Old Cabinet photo of frontiersman with 1886 Winchester.

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:15 pm

This is a great cabinet photo to me. What do you think. He is not identified. RR7

Terry Murbach · Post by **Terry Murbach** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:23 pm

WONDERFUL, THE REAL McCOY !

Pitchy · Post by **Pitchy** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:53 pm

I don`t know what to think about these stage prop photos, they make me wonder if the person is really like the impression they are presenting or someone dressing up to make it look that way.
Kinda reminds me of the wave of want a be people that bought Harleys , leathers and got tats and claimed to be bikers.
Without a name and proof of what that person did in his life i`m not convinced that he isn`t a banker, sorry.
Dern nice picture though RR as usual.

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:19 pm

GREAT photo!

jkbrea · Post by **jkbrea** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:26 pm

I think he's related to Pitchy. Haven't we seen him in that jacket?

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:12 pm

Pitchy wrote:I don`t know what to think about these stage prop photos, they make me wonder if the person is really like the impression they are presenting or someone dressing up to make it look that way.
Kinda reminds me of the wave of want a be people that bought Harleys , leathers and got tats and claimed to be bikers.
Without a name and proof of what that person did in his life i`m not convinced that he isn`t a banker, sorry.

That's the way I always feel, too. Even if I knew enough to go over them with a fine-tooth comb, I'd always be left wondering if the photographer and costumer were simply smarter-than-average and still fooled me.

Cool and thought-provoking photos, though. Even if they are 'staged', it still reflects an accurate part of history to the extent that that is the image they wanted to portray.

gak · Post by **gak** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:53 pm

Yes great photo. What finish is that? Worn blue or nickel?

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:01 pm

Considering the age of that photo, that 1886 was heavily used by the looks of the lack of blueing on the barrel and mag tube. I would tend to say it is the real McCoy simply because of the age of the fellow in the photo. I can see some young whipper snapper getting a dressed up to look like a frontiersman, but fellows that old are not usually much interested in getting all dressed up to look like a frontiersman. I'm thinking that this fellow had some real history homesteading somewhere and one of his sons or daughters or grandchildren persuaded him to get dressed up in his old buckskin coat and take his well-used '86 down to the photographer and get a picture taken for posterity. The look on his face is one of quietly obliging his 50 year-old daughter or, more likely, a few of his 20 year-old grandchildren.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:12 pm

IMO, he's been there, done that, and lived to a ripe old age to prove how tough he is. I'll bet that rifle saved his hair more than once.

Pitchy · Post by **Pitchy** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:20 pm

He very well could be the real deal, i am just saying one really doesn`t know without some kind of documentation about the life of that person.

PS, that is a relative of mine i`m sure.

jnyork · Post by **jnyork** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:23 pm

KirkD wrote:Considering the age of that photo, that 1886 was heavily used by the looks of the lack of blueing on the barrel and mag tube. I would tend to say it is the real McCoy simply because of the age of the fellow in the photo. I can see some young whipper snapper getting a dressed up to look like a frontiersman, but fellows that old are not usually much interested in getting all dressed up to look like a frontiersman. I'm thinking that this fellow had some real history homesteading somewhere and one of his sons or daughters or grandchildren persuaded him to get dressed up in his old buckskin coat and take his well-used '86 down to the photographer and get a picture taken for posterity. The look on his face is one of quietly obliging his 50 year-old daughter or, more likely, a few of his 20 year-old grandchildren.

I agree completely with this. Check out the well-worn old boots, hardly the thing you would expect to see provided as a "prop" by the studio. I think this old feller is all duded up in what to him is his "Sunday Best", the photo is studio but the man and his outfit are the real deal.

pshort · Post by **pshort** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:44 pm

RR7,
Thanks again for another great old picture........

Paul

missionary5155 · Post by **missionary5155** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:57 pm

Greetings
Part that interests me is that the finish on the Winchester is already worn off. That takes some usage or a good rubdown with some mild acid which I do not think people were inclined to do.
Mike in Peru

Eye-Bite! · Post by **Eye-Bite!** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:02 pm

Generally speaking, on the backside of the photo "Should" be a stamping of the Photo Studio.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:35 pm

Is that his hat and jacket at his feet?

What is he standing on?

Great photo.

ollogger · Post by **ollogger** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:43 pm

I like the photo its neat, who knows bout the guy?
my wife has talked me into a few of those photos
the gun im thinking shows silver cus of the flash? look at the end cap its silver also

ollogger

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:52 pm

I'm a'thinkin' that ain't just some old city dude playin' "dressup". That ensemble seems to fit him to well to be "borrowed"! So, what can you tell us RR?

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:36 pm

I wonder if he is still alive because if he ain't I'm gonna hunt down his relatives to see if I can snag the rifle.

He looks to be the real thing. Too grubby to be a regular working stiff.----------6

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:53 pm

http://historical.ha.com/c/search-resul ... 4294951585

Go to this site and see some of the best photos and documents around. Including this one. I may go to the auction just to see what they go for. WOW! RR7

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:26 pm

Looks like a wolf skin behind him on the ground.

I like his rifle, it's a round barrel, likely a 45-70 from the leaf rear sight. It also has a tang sight. Definately has some wear.

I'd guess he's been around the back country a bit, if not a lot. His outfit may well have been from some earlier time in his life, but I'm thinking he's a pretty genuine frontier type.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:39 am

Malamute wrote: I like his rifle, it's a round barrel, likely a 45-70 from the leaf rear sight. It also has a tang sight. Definately has some wear.

Good eye on that tang sight. I missed that. That adds to the possible authenticity of the man and his rifle. It takes a lot of use to wear the blue off a rifle that fast, and a tang sight is exactly what an older fellow needs to still make those longer shots. (don't ask me how I know).

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:06 am

I'm in the "real deal" group. His facial features look like he's got some Indian or Eskimo in his DNA.

Joe

Eye-Bite! · Post by **Eye-Bite!** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:24 am

Do Eye see a ROLEX?

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:42 am

Looks like the old gent might have got a little broader in the mid-section since the last time he had his buckskin on.

Got a couple buttons open to 'make room.'

pwl44m · Post by **pwl44m** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:48 am

For sure Indian blood.
Now I need some help Guys. I am not an 86 person so tell Me from just the picture what distinguishes it from a 94. I'm not being picky just want to know from a glance how to tell the difference.
I did notice the tang sight or lack thereof, seems like it hangs too far back. It actually looks like a fold in his pants or boot or something lying on the ground behind Him. RR, U have the Picture, is it any more clear ?
@ RR7, even with the naysayers Please don't stop posting these Pictures. I Myself find them fascinating, kinda takes Me back to a time I "think" I would rather be. When I go into a Antique store that has old pics I pour thru them looking for some with Guns in them.
Perry

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:34 pm

pwl44m wrote:For sure Indian blood.
Now I need some help Guys. I am not an 86 person so tell Me from just the picture what distinguishes it from a 94.

Two things. First, the underside of the receiver is solid and round-bottomed. A '94 has a section that drops out of the bottom of the receiver when it is being levered. Second, the loading gate on an '86 has a unique rear hinge section to it, and the front of the loading gate is square. Not easy to get that kind of detail in the photo, but once you've seen an '86 like that, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Regarding the tang sight, I'm not sure that is the proper one. I have an original '86 with the proper tang sight, and the hinge part is more than half way back from the receiver to the end of the grip, so that the bolt can come all the way back without hitting the tang sight. When the tang sight is folded back, it overlaps the top of the front of the comb. Here is a photo that shows both the tang sight and the unique loading gate and hinge plate I was talking about ...

pwl44m · Post by **pwl44m** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:07 pm

Thx Kirk, I thought I could see that raised outline but like U say it is hard to see in the Pic. I am still a little skeptical on the Tang Sight.
Perry

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:22 pm

Yeah, the tang sight in the photo does look kind of odd upon a careful look. It seems too far forward and the bolt would hit it when levered back.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:00 pm

KirkD wrote:Yeah, the tang sight in the photo does look kind of odd upon a careful look. It seems too far forward and the bolt would hit it when levered back.

could it be that he has a long tang gun? yours seems to be a short tang, but maybe it's just the angle.

the peeper on my 86 gets almost kissed by the bolt and it fits into the slot when the bolt is all the way aft.

just wondering

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Also the '86 has a lever shaped like the 1892. The rear of the trigger guard on a 94 has a flat area to engage the trigger-block safety... the '86 and '92, lacking this feature, don't need that flat area.

pwl44m · Post by **pwl44m** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:00 pm

Thx Griff, that helps also. I like to be able to identify a Gun hanging on a wall or sittin in a rack. Yours and Kirks tips are the best and I thought I knew a little bit about Levers. Now I know more, Thank You.
Perry

Lastmohecken · Post by **Lastmohecken** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:15 pm

jnyork wrote:
KirkD wrote:Considering the age of that photo, that 1886 was heavily used by the looks of the lack of blueing on the barrel and mag tube. I would tend to say it is the real McCoy simply because of the age of the fellow in the photo. I can see some young whipper snapper getting a dressed up to look like a frontiersman, but fellows that old are not usually much interested in getting all dressed up to look like a frontiersman. I'm thinking that this fellow had some real history homesteading somewhere and one of his sons or daughters or grandchildren persuaded him to get dressed up in his old buckskin coat and take his well-used '86 down to the photographer and get a picture taken for posterity. The look on his face is one of quietly obliging his 50 year-old daughter or, more likely, a few of his 20 year-old grandchildren.
I agree completely with this. Check out the well-worn old boots, hardly the thing you would expect to see provided as a "prop" by the studio. I think this old feller is all duded up in what to him is his "Sunday Best", the photo is studio but the man and his outfit are the real deal.

I think you might be right. I see an honesty in his eyes and clothes, and the rifle that spells real deal to me.

jackruff · Post by **jackruff** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:30 pm

Assuming the Winchester 1886 was first made in 1886, since this rifle clearly has seen a lot of use, I'd say the photo was taken well after 1886. Was there really any frontier left in the continental United States by then?

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:45 pm

He doesn't look like he spent his life in an office and looks pretty comfortable with the rifle. People weren't routinely carrying cameras in those days, so most pictures like that would be made in a studio. I say he's the real deal.
Thanks for the picture, RR7!

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:44 pm

Grizz wrote:could it be that he has a long tang gun? yours seems to be a short tang, but maybe it's just the angle.

As far as I know, all the 1886's had the same tang. The Model 71's didn't but the 86's did. I'll check it in Madl's book in my office, but I don't recall seeing any upper tang variations. My '86 was made in 1890.

Jackruff wrote:Assuming the Winchester 1886 was first made in 1886, since this rifle clearly has seen a lot of use, I'd say the photo was taken well after 1886. Was there really any frontier left in the continental United States by then?

I'd estimate the photo was taken no later than 1910. If the fellow is 70 years old, he was born in 1820. By the time he was 20 years old and rarin' to go, it would have been 1840. The 86 didn't come along until 1886, but the fellow was around at the time of the Old West, Comanche raids, etc.

Grizz · Post by **Grizz** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:26 pm

Thanks Kirk

I have no idea why I thought there was a long and short tang variation. Glad to know the reality.

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:15 pm

jackruff wrote:Assuming the Winchester 1886 was first made in 1886, since this rifle clearly has seen a lot of use, I'd say the photo was taken well after 1886. Was there really any frontier left in the continental United States by then?

Depends on how you define it, but in a practical sense, yes. We don't know if it was in the lower 48 either, (or even the US for that matter, could be Canadian).

I'm not in too much of a hurry to set a definate date on him. There are still backwoods types in the far flung places today, up to the 50's wouldn't be too out of the question for the lifestyle he seems to represent, tho the photography style was different by then. If he's Native, the beaded buckskin (or elk moose or carbou skin) shirt/jacket isnt too far fetched into the mid 1900's.

A photography historian may be better at setting a date than any indications in the picture.

As to the nuances of spotting an 86, there's several other things that catch the eye. The boss at the bottom of the receiver where the locking bolts come down are very different than a 94 receiver, thats one thing that 92's share with 86's, its very distinctive when you know what to look for (tho in many south american made imported guns they didnt get the lines right in that regard). The overall look is quite different also, proportionally, both to other things and in its own proprotions. The loading gate is very distinctive, often identifiable even in poor pictures. The location of the screws on both sibes of the receiver is different than other models.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:27 pm

Jackruff wrote:Assuming the Winchester 1886 was first made in 1886, since this rifle clearly has seen a lot of use, I'd say the photo was taken well after 1886. Was there really any frontier left in the continental United States by then?

As Kirk sez, easily lots of wilderness left, if not actual frontier. That might be a hard differentiation to make.

KirkD wrote:I'd estimate the photo was taken no later than 1910. If the fellow is 70 years old, he was born in 1840. By the time he was 20 years old and rarin' to go, it would have been 1860. The 86 didn't come along until 1886, but the fellow was around at the time of the Old West, Comanche raids, etc.

And unless he was living in Canada or someplace way up in the mountains, a Civil War veteran.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:46 pm

Oops! I better go back to school for math!

jackruff · Post by **jackruff** » Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:13 pm

KirkD wrote:Oops! I better go back to school for math!

Nah! That's the kind of mistake mathematicians are prone to make. (Ask me how I know.)

mikld · Post by **mikld** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:22 am

Mebbe I look at things differently. I like to look at that photo and see a "real honest to God" frontiersman. I'd rather be "fooled" and think I saw a pioneer standing next to a wolf pelt holding a classic firearm in a pic taken waaaay back when. If there is glaring differences (like the feller was holding a Daisy Red Rider or wearing Converse shoes) then OK I would admit to fakery, but look for the positive, and if proven wrong, admit the negative, not the other way around (thinking it's fake and try to prove it's real).

Jes the thinkin' of an old God fearin', life lovin', retired mechanic...

Thanks Range Rider!

1894c · Post by **1894c** » Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:06 pm

i think the old guy in the photo is still alive...those tough old guys don't die, they usually move up north and drive slow...if that guy turns out to be a banker I would definitely trust him with my cash....just saying... :)