Winchester 1893

[Jack Spade]

 Because most of these were recalled by winchester and destroyed you don't see one in the wild very often.  I encountered this one at the Tulsa Arms show and thought I would share a couple of pictures that show why these were deemed dangerous.  The pictures show the huge loading port which didn't give enough support to the bolt so it would blow out of the receiver.  It gets talked about a couple of times a year but with not a lot of them out there pictures are hard to come by.  

 

 

[Cemetery]

From what I understand, it was made for black powder loads, and with the advent of smokeless, people where blowing them up.  A recall happened, and the new improved 1897 was introduced to withstand smokeless loads.

[Blackwater 53393]

The 1893 Winchester pump shotgun was ABSOLUTELY SAFE TO SHOOT WITH BLACK POWDER LOADS!!  The frame/receiver is actually heavier made than the ‘97! Thicker steel!!

 

I have owned two of them and shot them regularly in SASS matches until they were arbitrarily banned!!  I’ve explained why this happened on numerous occasions and I won’t go into it again here!  If you want to look through the archived threads on this subject, feel free!!

 

Almost ALL of the principlas involved in this ban have since passed and undoing the damage would likely be impossible!!

 

As recently as two years ago, I shot a match, not sanctioned by SASS, where I used both of those guns extensively and NO PROBLEM occurred!!

 

I HAVE shot them both with light loaded smokeless rounds of proper dimension on numerous occasions without any sign of failure or danger!! I DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT OTHERS ATTEMPT THIS!!

 

THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR USE WITH BLACK POWDER!!

 

If used as designed and maintained properly, they were perfectly safe to shoot and still are!!

 

I’m done! Rant over!! Carry on…

 

Edited November 9, 2025 by Blackwater 53393

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

I also have a real Winchester 93.   When you compare it side by side to a 97, the first and more obvious thing you notice is that the 93 is MUCH "beefier" than the 97.   Thicker steel all around is the norm.

The only "danger" in a 93 is that they have 2-1/2" chambers at a time when the change to 2-3/4" was happening along with the change from black powder to smokeless.  If you run 2-1/2" shells loaded with black powder, they are perfectly safe to shoot, the same as a real Winchester 87.  If you lengthen the chamber/forcing cone, you can use longer shells.

Can you use light smokeless loads if you have shells of the proper length?   Given how thick the steel is on these guns,  I think it's possible, but I do not do it.  Why risk it?

 

The only other "danger" is that since the flag that hold the shotshells in place is not as "tall" as on the 97, if you tilt the gun 45 degrees to the right, or more, the rear of the shell can angle out of the loading port as it comes out of the magazine, and the extractor could slam into the primer when closing the action, causing an out of battery discharge.   Since we use these guns as if they were glorified single shots, this is not a real issue.  Plus, I don't know anyone that so twists their shotgun when using is.

Given how an original 87, with its short chamber and black powder only status is perfectly legal for SASS, I don't know why the 93 is not.   People who have them are smart enough to load them properly.

And don't get me started on the 93/97, which is in reality a 97 made to looks like a 93.   Nothing dangerous about those at all.

It's banning is related tot he banning of the Marlin 98 family.   There are issues with that gun, but they can be safely addressed.  But, when SASS decided to outlaw the 98, they took the 93, the Spencer and the Burgess with it, leaving the 97 as the only legal pump gun.   None of this was necessary, but that's the way it is, and we'll never see it reassessed.  

Too bad, really.

[Chantry]

7 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

It's banning is related tot he banning of the Marlin 98 family.   There are issues with that gun, but they can be safely addressed.  But, when SASS decided to outlaw the 98, they took the 93, the Spencer and the Burgess with it, leaving the 97 as the only legal pump gun.   None of this was necessary, but that's the way it is, and we'll never see it reassessed.  

 

The problem with the Marlin and 93 (and possibly with the Spencer & Burgess) is that it requires a knowledgeable shooter who understands that the guns are only safe using ammo within a certain "window", so from a liability perspective I understand why they were banned.

 

That window is much larger with the other guns that are available and legal under SASS rules and despite that I've seen at least one person, long gone from the sport, blow up TWO revolvers (Uberti or Colt) because he trusted his brother in law to reload for him.  I've seen another shooter who had 3 or 4 squibs in the same barrel (pretty sure it was a Ruger).  These are some of the things that make RO's very nervous.

 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

6 hours ago, Chantry said:

The problem with the Marlin and 93 (and possibly with the Spencer & Burgess) is that it requires a knowledgeable shooter who understands that the guns are only safe using ammo within a certain "window", so from a liability perspective I understand why they were banned.

This is a good point, but everything said about the Marlin, the 93, Spencer and the Burgess could be said about original Winchester 87s, and they are legal.  So that kinda undermines the argument, in my opinion.

 

And of course, there is no safety issue with the 93/97.
 

Edited November 9, 2025 by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

[Blackwater 53393]

Here is my genuine Winchester 1893 shotgun.  It’s been fully gunsmithed and thoroughly tested.  It was found in the trunk of a friend’s old car, a rusty mess with some worn and broken parts.

 

I got it in trade for building a bat/club proof mailbox post for the friend!

 

I was lucky enough to find a fellow shooter who owned a pristine, unmodified, stone original 1893 Winchester. He had me disassemble his gun, which looked to me like it had never had a screw turned, and photograph and measure the pieces I needed to repair my gun.

 

I hesitated, but he insisted that I take that jewel apart!!

 

My gunsmith, Willy McCoy and I, pulled my ‘93 COMPLETELY apart and cleaned, inspected, and repaired everything we could and he was able to obtain a couple of things that were missing.

 

I used it in numerous matches all over the southeast until they were banned.  It worked flawlessly and was absolutely no threat to anyone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a closeup of the receiver of the ‘93…

 

Below is a photo of my match ‘97 which is perfectly legal. Compare the thickness of the material that makes up the receivers! The two guns are only a very few years apart in manufacture date!

 

 

a second pic of the ‘97 receiver showing a different angle…

 

NOTE: The ‘97 is supposed to look a little ratty. It’s my Outlaw shotgun!! 

 

Edited November 10, 2025 by Blackwater 53393

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

I think the whole reason the 93/97 was banned for CAS was due to the perceived advantage the large port would give to single loading.  (Well, I believe some personality clashes were also involved but that's not the point).  I think it was @Deuce Stevens SASS#55996 who made a video a few years ago of dry firing one of them to test this theory and he showed it NOT to be an advantage, in fact a disadvantage with shells flopping around.  I don't remember details and it's possible he was just loading over the top and perhaps loading from the right would be better?  I don't know.  Perhaps it should be revisited.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Just now, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

I think the whole reason the 93/97 was banned for CAS was due to the perceived advantage the large port would give to single loading.

 

I've heard that.   I've also heard that they were afraid that someone might try to sneak in a real 93, claiming it was a 93/97.

I've heard a few other things as well.   None of it makes any sense, and I don't know what to believe.

And as far as the large loading port being an "advantage," so what?  There are a lot of guns in our game that have advantages over others.

A few years ago, after I got my 93, I took some photos and compared them to a 97.
 

This was back in the photobucket days.

[Blackwater 53393]

Borrowed this from the archived thread above. Pretty much explains the gun.

 

The Model 1893 was/is solely a blackpowder gun only, and it was chambered for 2-5/8" shells only. It was never officially recalled, but Winchester did offer to replace it with a new Model 1897 if the owner so desired. If one was returned for repair work after August of 1897, a new Model 1897 was shipped to the owner and the Model 1893 was scrapped. The Model 1897 was factory chambered for a 2-3/4" smokeless powder 12-ga shell.

Approximately 34,145 Model 1893s were manufactured, and less than 25% of them survive today. If your gun is in decent condition, it will have collector interest and value.”

 

Another reason given, historically, for the recall/replacement was that people who owned them were known to have hand loaded smokeless shells of higher pressures, resulting in the actual failure that was suspected to be possible. This is possible with even the most modern shotguns manufactured and sold today!

 

Edited November 10, 2025 by Blackwater 53393

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

 I at one time had a 93/97 , 

single loading it was a disadvantage over a 97 

shells would flip more often than not 

 

  

 

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

Biggest problem with SASS.

Trying to gane a advantage threw rules and penalties. 

 

There is No reason to ban the 93 and at some places the Henry 1860 or a gun with sights that will just slow you down to begin with.

 

People  are running short stroke this and short stroke that with slicked up this and slicked up that.

 

But they will complain about something someone else is using instead of just playing the game .

 

Just Sayin. 

Rooster 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

1 hour ago, Rooster Ron Wayne said:

Biggest problem with SASS.

 

 

Rooster, I agree with you.   

Our game is full of things that give an advantage over other things.  Many of which are after market modifications that are perfectly legal.   But if you wanna use something original that has a *perceived* advantage, it get's outlawed.   Mostly this happens with shotguns.   It makes absolutely no sense.  But what makes even less sense is that the powers that be won't even consider revisiting some of these hard to fathom rules, or even offer a logical justification for then.

Heck, even stock, some things give you an advantage over other things.   Of all the arguments against something, "competitive advantage" is the one that holds the least amount of credibility with me.

 

[Eyesa Horg]

Sorta like in Plainsman, it's ok to have a peep sight on the tang, but not 2 inches forward on the barrel. What difference does it make?

[Cinch]

The action is thicker. The barrels are thicker. The carrier is pinned to the slide. 
 

They were short chambered. No firing pin block and no ejector. The short chamber is corrected when the forcing cone is lengthened. 
 

I know the wire hand wringers will say that isn’t lengthening the chamber but if you run it in as far as a 97 would it’s done. Did I mention the barrels are thicker?

 

it’s crazy that they eject across the room with only extractor and an ejector pin. The rear of the bolt is trapped by the top of the receiver the same as a 97. 
 

In my collection I have several 97’s that are half 93’s. No carrier release button and no spring slot. 30 years ago I met an old feller that worked at Browning in Morgan, Utah. He sold me a bunch of cool stuff. 
 

I am getting one ready to brown and put blonde stocks on it. Gotta get busy before my friend who is 93 can’t checker it. 

[Rough 'N Ready Rob]

On 11/10/2025 at 9:25 AM, Blackwater 53393 said:

Here is my genuine Winchester 1893 shotgun.  It’s been fully gunsmithed and thoroughly tested.  It was found in the trunk of a friend’s old car, a rusty mess with some worn and broken parts.

 

I got it in trade for building a bat/club proof mailbox post for the friend!

 

I was lucky enough to find a fellow shooter who owned a pristine, unmodified, stone original 1893 Winchester. He had me disassemble his gun, which looked to me like it had never had a screw turned, and photograph and measure the pieces I needed to repair my gun.

 

I hesitated, but he insisted that I take that jewel apart!!

 

My gunsmith, Willy McCoy and I, pulled my ‘93 COMPLETELY apart and cleaned, inspected, and repaired everything we could and he was able to obtain a couple of things that were missing.

 

I used it in numerous matches all over the southeast until they were banned.  It worked flawlessly and was absolutely no threat to anyone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a closeup of the receiver of the ‘93…

 

Below is a photo of my match ‘97 which is perfectly legal. Compare the thickness of the material that makes up the receivers! The two guns are only a very few years apart in manufacture date!

 

 

a second pic of the ‘97 receiver showing a different angle…

 

NOTE: The ‘97 is supposed to look a little ratty. It’s my Outlaw shotgun!! 

 

Blackwater,

  You made my day. I too have a ratty 97, affectionately called good and ugly, my pards call it cowboy camo. It runs good and I would put it up against any 97 from any land they come from.

  Thanks Rob

[Blackwater 53393]

5 hours ago, Rough 'N Ready Rob said:

Blackwater,

  You made my day. I too have a ratty 97, affectionately called good and ugly, my pards call it cowboy camo. It runs good and I would put it up against any 97 from any land they come from.

  Thanks Rob

That ‘97 in the picture is a gun made from parts out of the “junk drawer” and a receiver that was blown up from an out of battery discharge! 
 

I bought the shotgun from a seller on Gunbroker, initially for a parts gun. When it arrived, I discovered a really nice barrel, some pretty good wood, and the top of the receiver split off from the body on both sides.

 

We put the wood on another gun and set the rest aside for a few months.  It rattled around in my head that I could fix that receiver. I’m a pretty fair welder and have access to really good testing facilities.

 

I removed the barrel and all of the inrernals and jigged up the receiver in a vise with wet wood blocks to support the sides, inside and out, and carefully pressed the top of it back into place. I ground out the areas where the metal was cracked so that when I welded it back together I would have complete penetration. I then TiGed it back together in short stages to prevent any warping and repeatedly ground or filed away any over penetration that got into the rails on the inside of the receiver. My gunsmith supervised the entire process.

 

When it was finished, I sent it to be magnafluxed and X-rayed. (Having friends in the machine industry is a good thing!) My gunsmith then examined it and we touched up the internal machine work. 
 

We got into the parts drawer and selected the best parts we had and I bought a few new pieces to make it complete.  There was a clumsy looking, bulky buttstock laying around that my gunsmith decided we could whittle down and make a nice English style unit out of and he proceeded to make that happen. I bought a new forestock.

 

As we reassembled the gun, he relieved the forcing cone and reblued the barrel and added an ivory bead to it. We decided to leave the receiver unblued, but you really couldn’t say it was “in the white”!🤣

 

We took it out to the range and ran a hundred or so really hot rounds through it, fist in a fixture and then from “the hip” to be sure it was safe to shoot!

 

It has now had several thousand rounds run through it in practice and in competition and, with the exception of a magazine spring failure, it has performed admirably!

 

Here’s a few more pictures…

 

 

We had a trap gun bolt. Figured it would raise an eyebrow or two.

 

 

We’d used the wood on another project, so I bought this newer model forestock.

 

 

That’s also a new magazine tube! The old one was so worn that the threads wouldn’t hold it into the receiver if I tried to run it hard.

 

I just noticed that I need to get a new ivory bead sight. Been shooting Outlaw and hadn’t noticed that it was missing!! 🙄🤣

WE NAMED IT FRANKIE!!! 😜🤣
 

Edited November 14, 2025 by Blackwater 53393

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

8 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

We had a trap gun bolt. Figured it would raise an eyebrow or two.

 

That's kinda nifty.

Here's what goes with the bolt.

 

Edited November 15, 2025 by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

[Blackwater 53393]

18 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

That's kinda nifty.

Here's what goes with the bolt.

 

Yeah.  I know.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

14 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Yeah.  I know.

 

I know you know.  (Why do I feel like Inspector Clouseau?)  I was just having fun. 

[Blackwater 53393]

1 minute ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

I know you know.  (Why do I feel like Inspector Clouseau?)  I was just having fun. 

I wanted to inlay a teak black diamond into the stock on this one, in an unusual place of course, just to raise a few more eyebrows! 😜

 

We couldn’t find a suitable piece of teak to use and lost interest in trying.

 

Folks DO occasionally notice the incongruities of Frankie. We built another one before we ran out of useable frames and such.  I sold it a while back, so Frankie Jr. is running around out there somewhere…😳

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Everybody should have at least 1 Frankengun.