winchester 73 in 44-40

[eastbank]

i,m researching this 73 in 44-40 with nickle reciever and 1/2 mag tube, story is it a early 73 that was sent back to winchester for refurb after the turn on the century, it is in very good condition with a super bore. i think i,ll buy it any way as a shooter. eastbank.

 

[Bushpilot]

First off, I'm no expert but overall it looks like a good, solid rifle despite having a bit of a "mix and match" look to it. If the price was right with a good bore I'd go for it but I personally wouldn't buy into the story that Winchester "rebuilt" it like this. Hard to tell from just the pics but could it have been case hardened and just faded over the years? I have seen other faded case hardened rifles that wound up with a shiny silver colored receiver. I have an old Marlin with faded case hardening. The loading gate has very little wear which also looks a bit suspicious to me. I'd say it has had some work, maybe some new parts and some one tried to clean up the receiver over the years. Most rifles that age have. Still a very nice rifle I'd be proud to own.

 

[Tommygunn]

Hard to tell for sure, but the dust cover seems to be a later model version, not early.

 

[Dog Soldier]

OK I will give another answer. Winchester would make a rifle with any custom feature requested. That is a standard "King's Patent" dust cover.And that is an original factory finish. The short magazines were special order as were the tang sights.

 

[Bushpilot]

That is a standard "King's Patent" dust cover.

FWIW, not to be a wise acre, but I think the Kings Patent was for the loading gate, not the dust cover.

 

[Bushpilot]

Hard to tell for sure, but the dust cover seems to be a later model version, not early.

Yeah, it doesn't look like a first model dust cover. From picture 8240 it looks like a third model. I think I can see the rail grove in the top of the receiver. This model ran from 1882 until the end of production.

 

[eastbank]

the rifle looks like a third model, but has a early serial number 135320A on the lower tang. the story is it was sent back to winchester and refinished-rebuilt at the turn of the century. as the barrel and reciever have proof marks makes it done after 1906-07. it sure is a fine looking and working rifle that has not been used very much after the work was done. i think the key for me was the work done by winchester or a very good gunsmith? i lean towards winchester and hope it can be proven by winchester records of the time. it is not cheap, but not out of line for fine shooter. i have not fired it yet as i have not commited to buy it, but have ran shells thru it and it feeds and eject perfectly. eastbank.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I am a sucker for half-mag Winchesters. They just look "right" to me.

 

[Bushpilot]

After going back and looking at some pictures of old "case hardened" 1873's the more I'm guessing that is what it might be. Case hardening fades from exposure to light as well as from wear. Frequently Winchester lever guns show lots of finish wear on the receiver in part because that's the natural carry/balance point of the rifle. (of course other models had various issues with "blueing" methods to blue the steel receiver as well). Once the receiver finish gets a little wear or rust or someone tries to clean it up with steel wool a few times over the years then it has that bare/silvery look to it.

the barrel and reciever have proof marks makes it done after 1906-07

Not sure what proof marks you're referring to, if you're talking about the W over P mark, that should be there long before 1906.

The letter after the serial number isn't part of the serial number, I think its some proof or inspection mark, not sure what but it isn't part of the number.
So, if the serial number is 135320, it's a 3rd model, 1873, produced in 1883.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Being a Winchester expert is like being a weather girl on TV. Some times you call one right. This is all speculation. Eastbank owns the rifle and he is the owner of many firearms. I will listen to his observations.

 

[Bushpilot]

Well the stuff about the receiver is admittedly a good deal of speculation as many things are when dealing with the condition and originality of 130 plus year old guns. The stuff regarding the proof marks and serial number/letter was from my own 3rd model 1873 Winchester that I kept going back and forth between the computer and the gun safe in order to reference. The letter on the lower tang of my rifle after the serial number happens to be a sideways "B". A couple trips to the book shelf to grab "The Winchester Book" by Madis established both the serial number date and that the letter "A" near the serial number on eastbanks rifle was a "factory work mark." The "A" was usually found on rifles in the 80,000 to 170,000 range.

 

[eastbank]

according to bert hartman who get his info from polishing room records, proof marks started at 1906-07. if the rifle was refinished and i think it was, the proof marks would be on the barrel and reciever. i also think now after talking to and reading e-mails on the said rifle that the barrel is a factory replacement and would have been proofed at the time of installation after 1906-7. eastbank.

 

[Bushpilot]

Well, I have seen some older 1873 rifles with out the proof mark. I have also read of early rifles that were sent back for a re-barreling being proof marked then. I have not as yet found a definitive date listed as a starting point for proof marks. My own, octagon barreled model 1873 was made in 1893 and has the wP oval on both the barrel and receiver. So, either my rifle was also returned and re-barreled at the factory and the proof mark added at that time (which I seriously doubt) or the proof mark starting date of 1906 is wrong. Either way I will be looking into this further. Thanks for the the information.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Kings patent had nothing to do with the dust cover and that is a second or third model dust cover. Can see the rail on the receiver to tell which receiver that would be but should be a third if the serial number is over 100000.

Looks like it would be a fun shooter if it's got a good bore.

 

[eastbank]

madis didn,t have access to the win. records like hartman, hartman spends several weeks a year at cody going over the win. true records and his dates come from the record, not out of a educated guess. midis has been proven wrong on many dates of manufacture. hartman has written books on wincester firearms and is accecped as a expert in the winchester lever action collecting crowd. eastbank.

 

[Bushpilot]

I'm well aware of who Hartman is, thanks. You seem to have a preferred narrative that substantiates the provenance of the rifle as you would like it to be. You're the one who has actually seen the rifle in person. You're the one that is going to be buying it. What ever comments I've made on your post were intended to be helpful, constructive and because I really like these old rifles. If I knew that you already had all the information that you needed I would have simply read the post and moved on. I just hope you understand that not only is this an obviously valuable rifle, it is also one of the most faked types of rifles that there is. Usually, the more valuable the gun or the better the story, the greater the need for discretion (as well as hip boots). I have personally witnessed the handi-work of many gun forgers first hand. Removing post 1986 importation marks, fake rune stamps, cartouche stamps, proof mark stamps. You can actually order fake stamps online or buy them at gun shows. In regards to proof marks stamped on older 1873 receivers that were re-barrel by Winchester, it sure makes it easy for a gun faker; Just scrounge an old receiver and barrel, screw them together, stamp them each with a proof and viola, it is no longer a Frankengun it is now an original Winchester re-barrel. So, if some people are a little skeptical of accepting every story or every gun at face value it is not without reason. Good Luck with your research and I hope it leads you where you want to go.

 

[eastbank]

first thank you for trying to help with this rifle, none of my older pre-1900 winchesters have the two proof marks, and it would make no sense to add proof marks on a old reciever and added old barrel .and i,m not trying one way or the other to prefer it other then what it is. if a faker is dumb enought to add marks a 1883 rifle that would not be there and only lower the value of it, he needs to take up other work. winchester did sell barrels , but i don,t think were not fire proofed. if you are aware of hartmans work, you also know that midis was working in the dark about alot of his dates. being off by a few years normaly would not mean much, unless those years would be off on say a 1900-1901 rifle that midis said were made three or four years earier 1897-1898. marking the rifle a modern rifle instead of a antique, requiring paper work according to the BATF. again thanks for your insight. eastbank.

 

[Bushpilot]

It really is a nice rifle you have there. Better condition then mine. I would have preferred mine in 44-40 instead of 32-20. Never the less I am happy to have it and it's connection with the past. As I said before, my serial number is dated to 1893 (according to Madis dates) and it has proofs on both the barrel and receiver. I doubt that the dates in this case are off enough to actually be post 1906. I have heard of Winchester building new rifles from older left over receivers but again this seems doubtful. I have some knowledge of the background of my rifle so I am confident that there wasn't any "foul play" with it but now I am wondering about why it has both proof marks or if there were exceptions. So, anyway, now I am going to research mine a little more. Thanks for enlightening me in that regard, although now I do have unanswered questions.

 

[Bushpilot]

Here is my 73...

 

[eastbank]

i,m not trying to make the rifle into some thing its not, i think its been refinished and a new barrel was also added at that time and to me the value is lower than a non refinished with the original barrel. here are pictures of my closest dated winchester rifle to your rifle a 1892 model 1886, no proof marks on the barrel and reciever. my take on the proof marks on pre-1906-7(according to hartmam) rifles was winchester proofing to make sure they passed and marked as such after any work being done, but i,m sure they were proof fired ,just not marked before that. thanks eastbank.

 

[Bushpilot]

Your 1892, 86 is a very nice looking rifle. Really has an "un-messed with" look to it. That sounds like a reasonable explanation for the proofs.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I agree it may be worth less than an unaltered good condition rifle but sometimes that makes it better in some ways. More affordable for an old shooter and if reconditioned correctly may be a great old shooter. Still a nice old rifle.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Think of it as you would a USGI carbine. They've all been messed with. I'm sure there's a few 73's out there in the original factory condition or rebuilt by Winchester but what are the chances? Slim to none. All of those found their way into collections years ago. The sometimes found old ranch rifle isn't going to be 90%, probably not even 70%. That looks like a working gun to me and the receiver doesn't look like nickel, it's way too smooth. Looks like polished bare metal to me. A nickel finish has a way of flaking off or spotting over time and that rifle is certainly old enough to have some flaking or spotting.

I don't buy guns based on anyone's story or even documented history. I'll leave that for those that believe they need it to enjoy a gun or think it adds something they can't live without. I used to have a model 95 Winchester saddle ring carbine and I never really cared for it. I believe it had been in the southwest it's entire life because it came from a very old gentleman that said he had owned it for 40 years. My dad purchased it and a model 97 shotgun for song in 1956. I think the 95 was one of those working ranch rifles. It was just a rifle to me. It was too heavy to lug around in the mountains and a very underperforming 30-40 Krag cartridge so I sold it and replaced it with a 7mm Model 70. Gave that one to my brother. I still have my dad's 97 in my safe.

It's just metal and iron. If you like it, buy it. I say nice old rifle most anyone would enjoy, including me.