handy shooter but at 1500 seems a little stiff. As a price point comparison it would be interesting to compare it to say a M94 Marlin in 357. Since neither the modified Win 92 nor a modern Marlin M94 have much collector value they could be price compared as being primarily shooters.

[Bedell]

The .357 Magnum cartridge was introduced in 1934.

[gundownunder]

It would make a great gun for pigs and goats in the scrub.
If you don't have some history for it, like "who converted it and when", it would just be an ordinary shooter and worth a lot less than the asking price. I would also get it checked by a competent gunsmith to make sure "Bubba" didn't make it.

[StrawHat]

...strawhat your 95 could be right. the custom shop would pull a batch of receivers from the line and use them if a new cal. came out it would get put on a receiver in stock...

While what you say is correct, my rifle started life as a 30 Gov't rifle and I had the work done to convert it to 405 WCF. I wanted a 405 and originals were expensive and Browning and Winchester had not yet brought out the new 1895s. A rebarrel, some action work, a little handloading and I had what I wanted. Same thing probably happened to the 1892 in the original posting.

[pietro]

What I see is a fishing expedition. [smilie=1:

Well, the bait is out, & the seller's just waitin' to set the hook, to catch a big sucker @ $1500 - twice the normal price IMHO. :holysheep



.

[Four Fingers of Death]

That set up with the button half length mag in 32/20 was very popular in Australia and were available for $350-450 until recently. I have never seen a half mag one with a octangular barrel (or a short barrel for that matter), but that doesn't mean much. IN my mind it should be worth less not more. Be a good bush gun.

Probably not deciet, just ignorance. As we say in Australia, he's not behid the door when it comes to asking for a good price though. Divide that figure by two and then deduct a hundred dollars and you have a more realistic price. Maybe ever knock $50 off for the modern sling swivel stud.

It seems possibe to get horrendously big prices for some guns on the net. I will not be rushing this guy though, I will just stick to my 1927 vintage 92 in 32/20 and my unknown 357 Rossi.

[Four Fingers of Death]

$1500!!!! I though I saw $1100. With that in mind, divide that by a factor of three and then start haggling. Worth squat as a collector, unless it is marked with Police or Jail markings or something like that.

Thinking about it, I always thought that the 20" length barrels came with a saddle carbine style buttplate and I feel sure that the Octangular Barrel models were all full length mags. This is either a special order gun that has been rebored or a bitza!

[pietro]

FWIW, in the late 60's & early 70's, several vendors (Numrich Arms for one) offered $29.95 "kits", consisting of either round or octagonal barrels, for converting Model 1892's & 92's to .357 or .44 magnum,

Rifles originally chambered to 25-20 or .32-20 were best for the .357 conversion; .38-40's or .44-40's for .44 mag - both due to the different magazine throat diameter boring in the receiver faces, and the size of the cartridge guides.

.

[Four Fingers of Death]

This looks like a 92' version of the 1873 Brushpopper that a firm in the States market using an 1873 action. Nowwwwwwwwww, if you could squeeze 10x38s in there, that would be a fair to middling cowboy action rifle.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

Elmer Keith had almost nothing to nothing to do with the 357 Magnum. He had very little use for such "peashooters", as he categorized them.

Try Phil Sharpe.

[PanaDP]

Elmer Keith had almost nothing to nothing to do with the 357 Magnum. He had very little use for such "peashooters", as he categorized them.

Try Phil Sharpe.

Elmer Keith's experimentation with heavy .38 special loads was the entire basis for the .357M.

[429421Cowboy]

Elmer Keith's experimentation with heavy .38 special loads was the entire basis for the .357M.

+1 i was under the same impression after reading most of Keith and alot of Taffin's writings that his work with the .38/44 frame was eventually to lengthen the .38 case 1/16" to prevent loading in a smaller frame and that was that.