Strange Model 97 Trench Gun

[Tom Doniphon]

Here's a strange Model 97 trench gun. The first time around on Gunbroker it got bid up to over $3,000 and still did not meet the reserve. Anyone else see some of the issues this gun has? It's Gunbroker auction number 655293470.

Here's the link: http://www.gunbroker.com/item/655293470

[Ltdave]

i dont know anything about them (i want one, or at least a Norco version to go with my Norco 1911)...

whats wrong with it?

[Ironlip]

Let's see.....the serial number is way too early for a WWII weapon; it doesn't have the WP proof that should be on the top of the barrel at the receiver; the Ordnance stamp, though fake and the later variety, is pretty good; the buttplate is wrong; the stock has obviously been refinished so the WB and Ordnance stock stamp is too crispy to be real. That's a start.

I do have to give the faker credit for the "quality" of the fake U.S. and Ordnance bomb stamps on the left side of the receiver. They look better than most. Their presence means it's a reblue, but a much better example than most of them.

Man, I would hate to be a newbie collector in a world where all the indicia of originality can be faked! There's a part of me that wants to boycott Numrich and all the other outlets that sell the stamps that let people fabricate guns like this.

[scosgt]

Also does not have a trench magazine tube. The bayonet adapter is a modern repro, not riveted on.
Impressive looking but not even a good fake.

[colt thompson]

It would be great if a sticky could be created showing how to spot fakes. It would save new collectors a ton of money.

[Tom Doniphon]

You guys nailed most of the issues. As scosgt noticed, it still has the takedown lever on the mag tube. Anyone also notice the Ordnance mark is bogus? The flame is the size of a bonfire. lol

If the receiver marks (i.e., the "U.S" and Ordnance mark) are fake, they are pretty good fakes.

And the gun is actually earlier than the seller states. The receiver was serialized in 1927, not 1932.

[Sunray]

"...too early for a WWII weapon..." Guy says it's 1932 vintage. Mind you, if it is a '32, I suspect it's been re-blued. Far too clean, polished and black for '30's vintage bluing. No way it saw any use by anybody in the condition it's in.
"...they are pretty good fakes..." U.S. Ordnance Dept. stamps are readily available. Cheap, they ain't though. Gunparts wants $44.75 for the Flaming Bomb stamp.
"...gun is actually earlier than the seller states..." Old Guns' S/N look up says it's 1932. Winchester Collectors says a '93/'87 with the S/N is 1927.

[Keydet92]

The Old Guns data, and most everything else on the web including the info on the "new" Winchester site, is based off some outdated research conducted by George Madis. The Winchester Arms Collectors Association serial look up is based off the actual proof house serialization records owned by the Cody Firearms Museum and is the best source.

[Scott Wilson]

The finish and metal prep are all wrong. That shotgun has been hot salt blued. Winchester used two different bluing methods on the Model 97, Niter blue on the receiver and rust blue on the barrel and mag tube assembly.

[SPEEDGUNNER]

It would be great if a sticky could be created showing how to spot fakes. It would save new collectors a ton of money.

I suggested that three months ago and got nary a response.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?62785-How-about-a-quot-Sticky-quot

[robh5]

You guys nailed most of the issues. As scosgt noticed, it still has the takedown lever on the mag tube. Anyone also notice the Ordnance mark is bogus? The flame is the size of a bonfire. lol

If the receiver marks (i.e., the "U.S" and Ordnance mark) are fake, they are pretty good fakes.

And the gun is actually earlier than the seller states. The receiver was serialized in 1927, not 1932.

Also looks like the serial number on the barrel was hand etched. Stylistically, it does not match the number on the receiver.

[Ironlip]

Excellent catch Rob! I had missed that. When you look closely it's obvious.

[tmturner45]

I cannot spot or point out the details above but it sure takes a pair to put "new old stock" in their alleged repro listing.