1897 vs 1893 Winchesters

[rippin kid]

A local gun shop has a very nice Old Winchester pump shotgun, and I'm thinking about getting it. But I'm a bit confused. The barrel says Model 1893 Pat Nov 25, 1890 and Dec,6 1892. The side pump arm says Winchester Model 1897. Is there an easy way to tell them apart? There is a big 12 at the end on the barrel and the serial number is C 2342##

[Marauder SASS #13056]

It is evidently a "parts" gun which had been repaired with parts from at least two guns. Which is fairly common.

 

The requirement for SASS is to have a model 97 receiver which should look like this:

http://marauder.homestead.com/files/97nontd97.jpg

 

Model 93's are not allowed.

The most recognizable difference between a model 97 and a model 93 is the shape of the ejection port - where we normally load.

Model 93 - improved

Notice the extra cut out at the top, back of the ejection port.

 

From the serial number, I believe the gun you saw was a 97 receiver made about 1903.

 

The gun may be fine, but make sure it has a 97 style receiver for SASS. Plus, make sure it is a solid barrel - not a Damascus barrel. My main concern is the 93 barrels ( I believe) were primarily for black powder.

[rippin kid]

It is evidently a "parts" gun which had been repaired with parts from at least two guns. Which is fairly common.

 

The requirement for SASS is to have a model 97 receiver which should look like this:

http://marauder.homestead.com/files/97nontd97.jpg

 

Model 93's are not allowed.

The most recognizable difference between a model 97 and a model 93 is the shape of the ejection port - where we normally load.

Model 93 - improved

Notice the extra cut out at the top, back of the ejection port.

 

From the serial number, I believe the gun you saw was a 97 receiver made about 1903.

 

The gun may be fine, but make sure it has a 97 style receiver for SASS. Plus, make sure it is a solid barrel - not a Damascus barrel. My main concern is the 93 barrels ( I believe) were primarily for black powder.

 

 

Thanks for the info I'll only use very low powers tuff in it if I decide to get it.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Thanks for the info I'll only use very low powers tuff in it if I decide to get it.

 

A wise choice with any old gun.

 

To add to the discussion of the 93's, when Winchester came out with the 97, they actually offered to give a new 97 to anyone who returned a 93 to them at no charge. Winchester felt that for some reason, the 93 was no longer a safe design. Near as I can tell, the reasoning was the arrival of smokeless powder. They felt that even low power smokeless loads could cause catastrophic failure in a 93. This is why so few 93's have survived, most were returned to the factory for a replacement. The 97 was made from the get go to be strong enough to handle smokeless loads.

 

The obvious question is, are the few remaining 93's safe to shoot with black powder? Well, there is a lot of argument about this. Some say yes, some say no. Some even say that original 93's are safe to shoot smokeless, with low power loads. To be honest, I don't know what to believe about orignial 93's. I'd prolly err on the side of caution and not shoot one if I were obtain one.

 

SASS has dissallowed original 93's on the issue of safety.

 

To further muddy the waters, there is something out there called the 93/97. This is a completely modern gun made to look like a 93, but which incorporates some of the safety features of the 97. While this gun is perfectly safe to shoot, SASS has also dissallowed it's use, supposedly becuase the larger ejection port gives it an unfair competative advantage. (That being said, many local clubs will allow the 93/97 at local shoots. It's not allowed status only becomes a factor at state/regional/national events.)

 

I agree that it sounds like the gun you saw is a parts gun. If it is indeed a 97 receiver, then it is a 97 and should be safe to shoot.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

A wise choice with any old gun.

 

To add to the discussion of the 93's, when Winchester came out with the 97, they actually offered to give a new 97 to anyone who returned a 93 to them at no charge. Winchester felt that for some reason, the 93 was no longer a safe design. Near as I can tell, the reasoning was the arrival of smokeless powder. They felt that even low power smokeless loads could cause catastrophic failure in a 93. This is why so few 93's have survived, most were returned to the factory for a replacement. The 97 was made from the get go to be strong enough to handle smokeless loads.

 

The obvious question is, are the few remaining 93's safe to shoot with black powder? Well, there is a lot of argument about this. Some say yes, some say no. Some even say that original 93's are safe to shoot smokeless, with low power loads. To be honest, I don't know what to believe about orignial 93's. I'd prolly err on the side of caution and not shoot one if I were obtain one.

 

SASS has dissallowed original 93's on the issue of safety.

 

To further muddy the waters, there is something out there called the 93/97. This is a completely modern gun made to look like a 93, but which incorporates some of the safety features of the 97. While this gun is perfectly safe to shoot, SASS has also dissallowed it's use, supposedly becuase the larger ejection port gives it an unfair competative advantage. (That being said, many local clubs will allow the 93/97 at local shoots. It's not allowed status only becomes a factor at state/regional/national events.)

 

I agree that it sounds like the gun you saw is a parts gun. If it is indeed a 97 receiver, then it is a 97 and should be safe to shoot.

 

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the added Flag...