1895 restoration (pic heavy) project is finished

Nice work Joe. I take great pride in owning your previous 1895- 405 build. Man does it shoot!

Keep the pictures coming!

13a53d99.jpg
 
Grove said:
A classic completely RUINED.

RIP classic 1895.
Click to expand...

Shhhh, back to the armchair with you.

It looks good. I would have prefere some finer engraving, but if it was in the budget as is then great. I am sure it would entail a lot more than most commenting could accomplish on there own.
 
Buckmastr said:
Nice work Joe. I take great pride in owning your previous 1895- 405 build. Man does it shoot!

Keep the pictures coming!

13a53d99.jpg
Click to expand...

I have a junker 1895, and that rifle on the left is a fine job as well as the one posted.

While the stock style is not my cup of tea, I cannot deny the work is well done.

Thanks for the inspiration, you must feel very classy hunting with that rifle.
 
I was faced with a similar situation. I had a junker in .303 British, made 1911 I think. Bubba had force threaded a pan head stove bolt in to the receiver to hold on the rear peep sight, but it was too small in diameter so the sight just rattled and the threads were buggered. He crudely filed off the screws in the barrel, damaging the barrel. A butt stock from another, non model 95 was attached. In short, this thing was awful. I was ashamed to show it to anyone, and thanks to the poorly fitting butt and rattling sight I couldn't shoot it with any confidence. But the action was smooth and tight, and the bore was great. I sent it out to a well known 'smith on this site. For a surprisingly small amount of money he cut a few new screws, installed a used but very nice original stock, and reblued the whole thing. It now shoots great and I can proudly show it without having to explain it or apologize for it. Is it perfect? No. The "blue" is actually black, and the stock has varnish instead of oil. But so what. This totally revived a dead rifle.
I like original rifles, even well used originals. I go goo goo over patina and a good storey. But some rifles are simply too far gone to have ANY interest, either functionally or from a collector/investor standpoint. And lets face it, unless a gun is super rare, collectors are only intersted in the best specimen possible.
 
I sort of look at restoring rifles like restoring old cars...you can leave that rusted out pile of crap in a farmer's field/yard or you can do something with it. I finally got mine all broken down this weekend and have started cleaning up the parts. Oh..and I cut a new crown into it because someone decided a hacksaw was appropriate to re-crown a barrel with...

On the plus side beyond the tip of the barrel and some other gouges in the metal(looks like filing(?) on the underside of the receiver and some vice marks on the reciever) the thing is in fairly decent shape for a 100 year old rifle that has been used heavily. I might need to add some metal to the locking lugs to tighten the bolt up a bit as primers back out a touch but I'm kind of up in the air on that detail as it would add some pain in the ass to this project.

And I already said it but feel the need to re-iterate..nice job OP. :D

*edit*

Adding a pic. This is one from when I first got it...not the greatest but it's already online and I don't know that I have another.

303britCarb.jpg
 
Grove said:
A classic completely RUINED.

RIP classic 1895.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that statement. From the looks of the original pictures, it was ruined by the person who filed that slot in the bolt. The finish was no screaming hell, it was pitted, with a bad barrel, and a stock that had lousy repairs on it.

You can not save the World, or every firearm that comes across your path. Some of them have been neglected or Bubbaed like this one. Basically, here, the OP had an action, and a bunch of crapped out parts originally.

In the matter of Collecting, I strongly lean toward the Original line of thought, but I am also open minded enough to realize that some firearms are not candidates for putting back to original status. With a more rare firearm, it does make sense, but with more available and mass produced models, it sometimes is better to create an individual rifle, if done well and tastefully.

The OP has done this with a poor to fair 1895 Winchester, and I think he has done exceptionally well on it. His craftsmanship shows the time, effort and care that he has expended on it, and he should be commended on basically making a very unique and useful rifle from a crapped out one.

I wonder if anyone would think that a Griffin and Howe Sporter made from a 1903 Springfield as a "RUINED" Military Springfield. How about the Classic Mauser rifles that used 1898 Mauser Military actions? RUINED? Maybe a better example of being "RUINED" is taking an 1873 Colt Single Action Army Pistol, sending it to Tiffanys and having them engrave it, put on ivory grips and silver inlays. Does anyone think that Tiffanys RUINED that Colt?

If the makeover is tasteful and well done, does it really matter if it is made by a big name company, a well known gunsmith, a not-so-well-known gunsmith, or a talented amateur who obviously has a love for guns and fine craftsmanship? The gun will speak for itself and reflect the quality.

I have a set of .308 Winchester Bench Rest loading dies made for me a long time ago by Seeley Masker. Is someone going to try to tell me that he "RUINED" a perfectly good Lyman 310 hand tool in making them?

So, to the OP, I say "Fine job." The only thing I can see is that inletted brass block on the top of the bolt cries out for some engraving, and I might suggest your name - " ###### ###xx" above the words found on many of the older era muzzle loaders, "His Rifle".
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom