Winchester 94 32-40

P

popsbrothers

Inactive
I just acquired a Winchester 1894, 32-40 serial number 2387. After a
little research I'm starting to get a little excited. I'm not an
experienced collector so I'm not certain of the condition but it
appears to me very good for being over 119 years old. The serial number indicates that it was made in 1894 which is good. The bluing and
stock appear to be original finish but again I'm new to this. I'm
going to try to post a few photos so give me your thoughts and
opinions of what I need to do to verify the value. I'm leaving tonight
for a week of squirrel shooting or until the ammo runs out. When I
return I plan to have it appraised at a local gun shop but if this is
what it appears to be I think I should do a little more research.
Thanks for your feedback.
 

Attachments

  • winchester 001.jpg
    winchester 001.jpg
    74 KB · Views: 202
  • winchester 008.jpg
    winchester 008.jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 153
  • winchester 006.jpg
    winchester 006.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 145
more

Here is some more photos.
 

Attachments

  • winchester 002.jpg
    winchester 002.jpg
    72.5 KB · Views: 144
  • winchester 009.jpg
    winchester 009.jpg
    57.2 KB · Views: 130
  • winchester 011.jpg
    winchester 011.jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 142
I have a couple of questions;
1. It appears that that rifle does not have a nickel steel barrel. What does the bore look like?
2. Can you post a couple pictures of the front and rear sights?
 
I'm not sure how to tell the difference in the type of steel and I don't have a bore scope so from what I can see the bore is dirty and I can't see any pitting, not saying there isn't any. Thanks for your interest.
 

Attachments

  • winchester 015.jpg
    winchester 015.jpg
    56.4 KB · Views: 127
  • winchester 014.jpg
    winchester 014.jpg
    51.5 KB · Views: 120
  • winchester 013.jpg
    winchester 013.jpg
    94.5 KB · Views: 135
Very nice. Don't know why, but many folks are not interested in 32-40 rifles.

An 1894 date of production rifle would not have a nickel steel barrel. An 1894 date of production production rifle was not chambered and built to smokeless powder standards.
 
Wow, finish is thin, but the wood and metal are in really nice shape.

When the 1894 was introduced, it was intended to be rolled out with both the black powder .32-40 and .38-55 rounds as well as the smokeless .30-30 and .25-35 rounds.

Unfortunately, Winchester ran into issues getting enough smokeless powder to load the ammunition, so they had to delay the .30 and .25 rounds until late 1895.

The .32 and .38 rifles were built with the old, softer steel suitable for lead bullets and black powder.

If you want to shoot it, it is inadvisable to use jacketed bullets at all, and use only very light charges of smokeless powder, if any at all.

Winchester produced the two barrel steels for several years, but I think finally switched all production over to nickel steel around 1900.
 
That looks to be a very nice collectible rifle.

When you get a chance, maybe take a photo of the top of the bolt showing the from the chamber to the hammer checkering and maybe one of the bolt face.

Uncommon for one from the B.P. era to have that finish wear and show no signs of pitting around the breech from either powder or primers or any wood shrinkage.

The front sight appears to be a correct Rocky Mountain that was either repaired or modified to suit the owner.

I would be tempted to pull the gun apart to see if the action, hammer, and lever showed any indication of having been case colored. Maybe it is the lighting, but the gun, especially the for-end cap, has that look to me.

Let's hear back with what the LGS says after a look.

JT
 
Unless you get a Cody letter to the contrary, the Winchester Polishing Room records indicate your Model 1894 Rifle in .32-40 was made around May of 1895.

FWIW, the first Model 1894 Rifle made in .32-40 was SN692, on Dec 14, 1894.


.
 
I'm not totally sure, but I don't think the sights are original. The front should be a longer,sharper knife blade with no bead The rear sight should be a finer sight and the elevator was a double one with small notchs that engaged both sides of the sight.
It is a common problem with old rifles. They were equipped with very fine sights for accuracy at longer ranges. They didn't have scopes so when the owners got older and there eyes got bad thats when the sights were changed out with after market sights such as Lyman or Marbles. They were coarser and easier to see. The originals ended up in a coffee cup in the cupboard.
Never the less the gun is very nice looking and will look good in your collection.
 
Thanks for all the information guys. I'm still in Modoc Co eradicating rodents. I should be home by Monday to take some more photos. Thanks for all the interest.
 
IMO, the rear sight looks like it's an original Winchester No.22E Rocky Mountain rear sight; and the front looks like it might be an optional Winchester No.23 Express front sight.



.
 
I'm back from squirrel hunting and almost rested.

JT- attached are the photos you requested.

Anyone have an estimate of the value? Is it worth the expense of a Cody letter?

thanks, pops
 
Dang, forgot the photos
 

Attachments

  • hammer.jpg
    hammer.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 124
  • winchester 021.jpg
    winchester 021.jpg
    89.2 KB · Views: 111
  • winchester 017.jpg
    winchester 017.jpg
    93.5 KB · Views: 106
By looking at my 32-40 in comparison. Sorry having to say: Your front and rear sights look to have been replaced. Otherwise the appearance of your rifle is indeed very nice for its age. If the bore is dark (rusty looking) your rifle will indeed loose some value. But keep in mind your rifle indeed has value being a 100 plus years old and its a true blue Winchester too boot. Out of curiosity. Please come back and let us know what your appraiser has to say about your rifle. I for one would appreciate that effort Sir.

#7 thread is spot on with his info. (As it would be in your best interest to consider re-reading his thread.)
Regards,
S/S
 
That gun really looks like a champ to me. Everything on it says it has been cared for during the 100+ years it has been around. Stored to keep the wood tight, no fouled up screw heads, and most importantly, cleaned after use.

I'm not up on the early rifle sights for 94s. The front still looks like the knife blade Rocky mountain base that has been repaired. No biggie at all and it won't really negatively affect the value of an early 4 digit in that nice of shape.

Based on the clean action photos, I'll bet the bore is in similar shape.

If it were mine, after a detailed diss-assembly to clean (not with any abrasives of course), I would slug it. If it is still tight, I'd shoot a 30/1 GC with 18/20 grs. of 5744. No filler.
If the bore is large, a 40/1 plain base.
That load has never let me down in both the .30 and .32WCF.

Letter it and let us hear back.

JT
 
Here's the story on the appraisal. It appears the local gun expert likes to buy Winchesters. Rated the condition at 10% with a value of $1200 and offered me $900. Being a little suspect of the offer I waited a week until I had business in a neighboring town that has a respectable gunsmith. He rated the gun at 30 to 40% with a value of $1750 to $2000. He suggested I get a Cody letter. I've downloaded the forms but haven't sent it yet. I'll report back when I get the letter.
 
Maybe it is the pictures, but that gun looks to have very little original finish, so I am not sure the 10% is too far out of line, if we are talking only about percentage of original finish. I sure can't see 30-40%, although there are parts of the gun not pictured.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top