Trapdoor Collector Discussion Board
[ Previous | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]
Re: weatherby model 92 whats it worth
Posted by Dick Hosmer on Friday, 7 October 2011, at 12:11 a.m., in response to Re: weatherby model 92 whats it worth, posted by Victor Lavenstein on Thursday, 6 October 2011, at 11:24 a.m.
Where to start??? I think I'll begin by remarking how wonderful this board is, and how we all help one another - I'd assumed that was a REAL Martini rod; but there I"M in unfamiliar territory. Apparently it is the ultimate hypocrasy - a fake Martini rod used to make a fake TD. Getting back to the rifle:
(1) I suspect the stock is home-made, partly due to the poor fit at the buttplate, and around the tang, but mainly because the band springs are located too "low", as in too far down from the top edge. Also, if it was hand-made, any sort of length gyrations could be concealed thereby.
(2) The barrel is stated to be 28". I do not know if that was measured correctly or not. I DO know that because the rod is (correctly) even with the muzzle, there HAS to be something goofy at the front end, because the Martini rod is about 3/8" shorter from locking groove to tip than that for a TD. Is the rod keeper there, and is it engaged with the rod - can't tell?
(3) The rear sight - which is almost certainly not one of the special "28"B" ones - is located about 3/8" too far to the rear! Why? How? Someone just drilled new holes, or has the rear of the barrel been dicked with too, for some obscure reason? The whole length geometry is haywire. The ONLY way to verify what was done, would be to have the rifle in hand, with a tape measure.
(4) The block is, as you say, incorrect as to finish, and date.
(5) The extractor looks funny, being in the white, and rather over-buffed at the edges. I suspect a entirely newly-made part - perhaps an attempt at the M1882 hold-open feature? Cannot tell anything else from the picture. Could mean that the block has been molested as well.
(6) Trigger is incorrect for time period.
(7) The sling swivels have been bent to look like the rare M1882 model.
(8) Even the attribution is false/factually incorrect as stated. 198563, and 198568, the only possibilities found in SRS (vol. 1) are listed as 1884 Rifles (NOT any sort of cadet) in Co. B of the 1st USV Engineers. Why lie about that? To attempt to cover what may be a weird barrel length?
At one time I was mildly interested in buying the rifle as a "place-holder", but, the more I looked at it, the less attractive it became. If the stock and barrel were properly made ("right" doesn't enter into it at all!) one could do something with it, but as it exists, as, it's just "parts". It is priced way more than that, however. I suspect Mr. Condon got stuck with a fake, and, has chosen to market it as a cadet, hoping no one looks too closely.
Post a New Response
Return to the Trapdoor Collector home page via this link.