![Image](http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e372/rangerider72/lfCA3I6VYX_edited-1_zpsf88d2bdd.jpg)
This is a great cabinet photo to me. What do you think. He is not identified. RR7
That's the way I always feel, too. Even if I knew enough to go over them with a fine-tooth comb, I'd always be left wondering if the photographer and costumer were simply smarter-than-average and still fooled me.Pitchy wrote:I don`t know what to think about these stage prop photos, they make me wonder if the person is really like the impression they are presenting or someone dressing up to make it look that way.
Kinda reminds me of the wave of want a be people that bought Harleys , leathers and got tats and claimed to be bikers.
Without a name and proof of what that person did in his life i`m not convinced that he isn`t a banker, sorry.
I agree completely with this. Check out the well-worn old boots, hardly the thing you would expect to see provided as a "prop" by the studio. I think this old feller is all duded up in what to him is his "Sunday Best", the photo is studio but the man and his outfit are the real deal.KirkD wrote:Considering the age of that photo, that 1886 was heavily used by the looks of the lack of blueing on the barrel and mag tube. I would tend to say it is the real McCoy simply because of the age of the fellow in the photo. I can see some young whipper snapper getting a dressed up to look like a frontiersman, but fellows that old are not usually much interested in getting all dressed up to look like a frontiersman. I'm thinking that this fellow had some real history homesteading somewhere and one of his sons or daughters or grandchildren persuaded him to get dressed up in his old buckskin coat and take his well-used '86 down to the photographer and get a picture taken for posterity. The look on his face is one of quietly obliging his 50 year-old daughter or, more likely, a few of his 20 year-old grandchildren.
Good eye on that tang sight. I missed that. That adds to the possible authenticity of the man and his rifle. It takes a lot of use to wear the blue off a rifle that fast, and a tang sight is exactly what an older fellow needs to still make those longer shots. (don't ask me how I know).Malamute wrote: I like his rifle, it's a round barrel, likely a 45-70 from the leaf rear sight. It also has a tang sight. Definately has some wear.
Two things. First, the underside of the receiver is solid and round-bottomed. A '94 has a section that drops out of the bottom of the receiver when it is being levered. Second, the loading gate on an '86 has a unique rear hinge section to it, and the front of the loading gate is square. Not easy to get that kind of detail in the photo, but once you've seen an '86 like that, it sticks out like a sore thumb.pwl44m wrote:For sure Indian blood.
Now I need some help Guys. I am not an 86 person so tell Me from just the picture what distinguishes it from a 94.
could it be that he has a long tang gun? yours seems to be a short tang, but maybe it's just the angle.KirkD wrote:Yeah, the tang sight in the photo does look kind of odd upon a careful look. It seems too far forward and the bolt would hit it when levered back.
I think you might be right. I see an honesty in his eyes and clothes, and the rifle that spells real deal to me.jnyork wrote:I agree completely with this. Check out the well-worn old boots, hardly the thing you would expect to see provided as a "prop" by the studio. I think this old feller is all duded up in what to him is his "Sunday Best", the photo is studio but the man and his outfit are the real deal.KirkD wrote:Considering the age of that photo, that 1886 was heavily used by the looks of the lack of blueing on the barrel and mag tube. I would tend to say it is the real McCoy simply because of the age of the fellow in the photo. I can see some young whipper snapper getting a dressed up to look like a frontiersman, but fellows that old are not usually much interested in getting all dressed up to look like a frontiersman. I'm thinking that this fellow had some real history homesteading somewhere and one of his sons or daughters or grandchildren persuaded him to get dressed up in his old buckskin coat and take his well-used '86 down to the photographer and get a picture taken for posterity. The look on his face is one of quietly obliging his 50 year-old daughter or, more likely, a few of his 20 year-old grandchildren.
As far as I know, all the 1886's had the same tang. The Model 71's didn't but the 86's did. I'll check it in Madl's book in my office, but I don't recall seeing any upper tang variations. My '86 was made in 1890.Grizz wrote:could it be that he has a long tang gun? yours seems to be a short tang, but maybe it's just the angle.
I'd estimate the photo was taken no later than 1910. If the fellow is 70 years old, he was born in 1820. By the time he was 20 years old and rarin' to go, it would have been 1840. The 86 didn't come along until 1886, but the fellow was around at the time of the Old West, Comanche raids, etc.Jackruff wrote:Assuming the Winchester 1886 was first made in 1886, since this rifle clearly has seen a lot of use, I'd say the photo was taken well after 1886. Was there really any frontier left in the continental United States by then?
Depends on how you define it, but in a practical sense, yes. We don't know if it was in the lower 48 either, (or even the US for that matter, could be Canadian).jackruff wrote:Assuming the Winchester 1886 was first made in 1886, since this rifle clearly has seen a lot of use, I'd say the photo was taken well after 1886. Was there really any frontier left in the continental United States by then?
As Kirk sez, easily lots of wilderness left, if not actual frontier. That might be a hard differentiation to make.Jackruff wrote:Assuming the Winchester 1886 was first made in 1886, since this rifle clearly has seen a lot of use, I'd say the photo was taken well after 1886. Was there really any frontier left in the continental United States by then?
And unless he was living in Canada or someplace way up in the mountains, a Civil War veteran.KirkD wrote:I'd estimate the photo was taken no later than 1910. If the fellow is 70 years old, he was born in 1840. By the time he was 20 years old and rarin' to go, it would have been 1860. The 86 didn't come along until 1886, but the fellow was around at the time of the Old West, Comanche raids, etc.
Nah! That's the kind of mistake mathematicians are prone to make. (Ask me how I know.)KirkD wrote:Oops! I better go back to school for math!