Winchester 1892 Drawings?
- Thread starter sean69
- Start date
The Cody Museum may have a few pages of random drawings from the piles of Factory prints that were saved, but I think for the most part, you are stuck copying whatever parts you need or making parts that fit in the holes you need them for.
The folks that sold any blueprints at all, mostly guessed at tolerances and estimated at dimensions that they did not have examples of. There are literally dozens of variations of the Winchester High Wall's drawings out there, for example, and other than a few found in Campbell's books, that even he corrected some data on in his second edition, and what there is of actual factory drawings is, well, slim pickings.
The folks that sold any blueprints at all, mostly guessed at tolerances and estimated at dimensions that they did not have examples of. There are literally dozens of variations of the Winchester High Wall's drawings out there, for example, and other than a few found in Campbell's books, that even he corrected some data on in his second edition, and what there is of actual factory drawings is, well, slim pickings.
I kinda had a feeling that was the way it was gonna go
Trying to reverse engineer to make some CNC stock parts....
CNC machining for stock 'parts'? Which parts?
butt stock and fore ends ... nice thing about Winchesters is one stock covers a lot of models
Y'all really didn't seriously expect to pull useful dimensions for a stock off of any blueprints, did you?
Even at modern factory levels, wood stocks are pounded out on copy lathes, and router jigs get used for inletting. Cheap, and pretty much the same amount of need for skilled labor.
Yes, a proper drawing would provide exactly what I need to create sectioning tools for several different types of stocks. Working from drawings or receivers is far better than trying to measure a stock inlet not knowing if/how it's been modified/shrank/swelled/damaged etc.
A drawing also cuts down my time to create the model and probably at least a few test shots.
what I was really hoping for was a diagram of the 92 carbine barrel profile ... it is a bit of an oddball.
Nothing to lose by contacting the Cody Museum, and asking after the factory drawings, to see if they have any sorted out. Might get lucky. Esp. the Barrel dimensions.
Based on his comments in the Winchester Single Shot books, Campbell said that when he was researching there, they still had bins of loose papers that had been selected out of the stream of papers that were being sent to the dumpster or incinerator, while the Winchester Archives were being purged of all their historical related paperwork.
Dunno if in the time since, they have got any further along the sorting, as it sounded as if the Museum staff were not spending a lot of time on it, using essentially summer students to sort and catalog the stuff.
Otherwise I figure you are stuck pretty much where you started, looking at factory parts, and trying to guess if they are above or below the size they were supposed to be, and by how far...
I am not sure to what extent it is possible to machine a gunstock with a 3 axis CNC. Having seen your work on this forum, I am sure we can learn from your experience. Here is what I was able to do so far with my 3 axis CNC machine. Mine holds the wood with a vacuum pump.
I trace the outline of my Carabine FN Browning 1900 buttstock on graph paper then I mesure the length of several points from a centerline and then reproduce those measurement with Autocad. English not being my forte the following pics should complete the explanation.
I trace the outline of my Carabine FN Browning 1900 buttstock on graph paper then I mesure the length of several points from a centerline and then reproduce those measurement with Autocad. English not being my forte the following pics should complete the explanation.
I'm using Fusion 360 - I can basically take a picture of a part, import it, dimension it then basically trace the profile - to get the cross sections I can set a series of offset planes and create cross sectional sketches on them (say from a contour gage) then basically loft all the sections together and fine tune from there.
As far as machining, yes - 3 axis can get you about 80% there, but even with a fixture there will be some bits that cannot be machined. (I am planning on using fixtures) - If I wanted just the shape/profile I could do a two sided peg type arrangement and flip it. for even just basic inletting I would have to run 4 programs and flip 4 times. For the fore ends though, I plan on an indexed rotary fixture - should work quite nicely.
Hopefully this Illustrates.... I've hand carved 2 of these Ohios and am working on developing an 80% stock for more (because I love the darn things so much!!) This shows the profile canvas and sketch, some of the cross section planes and a partial loft.... Doing this one basically as a learning exercise as the "full size plan" is not full size nor very accurate - I'll whip up a final version using the stocks that I made (as they are somewhat different
) 
Very cool software - I can create my CAM paths and output .nc direct to my controller...!
Lots of prototype and assembly options too.... I could (if I was so inclined) model all the parts for a receiver individually and then "assemble" them in the software defining joints and angles of movement and have a "working" version of the receiver in my design space!
- not particularly useful to me a this point, but kinda neat I hope you will keep us informed of the progress of your project. That Fusion 360 seems amazing. For my FN 1900 and my auto-5 (which are nearly the same), I find the inlay in the front it the buttstock and the long 1/2” hole for the action spring tube are a not feasible with a three axis CNC. The best I can do for some machining, is drill the action spring tube hole first in the blank and then use that hole to anchor the blank Into the jig. What do you guys think?
Last edited:
For all the advantages that CNC can bring to the table, it never seems to be quite the right tool for stock making.
Maybe just not seen any real good examples, but getting the lines and curves right always seemed to be more art than science, and, shy of scanning a well made example to make a copy, it just does not seem the best tool.
Maybe just not seen any real good examples, but getting the lines and curves right always seemed to be more art than science, and, shy of scanning a well made example to make a copy, it just does not seem the best tool.
