Original Winchester or NOT?

LeverBar · Post by **LeverBar** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:29 pm

OOOOOHHHH MY! I do need your help!

Just bought a Model 94 .32 Winchester Special, 26 inch Octagon Barrel, full magazine.

Problem: there is no stamping on the tang where it usually says "Model 1894 Winchester Trade Mark" or one of the similar stampings. Also, there is no hole/screw for the front of a tang sight.

Did Winchester manufacture 94's without the stamping and without the smaller tang screw?

The tang is slightly sprung upward, and I'm wondering if someone took off metal to make it fit the stock--(weird solution for that problem)--and, what happened to the smaller hole?

The larger screw that holds the buttstock to the tang doesn't fit the hole as well as it should. It can be screwed too far down into the hole.

Purchased the rifle over GunBroker, but none of the photos provided on the site and in the seller's email showed this portion of the rifle. I've just begun to discuss this with the seller, so I'm not certain what we are going to do if the rifle's tang has been altered.

Serial number: 340xxx.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:43 pm

Whatever turns out to be the case, I hope the seller treats you right.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:34 pm

The answer to your first question is yes. But much later than your serial number indicates. (1906) When you say the "tang", are you referring to the upper or lower?

According to my Madis' "The Winchester Book, the upper tang should have the hole for a tang sight. And should be marked Model 1894. When you say the stock screw doesn't fit correctly, does it appear that metal has been removed from the upper tang?

One thing that you must remember with Model 1894 of this era, there were many custom rifles supplied by the factory. I believe that a letter is available from the Cody Museum thru serial# 380,XXX and may shine a little more light on that particular rifle. However, IIRC, it runs $45 per serial # search.

LeverBar · Post by **LeverBar** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:36 am

Upper tang.

The screw can be turned farther into the hole than it should be able to go. The head can sink beneath the top of the tang metal, and the screw point then sticks out 1/8 inch or more below the lower tang.

Thanks for the sentiment, Ted.

20cows · Post by **20cows** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:26 am

Remove the buttstock and see if there is evidence that the tang has been replaced by having a later model tang welded on the old receiver. The original tang may have been broken.

This was a common fix for a common problem on a gun that old.

coyote nose · Post by **coyote nose** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:11 am

leverbar, sounds like an altered tang. Did you purchase the gun as an old shooter at a shooter price, or did you buy it as a shooter with investment potential? If the former and you still like the gun your problem is solved, if the latter then I would ship it back. You would forever be explaining the tang to other potential buyers/collectors and they and you would be soured with the gun. I think the dealer that sold it should DEFINITELY have mentioned it, unless it is a seller that knows nothing about guns (ie: estate sale, etc). As for the tang screw, is the hole in the Tang too deep or is the head of the tang screw too thin?

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:42 am

Pull the stock and you will probably find that the upper tang had broken and a later 94 tang was welded onto it. This might explain the lack of the top tang hole. Whatever, Winchester DID NOT install unmarked upper tangs on the model 1894.

LeverBar · Post by **LeverBar** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:04 pm

The hole for the larger upper tang screw is too large--wide and deep. I compared it to a Winchester 94 of mine from 1912. The screw for the 1906 (questionable tang) is slightly fatter in head and in shaft with threads that are wider spaced. That screw barely fits in the 1912 hole and will not fit the 1912 lower tang threads and hole size.

The lower tang hole of the 1906 appears to have been altered to accomodate the larger screw--forced or reamed poorly. There is a lip of metal surrounding the hole on the outside of the lower tang.

I have taken the buttstock off. It readily falls away from the tangs, whereas, with my 1912, I have to give it a forceful nudge to disengage it.

Under the upper tang is full of diagonal machining marks.

Near the hammer where the receiver is rounded to match the side of the buttstock, there are many scratchmarks from the hammer downward on both sides. To the rear of this on the left side of the upper tang 1/2 inch in front of the rear of the hammer, there is a great imperfection--a machining error. Someone has created or left a depression in the tang. The smooth contour from the rear of the tang up beside the hammer to where the tang becomes the receiver--the smooth contour has a slight depression. The tang becomes thinner here than it was coming from the back, and then gets larger again as it comes out of the depression. The finish is different here also--it changes from a smooth sanding(?) to those horizontal scratchmarks around and in front of the hammer position.

The edge of the tang when viewed from the side is also different. On the 1906, where the flat surface from the tail widens to accomodate the rear of the hammer, the surface changes angle slightly and is wider than the 1912. The 1912 also changes angle here, but where it does, the flair going forward forms an apparent pointed look. The 1906 seems to have a different tang, or its edge has been ground off slightly at the hammer area.

Are there supposed to be any markings on the underside of the upper tang?

I paid a thousand dollars for this rifle--I thought it would be the one I would keep in our family to honor my Father who died last year. I didn't mind paying that much for an "Excellent" "original blue" 94. But this one has a doctored tang it appears, and two gun people who know, say the blue is cold blued--not original--and it does show when holding the rifle.

Dad was a bit of a perfectionist when it came to his rifles, his gardens, and his work. This rifle will not honor his life, his memory.

I've asked the seller to take the rifle back. It would be good if he would.

For those of you who would like photos, I have yet to learn how to post them. Seems as if the time is right to learn!

salvo · Post by **salvo** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:07 pm

That just burns me up! How someone could list/sell a gun and not be up front on the condition. I sure hope he refunds your money as easily as he took it.
Good luck and keep us posted.

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:35 pm

All your "symptoms" are indicators of a welded upper tang. The seller was dishonest and I would definitely call him on it. Ask for a refund ASAP!

LeverBar · Post by **LeverBar** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:50 pm

He has refused the refund option.

I have just finished writing an email asking him to reconsider this position.

I have seen unethical sellers' names shared here on the forum. If he can't do what is right, I'll send a heads-up to forum members, so you folks will know to be careful of is dealings.

71fan · Post by **71fan** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:35 am

Sorry to hear about your situation Leverbar.

I looked at the auction and the seller sounds like he knows what he is doing. He knows enough to correctly identify the front and rear sights, clearly states that the bluing is original, and comments on the bore and action. He should have known about the tang problems and probably did. The wood is sanded / refinished too.

Unfortunately, he listed it as an AS-IS No Refund auction.

Well, if he doesn't come around you'll be his first negative feedback.

It's still a nice looking rifle and will probably shoot great, but you'll always have a sour taste about it.

I am always VERY nervous about this sort of think when buying on Gunbroker or Auction Arms, but thankfully I haven't been stung too bad yet.

Good luck to you. If you do get stuck with it, you could send it off to Mike Hunter to get it made right and stamped, etc.

levers · Post by **levers** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:47 am

I looked at the auction too.......convenient how he left out a picture of the upper tang in all those photos. Seems pretty likely to me that he knew the gun wasn't right when he sold it.

If he doesn't make right, let him know you'll be posting his name on line and then email him the link to the posting.

.45colt · Post by **.45colt** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:27 am

I too am sorry for this. what a slease. PLEASE post this guys information so no one else gets stung.Jim.

jazman · Post by **jazman** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:39 pm

I agree. This guy sounds like a crook, he must have known. Crooks need to be identified on every gun and other board there is; only way to stop them. Really sorry to hear about all of this, especially with the back story on why you bought it.
I hope the seller does the honorable thing and refunds your money, no matter how he listed the auction, since he lied.
Jim

LeverBar · Post by **LeverBar** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:39 pm

Yes, it is peculiar that the photos do not show the tang. I emailed him, asking for more photos, and the five additional photographs did not show it either.

Interesting: he is an ex-law enforcement officer and an ex-Marine. I thought I could count on him to do right.

I'd prefer he show his integrity without a threat. I really don't want to use our forum, posting his name here, as a threat. I will offer it to you people after his show if he ends with hiding behind his ruse.

I have explained to him the true condition of the rifle, have shown him the fault of his reasoning, have tried to offer him the idea that his description of the rifle is supposedly what the "as is" is. On one hand he says he is ignorant about firearms, and on the other he says that the rifle is "excellent" for a 100-year-old piece. So how can an ignorant person accurately determine what excellence is? Oh well.

He has the money in his pocket, and unless he his able to admit a mistake, or unless he is a good person, I'll be stuck with the rifle.

I won't keep it. I'll begin by offering it for sale through my local gun fellow. He is a fine human, and we both will tell potential buyers that the rifle is not original--explain the changes. That way, whatever price they pay, they will be satisfied and hopefully feel good about the rifle.

It will make someone a good shooter, but it will leave a hole in my pocket and add another person's name to the list of dishonorable people I've encountered.

Do you folks ask for a 3-day inspection period when it is not noted in the auction? (See? I'm learning from this lesson already!)

Post by **Hobie** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:22 pm

I'm auctioning some stuff now, not mine. You'll note my return policy in the auction.

.45colt · Post by **.45colt** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

I think I would pursue a claim in small claims court.why should You have to take a loss because of this crook. I have done it twice when I was ripped off and they laughed in my face.when people like this stand before a judge things have a way of working out. If I had to I would take a vacation and meet this guy face to face. It is clear He knew exactly what He was doing.
Hunterrestorations could no doubt fix this rifle and re-letter the tang.Jim.

LeverBar · Post by **LeverBar** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:04 pm

Thanks to all for your comments, shared knowledge, and empathy.

Small claims is too much for me. I've been quite ill for six years come November, and I don't have energy to spare to even allow myself to get upset about this, let alone travel and present his trap in court. I have to give what energy I have to my wife and sons.

He found a good mark, didn't he!

coyote nose · Post by **coyote nose** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:39 pm

...we both will tell potential buyers that the rifle is not original--explain the changes. That way, whatever price they pay, they will be satisfied and hopefully feel good about the rifle.

Leverbar, while the gun may not honor your Dads memory your honesty and integrity in telling potential buyers the guns defects WILL honor him. He raised a decent honest son and I am quite sure he would be proud of your actions.

kirkwood · Post by **kirkwood** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:55 pm

You might be able to write this off as a loss on your federal income taxes. At least you can maybe get a deduction to help recover some of the loss. You should tell the seller that you are writing this off on your taxes and as such the IRS will get all the information about why you are claiming a loss and who the seller is. This has been known to get people to refund money on a bad business deal since they don't want the IRS contacting them for any reason. (Who would?)

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:09 pm

If any part of your transaction used the U.S. Mail system as in mailing a check or money order to the other party he could be charged with mail fraud. Check with your local postal inspectors to see if they can be of any help.

Rusty <><