Can anyone identify this shotgun?!?
- Thread starter rooki
- Start date
$400-$1000, really, depending on how much of it is original, condition, etc. That one looks like the barrel might have been cut for cowboy-action shooting, which would take it to the lower end of that price estimate.
They're neat guns, they can pump-fire - meaning if you hold down the trigger and work the action, the gun fires as soon as a round is chambered. You can empty the mag in a hurry doing this, and it's hella fun, even if you won't actually hit anything, well, at least nothing you're aiming at, smaller than a safety berm.
They're somewhat "persnickety" guns. Only has one action bar (on the left side), which is easy to bend out of shape if you get rough and rammy working the action. It's an early(ish) John Browning design, which means it's far more complicated, internally, than a shotgun needs to be, with lots of finicky parts that have no noticeable function, other than the gun doesn't work without them.
The one pictured is a takedown model, and most of the ones you come across are. Very much the most commonly built version.
I wouldn't run anything stronger than light target loads out of one. The gun won't blow up in your face, but heavy loads will rattle the internals into breaking after not very long.
I have one that's been "slicked" for cowboy-action, and it runs like greased lightening and has a frighteningly light trigger. But I hardly use it anymore. 50 or 100 rounds at the range ends up equating to hours worth of detailing and inspection afterward. Mine was built in 1904, and it's been used, which is the case for most of them. They were rough and ready guns when they were made, and guys rattle around in the bush with them and shot them until they fell apart, then put them back together, rinse, repeat.
Almost none of them are all original as a result. Most of them have been rebuilt a couple times over the years, lots of hand machined replacement parts internally.
None of them are "bet your life on it" reliable.
None of them are safe for steel shot, or any kind of modern heavy loads (although they are "smokeless" proofed).
Now... Thinking about it, makes me want to go look for mine... It got shoved to the back of one of my safes or "hides"...
They're neat guns, they can pump-fire - meaning if you hold down the trigger and work the action, the gun fires as soon as a round is chambered. You can empty the mag in a hurry doing this, and it's hella fun, even if you won't actually hit anything, well, at least nothing you're aiming at, smaller than a safety berm.
They're somewhat "persnickety" guns. Only has one action bar (on the left side), which is easy to bend out of shape if you get rough and rammy working the action. It's an early(ish) John Browning design, which means it's far more complicated, internally, than a shotgun needs to be, with lots of finicky parts that have no noticeable function, other than the gun doesn't work without them.
The one pictured is a takedown model, and most of the ones you come across are. Very much the most commonly built version.
I wouldn't run anything stronger than light target loads out of one. The gun won't blow up in your face, but heavy loads will rattle the internals into breaking after not very long.
I have one that's been "slicked" for cowboy-action, and it runs like greased lightening and has a frighteningly light trigger. But I hardly use it anymore. 50 or 100 rounds at the range ends up equating to hours worth of detailing and inspection afterward. Mine was built in 1904, and it's been used, which is the case for most of them. They were rough and ready guns when they were made, and guys rattle around in the bush with them and shot them until they fell apart, then put them back together, rinse, repeat.
Almost none of them are all original as a result. Most of them have been rebuilt a couple times over the years, lots of hand machined replacement parts internally.
None of them are "bet your life on it" reliable.
None of them are safe for steel shot, or any kind of modern heavy loads (although they are "smokeless" proofed).
Now... Thinking about it, makes me want to go look for mine... It got shoved to the back of one of my safes or "hides"...
I’d agree with much of the above. They include a lot of small parts and they need to be in good shape of it doesn’t work as intended.
Fun, unique guns, but if you want a reliable gun that’s cheap to keep running, look elsewhere. An 870 wingmaster (already neutered) would be a good gun. Please don’t destroy a nice example, like the model 12 on the EE right now...
Fun, unique guns, but if you want a reliable gun that’s cheap to keep running, look elsewhere. An 870 wingmaster (already neutered) would be a good gun. Please don’t destroy a nice example, like the model 12 on the EE right now...
Question is is it for sale? Pm me if it is please. I have restored a couple of them. I agree with the above last one I bought for $100 as a basket case. Took about 300 in parts to get running. I had to lengthen the forcing cone as shells would stick after fireing. Interesting gun.
Agreed.
Although early examples were chambered for 2 9/16", hundreds of thousands of '97s are chambered for 2 3/4" and will happily digest any lead loads up to 2 3/4". Steel shot is to be avoided, but only because 1897s are mostly equipped with a fixed full choke.
Calling THE workhorse shotgun that helped open up the West, helped win WWI, WWII, and the Korean war "persnickety" is wet behind the ears nonsense (a few were even still in service in Vietnam!). John Browning's brilliant design was the first reliable pump action shotgun in history. If a break-down version begins to loosen up, a simple sleeve adjustment is all that's required. If the gun is shot loose so many times that the adjustment sleeve runs out of available adjustment (a process that takes in the range of 100 years of heavy use), you simply buy the #2 adjustment sleeve and you're good for another 100 years. There are 6 adjustment sleeves in the series, including the original from the factory.
The process of holding the trigger down while cycling the action is called "slam firing". When the 1897 was introduced to WWI, the Germans were so frightened by it that they petitioned the International Court claiming that it was cruel and inhumane. This from an army that was using chlorine gas!! What they were so frightened by was that Allied soldiers would load up their "trench broom" with 7 rounds of buckshot - 6 in the magasine and 1 in the chamber. Then, they'd crawl across No Man's Land on their bellies. When they approached the German trenches, they'd leap to their feet and empty their guns, slam firing in a sweeping motion along the trench. With nine .30cal balls in each buckshot shell and seven rounds total, they were unleashing 63 deadly balls in a matter of a few seconds.
Sneaking across No Man's Land was a night mission, but the trench guns earned their keep during the day, too. When German soldiers threw grenades, Allied shotgunners shot them down with bird shot.
People sell them cheap because they need repairs and gunsmiths are expensive. Typically, they need an extractor or a magasine stop. $30 worth of parts and they're good for another generation. Close to 1 1/2 million were sold before cheaper shotguns began to attract buyers. The 1897 didn't get replaced by a better design - it simply couldn't be made as cheaply as guns made with stamped out parts. Certain models (such as the genuine trench guns in un-refinished condition, and Black Diamond trap models in minty condition) command prices in the thousands. A plain field model in NRA "Excellent" condition is worth over a thousand.
Last edited:
Ok, I'm going to respond to that because there's some serious BS you're pushing...
These are all old guns now, production stopped in 1957, and have for the most part been heavily used. Running hot cartridges through them (like heavy 00 buck or hot slugs) is about as wise as running hot ammo through any WWII or earlier era rifle that has been heavily used, which is to say not at all. Smokeless powder has changed a lot since these guns were designed, and commercial ammo is available much hotter than these guns were designed for. Shotguns tend to have a higher safety margin in this regard than rifles, but it isn't limitless.
New out of the factory, these were solid, reliable guns. But again, see above. The newest one you could possibly find is over 60 years old, and has most likely been heavily used. Like anything mechanical, parts wear and need replacing. A very high percentage of them have suffered from "gefingerpoken" syndrome. Kitchen gunsmiths messing with them, only partially understanding what they're doing. When you buy one now, you're buying a lotto ticket. You might very well get one that has been babied and cared for properly, but the odds are much higher that you'll get one that needs some work, or has been worked on by some un-talented b00b just trying to get it to last one more hunting season.
And also called pump firing. I avoid the use of the word "slam firing" for these guns (even though it is more common), because slam firing also applies to a dangerous failure mode in semi-autos. Call it a personal quirk of language.
Couple of historical inaccuracies here. The Germans protested to the Americans using shotguns in general, not specifically the 1897. The US acquired over a half dozen different models of pump shotguns for the war effort, they basically bought up whatever production they could get, cut down the barrels and added heat shields and bayo lugs. The preferred shotguns were the 1912, and the Remington Model 10, which had internal hammers. After WWI, they standardized on the 1912, and the 1897's were quickly rotated out of service. Some were still around in arsenal when WWII broke out, but not many, and a few might have even lasted as long as Vietnam, who knows, stranger things have happened. But by WWII the 1897 was no longer in official service, and had been supplanted by the 1912, and the Ithaca 37. The 1912 and Ithaca 37 were the ones that would see heavy use through to the Vietnam era, NOT the 1897.
Cool story bro. One that's been passed around since WWI. But zero documented evidence of it happening, and no army doctrine on using shotguns this way. And it has actually been tested (because gun geeks are like that) using dummy grenades. With 9 pellets dispersing rapidly from a short barrel smooth bore, if you're lucky 1 or 2 of the pellets might actually connect with the grenade. The odds of them hitting a vital part of the grenade and disabling it, are slimmer still.
Not to mention, if Zee Germans are within grenade throwing distance, the fecal matter has truly hit the rotating air pushers. The odds of you seeing the incoming grenade in time to shoot it are vanishingly small.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/07/shooting-ww1-german-grenades-air-trench-shotgun-myth-truth/
Could it have happened? Sure, and it probably did. But there are also a couple of cases of bullets colliding head on in mid air during wartime, but it sure isn't something you want to bet your life on.
Some repairs are easy, others less so. If it isn't the extractor or magazine stop, then you're chasing down harder to find parts. And if it's any of the internals, good chance you're going to have to break out a file and do a bit of hand fitting, just like when they were originally made.
They also sell cheap for the same reason most older shotguns sell cheap - they aren't rated for steel shot. And no, that isn't just a matter of the forcing cone or the choke. It's also about the Rockwell rating of the barrel steel. These barrels weren't made with steel shot in mind, and over time, you'll wear out the barrel shooting steel through it, much like sanding it down.
The 1897 didn't get replaced by a single better design, it got replaced by a LOT of better designs. The external hammer, the bolt that slid out of the back of the gun, and the lifter/locking block that protrudes from underneath, were all quirks that were done away with in more modern guns. All three of these aspects are failure points from induced grit and grime, which is why the army dropped them like a hot rock after WWI and went with the 1912, and later the Ithaca 37.
The single action bar is also a sore spot. If you look at any 1897 that has been used to a significant degree, that action bar will have developed a warp, and is sometimes downright wavy, from the unequal torque applied to it. Dual action bar guns became the norm.
Reliability and usability are the be-all-to-end-all for small arms in the US Military. If you took a brand new, never fired, 1897, and handed it to a cop or a grunt, asked him to cycle it a few times and then ask whether he'd like to replace his 870 or 590 with an 1897, he'd hand it back to you and laugh, without even putting a live round through it.
While an NRA "excellent" might indeed fetch $1000 (NB: that was within my original price range above), that would be for a near mint, all matching gun. Good luck finding it. The vast majority of the 1897's in circulation have been rode hard and put away wet.
They sell cheap because they lack the versatility of being able to fire all the available modern rounds, and are becoming increasingly hard to maintain, through lack of commonly available parts.
They aren't bad guns, especially when looked at in the context of the era they came from, but a modern 870, 500/590, Weatherby PA-08, will run circles around it in terms of reliability and versatility, and won't cost much more. Claiming otherwise is pure nostalgia.
These are all old guns now, production stopped in 1957, and have for the most part been heavily used. Running hot cartridges through them (like heavy 00 buck or hot slugs) is about as wise as running hot ammo through any WWII or earlier era rifle that has been heavily used, which is to say not at all. Smokeless powder has changed a lot since these guns were designed, and commercial ammo is available much hotter than these guns were designed for. Shotguns tend to have a higher safety margin in this regard than rifles, but it isn't limitless.
New out of the factory, these were solid, reliable guns. But again, see above. The newest one you could possibly find is over 60 years old, and has most likely been heavily used. Like anything mechanical, parts wear and need replacing. A very high percentage of them have suffered from "gefingerpoken" syndrome. Kitchen gunsmiths messing with them, only partially understanding what they're doing. When you buy one now, you're buying a lotto ticket. You might very well get one that has been babied and cared for properly, but the odds are much higher that you'll get one that needs some work, or has been worked on by some un-talented b00b just trying to get it to last one more hunting season.
And also called pump firing. I avoid the use of the word "slam firing" for these guns (even though it is more common), because slam firing also applies to a dangerous failure mode in semi-autos. Call it a personal quirk of language.
Couple of historical inaccuracies here. The Germans protested to the Americans using shotguns in general, not specifically the 1897. The US acquired over a half dozen different models of pump shotguns for the war effort, they basically bought up whatever production they could get, cut down the barrels and added heat shields and bayo lugs. The preferred shotguns were the 1912, and the Remington Model 10, which had internal hammers. After WWI, they standardized on the 1912, and the 1897's were quickly rotated out of service. Some were still around in arsenal when WWII broke out, but not many, and a few might have even lasted as long as Vietnam, who knows, stranger things have happened. But by WWII the 1897 was no longer in official service, and had been supplanted by the 1912, and the Ithaca 37. The 1912 and Ithaca 37 were the ones that would see heavy use through to the Vietnam era, NOT the 1897.
Cool story bro. One that's been passed around since WWI. But zero documented evidence of it happening, and no army doctrine on using shotguns this way. And it has actually been tested (because gun geeks are like that) using dummy grenades. With 9 pellets dispersing rapidly from a short barrel smooth bore, if you're lucky 1 or 2 of the pellets might actually connect with the grenade. The odds of them hitting a vital part of the grenade and disabling it, are slimmer still.
Not to mention, if Zee Germans are within grenade throwing distance, the fecal matter has truly hit the rotating air pushers. The odds of you seeing the incoming grenade in time to shoot it are vanishingly small.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/07/shooting-ww1-german-grenades-air-trench-shotgun-myth-truth/
Could it have happened? Sure, and it probably did. But there are also a couple of cases of bullets colliding head on in mid air during wartime, but it sure isn't something you want to bet your life on.
Some repairs are easy, others less so. If it isn't the extractor or magazine stop, then you're chasing down harder to find parts. And if it's any of the internals, good chance you're going to have to break out a file and do a bit of hand fitting, just like when they were originally made.
They also sell cheap for the same reason most older shotguns sell cheap - they aren't rated for steel shot. And no, that isn't just a matter of the forcing cone or the choke. It's also about the Rockwell rating of the barrel steel. These barrels weren't made with steel shot in mind, and over time, you'll wear out the barrel shooting steel through it, much like sanding it down.
The 1897 didn't get replaced by a single better design, it got replaced by a LOT of better designs. The external hammer, the bolt that slid out of the back of the gun, and the lifter/locking block that protrudes from underneath, were all quirks that were done away with in more modern guns. All three of these aspects are failure points from induced grit and grime, which is why the army dropped them like a hot rock after WWI and went with the 1912, and later the Ithaca 37.
The single action bar is also a sore spot. If you look at any 1897 that has been used to a significant degree, that action bar will have developed a warp, and is sometimes downright wavy, from the unequal torque applied to it. Dual action bar guns became the norm.
Reliability and usability are the be-all-to-end-all for small arms in the US Military. If you took a brand new, never fired, 1897, and handed it to a cop or a grunt, asked him to cycle it a few times and then ask whether he'd like to replace his 870 or 590 with an 1897, he'd hand it back to you and laugh, without even putting a live round through it.
While an NRA "excellent" might indeed fetch $1000 (NB: that was within my original price range above), that would be for a near mint, all matching gun. Good luck finding it. The vast majority of the 1897's in circulation have been rode hard and put away wet.
They sell cheap because they lack the versatility of being able to fire all the available modern rounds, and are becoming increasingly hard to maintain, through lack of commonly available parts.
They aren't bad guns, especially when looked at in the context of the era they came from, but a modern 870, 500/590, Weatherby PA-08, will run circles around it in terms of reliability and versatility, and won't cost much more. Claiming otherwise is pure nostalgia.
Last edited:
On the contrary, you stand to be corrected on most points.
1957 is accurate for the most recent production dates. That many have been heavily used is self evident. Used for war, used in policing (I had one with validated BCP markings on it. The BCP were merged into the RCMP), used as the typical early 20th century family’s only firearm, they were indeed well used. The 1897 was designed specifically for nitro powder and, like all guns proven by reputable proof houses, was proven with dramatically over spec proof loads. Despite your protestations to the contrary, an 1897 will handle any commercially sold 2 3/4” nitro load produced since the model was designed. Only a severely corroded and abused example would fall below this standard, and that applies to any model by any maker.
Winchester 1897s are no more subject to bubba gunsmiths than any other make/model. Most shooters and amateur gunsmiths would never dare take one apart. First because they wouldn’t have a clue where to start, and second because they know they’d never get it back together in working condition. Generally, they’re incredibly rugged and work flawlessly for decades. The U.S. doesn’t select firearms because they’re unreliable. With over a million of them in circulation (and many being as old as you keep pointing out), there are certainly some that are in need of minor repairs. Any old gun that needs repairs usually doesn’t get them because of the cost of gunsmith labour. 1897s are not different in this respect. When you know where to source the parts and how to diagnose and fix them, though, they’re easy to keep in peak operating form for insignificant costs.
You’re the one with “excuses” in your sig line – you should know.
Quickly rotated out of service my foot! 1897 model Winchesters were still being purchased new for World War II and, like I said, some were still in use during the Vietnam War. The 1897 was only taken out of official service after the second World War.
ht tps://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/4/22/combat-shotguns-of-the-vietnam-war/
ht tps://owlcation.com/humanities/World-War-1-History-Germany-Declares-Shotgun-Inhumane
Read my post again. I said they used birdshot. Buckshot was for enemy soldiers.
ht tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1897
All repairs to an 1897 are easy, IF you know what you’re doing. The mechanism isn’t intuitive by any stretch of the imagination but, once understood, it’s phenomenally simple.
They sell cheaply only when they’ve been left to rust in a granary or disfigured by urban cowboys. The $500 and below part of your price range (which applies only to field grades) is where you’ll find the cut barrels, the polished receivers, and those needing repair.
The U.S. Army was buying new 1897 shotguns well into the second World War, as confirmed above. The rest is irrelevant and based on false information. If the design was so problematic, why would the US army continue to buy through both World Wars?
I’ve not seen a bent or warped action bar, and I’ve seen a lot of them. Dual action bars do make sense, but only on designs that would jam or be unreliable otherwise. Winchester didn’t go to a dual action bar on the M1912 because there was no such issue to resolve.
The first sentence in this paragraph is correct. The rest is fiction. No shotgun has ever been in use by the U.S. miltary for longer.
I have one in mint condition and there was one for sale in the EE within the last 2 months.
The only shooters who care about firing all the available modern rounds are migratory bird hunters. Upland hunters and competition shooters use lead. I don’t hunt migratory because I eat what I kill and geese and ducks are about the worst tasting birds you can find. Sitting in damp conditions waiting for game to come to me is not my style of hunting. Granted migratory hunters should keep their options open. For everybody else, steel doesn’t perform as well as lead and costs more. The value proposition seems obvious to me.
Inexperienced hunters are commonly bombarded by so-called experts on sites such as this where they’re fed a constant diet of baloney. The truth is that it’s not in manufacturers’ and retailers’ best interests to admit that stamped and plastic guns have but one advantage – they’re cheaper to make. You can turn your nose up at guns that require handfitting, but I’ll put their reliability up against the more ‘versatile’ guns any day.
Nostalgia may be a convenient pejorative from your perspective, but it has nothing to do with my preferences. I prefer blued steel and walnut stocks because they are durable and sufficiently flexible. But I especially like the fact that ordinary folks such as myself can reblue steel and refinish walnut. You won't find amateurs building stainless steel barrels or receivers, nor synthetic stocks (or refinishing them).
My passion is for SXSs with double triggers and straight stocks, preferably with open hammers. I could go into great detail as to why that is, but that’s a post for another day. But I also admire brilliant design. John Browning displayed his brilliance often, but never more so than in his model 1897 and his 1911 pistol.
Last edited:
While the 1897 Winchester has a following in Cowboy action and Black powder shooting, it was superseded by a much, much superior Winchester Model 12.
It is an interesting quirk of history that the 1897 continued in production until the 50s, so it obviously worked for some buyers.
Clearly, it sparks some strong feelings.
Without the exposed hammer requirement for some disciplines of shooting, it would be just about forgotten.
Just one man's opinion.
It is an interesting quirk of history that the 1897 continued in production until the 50s, so it obviously worked for some buyers.
Clearly, it sparks some strong feelings.
Without the exposed hammer requirement for some disciplines of shooting, it would be just about forgotten.
Just one man's opinion.
