Win 1897 manufacture dates and quality

[J. Frank Norfleet]

Of the 1,024,700 Winchester 1897's made more than half were made prior to January 1912. Wow! Most of the 1897 shotguns are over 100 years old! Aside from the obvious that an older shotgun could have been shot more than one of later manufacture, is there a difference in quality of the early 1897's and say those made after 1940? I have always assumed that US arms makers learned a lot about production and metallurgy during WWII and have always leaned toward shooting post WWII weapons. Is that true? With more than half of the million plus 1897's being made in the first 15 years of production and the last half spread over 45 years was there any affect from volume produced in the early years? Maybe there are some of you out there who can answer my question. And, yes I know they all break.

[Henry McKenna #700L]

I do not have expertise in Winchesters, but know from collecting other things that peak quality for most US made products spanning such a time frame seems to be during the mid-30s. With the depression slowing down sales accross the board, skilled laborers had the time to pay attention to the details while technology continued to progress.

[Doc Fill 'Em 67797]

I've had several from the 20's and currently have a 1927 and a 1954. All have seemed, to me, to be about the same quality-wise.

[Butch McGie, SASS#71758]

MY wife's 97 was made in 1908. It is like a Timex. As long as my reloaads don't have a tiny crack at the crimp fold, it just does its job.

[Palo Verde, SASS # 56522]

Generally, the answer to your question is, yes.

Winchester made many, many changes to the '97 over the years. Some were significant (in my opinion). Some were as simple as changing the model from "1897" to "97".

The post-war guns have many subtle changes that I consider to be improvements.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

I have always assumed that US arms makers learned a lot about production and metallurgy during WWII and have always leaned toward shooting post WWII weapons. Is that true?

 

Howdy

 

I tend to disagree with your premise. We knew a whole lot about mass producing firearms well before WWII. Going all the way back to the Industrial Revolution, there were two basic models of mass production. There was the English system, which relied on highly skilled craftsmen to produce limited quantities of high quality products, and there was the American system, which relied on technically advanced machinery to produce large quantities of mass produced goods.

 

This was not limited to firearms. English watchmakers in the 19th Century could not compete with the huge output of the Waltham Watch Company. Henry Ford could not have mass produced the Model T if gunmakers had not paved the way with production lines. Pretty much all of modern industry owes a dept of thanks to the American firearms industry of the 19th Century.

 

The American firearms industry around the time of the Civil War was growing by leaps and bounds in mass producing firearms, due in no small part to the efforts of firearms manufacturers such as Colt, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, and Remington. Don't forget, Sam Colt did not actually invent the revolver. He made the first revolver that could be practically mass produced. The firearms industry at that time was responsible for perfecting methods of mass production still in use today. Guys like B F Henry, Daniel Wesson, and Horace Smith all worked at one point or another at the Robbins and Lawrence Armory in Windsor Vermont, before they started their own companies, which was a hot bed of perfecting some of the equipment which would eventually lead to much of the equipment used at the Springfield Armory to mass produce all sorts of firearms.

 

As far as metalurgy is concerned, one of the great leaps forward was the use of nickel steel, around the turn of the Century. The Winchester M1895 Lee Navy straight pull bolt action rifle was one of the earliest rifles to use nickel steel. Without nickel steel, none of the high pressure Smokeless firearms could have been made.

 

Sure, there have been all kinds of advancements in metalurgy since then, but I suspect nothing since has had the impact of nickel steel. By WWII, we were already so good at mass producing firearms that we could take standardized designs and have them made by companies that had no experience building firearms what so ever. Companies that made products like sewing machines and railroad signaling equipment.

 

I tend to agree with Henry McKenna, probably the best firearms produced in this country were those made in the 1930s. I own several S&W revolvers from that era and they are without peer.

 

P.S. My '97 was made in 1908. I think it is wonderful. But so are my Model 12s made in 1914 and 1923.

[Big Jake1001]

Several things I've noticed about Winchester 1897's is the early ones had rounded pistol grips and thinner wrists than the later ones. The mag tubes had a rounded cap and the later ones were flat. The "C" models had a 3 screw attachment and a short sleeve under the pump wood. Later ones had a full length sleeve and a ring screw attachment for the wood. It's stronger and less likely to break under stress.

 

Also I've heard the early barrels had a long tapered choke to full choke, and the later ones had the choke in the last 3 inches of the barrel. Cut it off and you lose all choke. You can find a 1950's shotgun and it will have a fat stock with fluted comb and a pump wood that is also fat with no lines going all the way around like the early ones. It may have a lot of life still in it and would make a great shotgun for this sport.

 

I now have 6 Winchester 1897's. Two from 1904, a solid frame and a take-down, 30 full. A 2 bbl set from 1913, 30 full and 26 cylinder bore. A 1923, '24, '25 all 30 full. No, I won't cut them.

 

Big Jake

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Me too Jake.

 

My '97 still has its 30" full choke barrel. I won't cut it either, it makes a fine Trap gun.

[Manatee]

I've got a D model from the 20's that is one I won't ever sell.

 

Having worked on a bunch of these older guns in the past, it seems the only 97's that I would look over closely are those made in the 1930's. I've heard the urban legend from other smiths that the depression had an effect on metallurgy and production during the 30's. I'm not sure that the rumor has ever been put to a scientific test, but I think the 1920 guns were probably the best overall 97's made.

[Awful Close]

When the 97 was introduced the serial number did not start with "ONE" , Winchester merely started where the 93's production left off- somewhere around 35,000, which means that about 990,000 was the actual number of 97's produced.

 

From what I've read primarily on the SASS wire over the years, it seems that the Army purchased a number of C models and used them in combat (perhaps the Philippines). The army was not impressed. Seems the 3 screw forearm didn't stay attached very well and the Army also reported that the guns in general were pretty well worn out. Winchester's answer to these problems was the D model which has the modern forearm assembly and they all got double heat treating. When the E model came out, basically an E with different cartridge stops, Winchester decided that normal hunters had no need for the extra heat treating and discontinued the practice. The exception was the Trench model which had the special heat treating. I have never read what the heat treating status was of the "riot" guns of this time period. This continued until somewhere around serial # 870,000, that is when all the guns got the special heat treating. Please note this corresponds to around 1938 when the U.S. was re-arming Britain during the Lend-Lease Program. Like I said originally, this is info from various sources on the Wire and I don't know how much of it is accurate.

[J. Frank Norfleet]

. . .the Army also reported that the guns in general were pretty well worn out. Winchester's answer to these problems was the D model which has the modern forearm assembly and they all got double heat treating. . . . This continued until somewhere around serial # 870,000, that is when all the guns got the special heat treating.

 

Are you saying that all the internals were heat treated or just the forearm assembly?

[Marauder SASS #13056]

In WWI, the allies found that some of their guns were not standing up to the riggers of many rounds. The problem was traced back to improper heat treatment and the use of smokeless powders. The guns had been heat treated, but they found that not all were done the same. So in 1917/18 they slightly changed the process to include a second treatment or some form of double heat treating. Of course this took a little more time, but it gave the consistency needed.

 

So what the Big Boys have told me and others in magazines, etc was not to trust any guns made prior to 1918 as far as heat treating is concerned. I know Coyote Cap used to test many of the 97's he worked on. I don't know the specifics other than he said none were really a problem for safety but some would last longer due to harder steel. I think he said the ones in the 30's were some of the hardest, but I've slept since then.

 

Sometimes you can hear the difference. Certainly, I can hear the difference between the IACs and the real Winchesters. The harder steel in the IAC make more of a "clack-clak" sound as they are cycled. The slightly softer Winchesters I've handled are a softer "slock-slock" sound. (Sorry for the highly technical terms )

 

The Winchesters seem to be able to be slicked up a little more and that may be due to tolerances or softer steel. But I've worn out two Winchesters in much less time than I've shot to early Norincos - and the Norincos are still going strong.

 

I love the two Winchesters that I still have but save them.

 

I'm not super fast with the 97, but after the beep, I don't notice the slight difference between my super slick Winchesters and nearly as slick copies. So I use the copies for shooting cowboy

 

 

P.S.

So yes, the guns were all heat treated.

The early process was not consistent. Some of the early guns (not just shotguns) were softer but many are nice and hard. The later double heat treated guns were more consistently hardened.

 

Heat Treating History

[Manatee]

Interesting facts. It's nice to put some real info behind the rumors I've heard.

[Colt McAllister]

To make it extremely easy, just stick with an "E" model. You can't go wrong. They have all the upgrades and the steel is really durable compared to an "C" model. At least that is what I've run in to in the past 17 years of working on them.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Howdy Again

 

Thanks for the information. Mine is a D model. Made in 1909, not 1908 as I said earlier. Good thing I don't beat it to death shooting cowboy with it, I only shoot a little bit of Trap with it every once in a while.

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

Howdy

 

I tend to disagree with your premise. We knew a whole lot about mass producing firearms well before WWII. Going all the way back to the Industrial Revolution, there were two basic models of mass production. There was the English system, which relied on highly skilled craftsmen to produce limited quantities of high quality products, and there was the American system, which relied on technically advanced machinery to produce large quantities of mass produced goods.

 

This was not limited to firearms. English watchmakers in the 19th Century could not compete with the huge output of the Waltham Watch Company. Henry Ford could not have mass produced the Model T if gunmakers had not paved the way with production lines. Pretty much all of modern industry owes a dept of thanks to the American firearms industry of the 19th Century.

 

The American firearms industry around the time of the Civil War was growing by leaps and bounds in mass producing firearms, due in no small part to the efforts of firearms manufacturers such as Colt, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, and Remington. Don't forget, Sam Colt did not actually invent the revolver. He made the first revolver that could be practically mass produced. The firearms industry at that time was responsible for perfecting methods of mass production still in use today. Guys like B F Henry, Daniel Wesson, and Horace Smith all worked at one point or another at the Robbins and Lawrence Armory in Windsor Vermont, before they started their own companies, which was a hot bed of perfecting some of the equipment which would eventually lead to much of the equipment used at the Springfield Armory to mass produce all sorts of firearms.

 

As far as metalurgy is concerned, one of the great leaps forward was the use of nickel steel, around the turn of the Century. The Winchester M1895 Lee Navy straight pull bolt action rifle was one of the earliest rifles to use nickel steel. Without nickel steel, none of the high pressure Smokeless firearms could have been made.

 

Sure, there have been all kinds of advancements in metalurgy since then, but I suspect nothing since has had the impact of nickel steel. By WWII, we were already so good at mass producing firearms that we could take standardized designs and have them made by companies that had no experience building firearms what so ever. Companies that made products like sewing machines and railroad signaling equipment.

 

I tend to agree with Henry McKenna, probably the best firearms produced in this country were those made in the 1930s. I own several S&W revolvers from that era and they are without peer.

 

P.S. My '97 was made in 1908. I think it is wonderful. But so are my Model 12s made in 1914 and 1923.

Check out the number of parts and the complexity of a sewing machine some time. M1 Garands and thompsons are a whole lot simpler.

[Harvey Mushman]

Check out the number of parts and the complexity of a sewing machine some time. M1 Garands and thompsons are a whole lot simpler.

 

 

But then again, them Singers t'weren't made for shootin' high brass loads thru, neither (unless they wuz made for sewing leather!)

[J. Frank Norfleet]

I can't tell you how much I appreciate all of you sharing your knowledge with a newbie. This has been most informative. Many thanks!