Strangely interesting

[Dick Hosmer]

Guess I'm wearing my really stupid hat again today, but what do you find remarkable? And, what model(s) are included in the list of dates and numbers? If they indicate early carbines lower than mine - "records are made to be broken".

[5MadFarmers]

Guess I'm wearing my really stupid hat again today, but what do you find remarkable? And, what model(s) are included in the list of dates and numbers? If they indicate early carbines lower than mine - "records are made to be broken".

The thread was about that interesting "1894" marked receiver. I own a receiver 600 in serial lower than that - it's in the picture. So I'm still trying to tell is that's a mis-strike or there truly is overlap. Thus far every serial I've encountered between my lowest 1895 and that 1894 is an 1895. Not a single 1894 in that gap. Presumably if it was an overlap 1/2 would be 1894. Just not seeing them. I don't know that they're not out there but I'm not seeing them. So I'm going to keep looking.

When I took 24597 or whatever the serial is, I'd have to go look, I listed that as the lowest gun I was comfortable was a carbine. Then that thing at Julia appeared. I looked at it at the time and passed.

"Some parts are altered to conform to changes found in later models"

So, no, you're not missing anything that the pictures wouldn't make stark. The barrel end is turned down. Kind of hard to mount a bayonet on a gun with a carbine stock. Ergo that stock and barrel do not really belong together. Ergo somebody put them together at some point. Who? When? I have no idea. I didn't bid on it though as I didn't like it.

So that one is in carbine format but I'm not comfortable calling it a carbine. I'm sure the new and former owner are but I'm not.

What do I think I'm seeing? "Lots of guns got turned into school guns. They're carbines now." Not much different from 1898Cs in so many ways. I think they're being assembled. I wonder if I know by who.

[madsenshooter]

Since I've played with a few of them, I know just how easy it would be to set a numbering machine so that it strikes a 4 rather than the 5 you'd planned. (If the machine used was anything like those used in printing). Throw that receiver away? Shoot no. As for the lower number of 24476 who's to say a 96 cadet rifle receiver didn't become a carbine instead of a long rifle at the Armory, or by others. It'd still count as a service rifle in the tally they wanted for the payment due to the patent holder. I found a guy on facebook who adamantly said he had a 94 marked rifle in the 28000 range. I think he just misread it.

[jon_norstog]

.......What do I think I'm seeing? "Lots of guns got turned into school guns. They're carbines now." Not much different from 1898Cs in so many ways. I think they're being assembled. I wonder if I know by who.

The fakes may be getting better then? If thaT is the case, sooner or later Gresham's Law will take effect.

jn