H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

No such thing. Read the law in question. The term really is silencer. Being pedantically silly here.

A few years ago, the ATF decided that pre 1934 short barrel Winchesters, Marlins, and a few other guns I don't remember, did not have to be regulated by NFA 34 anymore, if the short barrel was proven to be factory original. Anyone that owned such a gun could ask the ATF to take it off the NFA list, and they would do so. But only if asked. If you didn't ask, it remained regulated. But if you asked, they'd give you a letter saying the gun was not regulated by the law. If you happened to have one that was not properly registered, but could prove that the short barrel was factory original, I believe they would also send you a letter saying it was not under NFA 34. I am also not sure if you have to ask for such a letter or not. I think you do. But we are getting into speculation now, and I don't wanna speculate. It's too dangerous!

The Details: Winchester 1892. .32-20 Made in 1915 Short Rifle Button Magazine. Octagon 14" barrel. $2500.00 Sounds like a great price. Looks like a fine gun. BUT... Every example of these short barrel Winchesters I've read about, or seen picture of, are carbines, not short rifles. And all of them have round barrels. No factory letter to prove it's factory short. No ATF clearance letter. Personally, I wouldn't touch this one with a ten foot pole. Too bad, cuz it sure looks nifty. If it is factory short, it's gotta be a rarity, but my gut tells me that it'll letter as a much longer barrel. If it is a chop job, it was done decades ago, but that doesn't matter. I don't wanna play possibilities with an NFA 34 violation.

Generically, I can understand this feeling. There have been times when I have passed on a specific gun because it's not in a caliber I am already set up to reload for. Or for some other "reason" that will be an added expense to having that gun in the collection. But, I recently came to the "understanding" that If I am willing to spend, and this is a random number, $2345.67 for some really cool "collectable" gun, then what's a few extra hundred dollars to tool up to reload for it? Not much in the grand scheme of things. For example, I don't have anything in 10 Gauge. But if I ever get a Winchester 1901, then the cost to get a few shells from RMC and their reloading kit in a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the gun itself. And the shells will never wear out, so it's a wise investment. Conversely, I have a modern Winchester pump gun in 16 gauge. It's the only 16 I have, I hardly ever shoot it, so the occasional; box of factory ammo is all I need. But, if I ever bight the bullet and see a nice Parker, or some other old timer in good shootable condition, well, the cost of lettering the gun and getting the Magtech brass and CH4D dies is worth the extra investment. At least. I think it is. But what do I know? I'm goofy enough to get letters for every last thing in my collection, as long as they are available from whoever made it/has the records.

1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 3 4

With regard to never needed to resize your Magtech all brass shells, that may or may not be true. Originally, I was using the RCBS die with no problem. But the only gun I was running these shells in was my 97 and a Parker. Then I shot a match using a real Winchester 87. Nothing fired out of it would fit in any other shotgun. That's when I got the CH4D's. So, it all depends on how widely you wanna use these things.

Loading all brass shells is fun, and contrary to popular opinion, you can load them with smokeless if you want to. I have the RCBS died, but they don't resize. So, I use the CH4D for both 12 and 20 gauge. I may add 16 in the near future. Expensive, yes, but it's a one time investment. And if you have older shotguns with short chambers, it's actually easier than trying to trim plastic to the proper length. (But not impossible. I do that as well.) I say go for it.

Now, you see, there is one of the main reasons for ideas like this! More guns used in more ways equals more shooting equals more fun. And it's only 10 shots. And not at all long range. So it won't take all that long. The more combinations you can come up with for side matches, the more fun with more stuff you can have.

Not too long ago, I suggested that a cool side match would be as follows... 2 shots from a single shot pistol, any caliber from .22 Short to .50-70. 2 shots from a single shot .22 rifle. 2 shots from a single shot rifle in a main match pistol caliber cartridge. 2 shots from a single shot rifle in a "rifle caliber" cartridge. 2 shots from a single shot shotgun. Pistol could be optional, or done in "categories" with and without the pistol. Would not it be cool to show up with these to shoot it? From top to bottom.... 12 Gauge .45-70 .32 S&W .22 RF .22 LR The pistol was my Dad's.

LOL! Well, that's my bad. For some reason, I misunderstood the line to mean 11.5mm. Silly me.

Looking at it more.... On the top, I can see what you think might be a 5. Don't see how it could be a three. But I am not sure it's anything other than a pit. It's in the wrong place the be a 4th number, and it's much fainter. On the lower, I still can't see anything that might be a 4th number. As it if the third is a 5 or a 6.... I think it's a 5. I really must thank everyone. This has been helpful

Well I'll be a son of a gun! I had not even seen the top numbers! Third number on the bottom I thought might be a 5, 6 or a rust pit, but now after seeing what is clearly a 5 on the top, I think the lower is also a 5. As to after the 3rd number, top and bottom, they still look like pits to me. Wow, it's good to ask for help. People see things you didn't.

Interesting. I'd've thought they had M2 Brownings. Musta been a French retrofit? What was this gun?

One of the most annoying things on old guns is that when you try to look at the hidden markings under the stock, or inside of a latch or what have you, that there is all to often some pitting right in the spot where the marking is, making it hard to read. So... What do people thing THIS is? The 7 is clear, but after that, I dunno. My initial reaction after looking at it with the naked eye is that everything else was just random putting blobs. But when I took this photo, and looked at it on my computer screen, especially without zooming out, I am convinced that it is 7 1 something. That something might be a 5 or a 6, or a pitting blob. So, I thought I'd ask if anyone else has any opinions. This by the way is from my new to me .45-70 Rolling Block that I think may or may not actually be a Remington. These are the ONLY markings anywhere on the entire gun. (Okay, I have not looked on the bottom of the barrel yet, but the stock is stuck pretty tight to the barrel and I don't wanna damage it.) The bore is flawless, and neither the seller nor I think it's original to the gun, but it's been on there a long time. Wanna get the stock off to see if there are any marks or not. What is interesting is that number may or may not be the serial number. I am no expert, but what information I have been able to track down says that Remington did not serialize these things in the early days, as there was no requirement to do so. They only had "lot numbers" which means several guns may have the same number. On the other other hand, I have also read that plain receivers like this one were made by Remington, left blank, and sold to the armies of other countries. They were left blank so the government that purchased them could put their own numbers and markings on them as they saw fit. So this might be serial number 7 1 whatever given to it by whomever over in Europe. Given the shape of the 1, with the top hook but no base, which is a very European wan of making numeral 1's, this is a distinct possibility. (I will try to do more research.) Anyway.... What do people think that number is?

I know. I put an ambi safety on my Colt reproduction 1911 when they first started making them again. But the trouble is that while back then I was able to find an ambi that looked like original equipment, those don't seem to exist any more. Every one on the market is extended or otherwise strange looking. And, the idea of getting one that is GI surplus and has an ambi put on it by the government is an idea that really appeals to me.

If anyone has purchased one of the so called "Range Grade" 1911's from the CMP, the ones that they say are shooters, not collectors, and probably modified in various ways, and you have determined that you actually don't want it after all, I might be interested in purchasing it from you. The only proviso is that I want one with an ambi safety, which the description said is a possibility. Doesn't matter all that much who made it. Other mods don't matter either. PM me if we might be able to do business.

You know, if/.when it finally does hit the shelves, there will prolly be a huge run on it and it'll vanish again

Well, the creek has risen.... The shoot I was gonna go to tomorrow has been cancelled for various reasons. Don't worry, I will still do the comparison, I am just not sure when. But when I do, I will make the appropriate posts.

I did not know Winchester made any in .45 Colt that early. The only pistol caliber m-94's I knew of prior to 83 were the .44 Magnums, and the .44-40 in the Winchester/Colt Commemorative set. When/where did you get yours? It might be a real rarity. Got pics?

I always wanted to have one of these Pre-83 94's, just to have one in the collection. I very much doubt that unlike some other things I got for that reason that it will become a favorite go to main match gun. I'd *almost* like to compare mine to a post-83 angle eject, safetied, rebounding hammer messed up one, but not really...

Be the Good Lord willing, and if the creek don't rise, I plan to attend a shoot this Saturday. It is my intention to shoot half the match with a pre-safety Rossi 92, and the other half with a pre-83 Winchester 94. Both rifles will be in .44 Magnum. I figure this will be a good "apples to apples" comparison to see which gun is "better." The Winchester is out of the box stock and seems to have a nice, smooth action. The Rossi has had an action job by Happy Trails, but I specifically said I just wanted it smooth like real Winchester and not turned into a race gun. So, I figure these two rifles are of "comparable quality." Of course, they are very different, and it has been stated here on the Wire ad infinitum about how the M94 is not really suited to our game. Since this will be the first time I've ever tried to shoot a match with a 94, I will soon know how true that is. Now, I am a bottom 3rd shooter. (Maybe even lower, but I'm trying to be charitable.) But, I think it will be interesting to see how these guns compare. It is my hope to get someone to record me shooting, and I'll post the videos here if I do. Hopefully, it'll be an intriguing experiment and the results will be fun to watch.

The bullet never goes below the groove. If the bullet passes the groove, you've set it too deep into the case. Depending on what powder you use, it will just come up to the groove, but never pass it, cuz that's where the bullet will be,

I doubt it would be a problem. While not exact, the dimensions are similar, so both pistols should fit

I can't tell you how many times a firearm has been shipped to my front door on my C&R, and it's just been left there with no one asking for a signature. Doesn't matter who the carrier was. UPS, FexEx, Postal Service. And, the sender asked for a signature.

Well, for pistols, I'd use a pair of Colts... For a rifle, my first choice would be a Small Frame Colt Lightning, since I shoot a Medium Frame one as my primary Main Match rifle. But, I do occasionally shoot a Winchester, I'd practice with either an Uberti 66, which is basically a brass frame version of a reproduction of the Winchester 73 .22, or a 9422. That last one is one of the best lever .22s ever made. Sorry, no pics of those rifles at the moment.