1897 riot ???

[joem]

I've been watching at auction a 1897 take down 12 ga that is listed as a trench gun. I've never heard of a take down being a trench gun. Seems strange to me.

[Keydet92]

joem,
Are you sure it's a Model 1897 and not a Model 97? WWII Model 97 trench guns were take-downs. WWI Model 1897 riot guns would also be solid-frame (per-Canfield).

[joem]

Possibly, I just looked at it and have no interest in bidding.

[Johnny P]

A Model 1897 and a Model 97 are the same gun. Several of Winchester's guns that dated from the 1890's were marked "Model of 1897" or whichever model they were. A few years after the turn of the century Winchester decided to change the model designation to bring it into the 20th century even though it was the same gun. The Model 1892 became the Model 92, the Model 1894 the Model 94, and so on even though they were the same gun.

[Keydet92]

Johnny P,
I completely agree with you, minor evolutionary changes not withstanding. I'm just saying that if it's a take down trench gun marked Model 1897 then something is probably wrong.

[joem]

It's is listed as a 97. It's pretty rough with deep pits here and there. Looks like it had a hard life.

[scosgt]

WWI Win 97 trench guns were solid frame
WWII Win 97 trench guns were takedown.
Over and out.

[Art]

The Model 97 is a textbook case on how to put a company into bankruptcy. The gun was produced from 1897 to 1957. By 1957 it had been surpassed by just about every other companies pump gun (the Rem. Model 670 was introduced in 1951 and it still took Winchester five years to get the message.) It stayed in production by Winchester 44 years after the near legendary Model 12 was introduced. Why it was kept in production past 1913 or '14 is a mammoth mystery to me, it certainly isn't because it was better or cheaper than the Model 12.

[scosgt]

Maybe because people were willing to pay for it.
Mystery solved.

[hyrax222]

Some peeps like external hammers. Some like lack of trigger disconnects.

[dave]

External hammers is it. There were lever rifles made with out them but Win. always had them!

[scosgt]

Actually, it is an incredibly strange question for the following reason:

I don't know if every serial number was used, and this is strictly anecdotal evidence, but...

The WWII M97 Trench Guns had serial numbers in the range of 925,000 (935,000 seems to be March of 1942) up to close to 956,000.
The M12 riot guns, which were early, run up to something like 989,000 (again, very rough numbers).
M97 production was stopped in 1942 and only M12's were made.
At that point, the last serial number was around 1,035,000

THEREFORE, they made and sold just about as many M97's as M12's. Why the hell would they stop making them? Simply because they came out with another model? What kind of dumb question is that? They sold over a million M97's, why would they stop making them in 1914? Nominated for dumb question of the month!

AS an aside, it appears, from my personal observation, that most all of the between the wars "riot" guns were M97. You almost never see a real M12 riot before WWII, so probably the Police/Banks/Security Companies/Prisons preferred the M97.

OH By the way, I guess you think that Mossberg should discontinue the 500 since they now make the "improved" 590?

[Art]

They sold more model 97s to the Army because they had a head start. If the Army would have bought Model 12s just as readily as Model 97s. I wasn't just talking about trench/riot guns but about civilian sales as well. The Model 97 was a dinosaur by the 1920's and I stand by my statement that it was foolish to run 2 assembly lines.....and it wasn't a "dumb" question it was actually more of a "dumb" statement with a "why" in it.

As far as the Mossberg shotguns go, a 500 retails for over $100.00 less than a 590 so there's your answer on that. Model 12 riot guns did cost a few bucks more than Model 97s in 1950 but cost about the same to make and a Model 12 is a whole lot better shotgun than a Model 97. When I was a Kid in the '50s and '60s I knew a several people with Model 12s. I knew one person with a Model 97 and it had been sitting in his closet unused for decades. The first outside hammer shotgun I ever saw was a '97 in an arms room in my unit in Korea. Nobody ever used it either. The Katusas who guarded the gates all used hammerless shotguns, this 1967-69.

There are some people for whom nothing is to anachronistic or obsolete to keep around.

So I stand by my statement. The Model 97 wasn't a bad shotgun, just an obsolete shotgun that was kept in production long after what should have been its useful life. Just one more reason Olin offloaded Winchester, and why Winchester has been a basket case since the 1960s and companies like Remington (and Mossberg) haven't

[Tom Doniphon]

Between the Wars Winchester was producing two to three, and sometimes as many as four or more, times the number of Model 12s each year compared to the number of Model 97s made. But apparently the Model 97 was still popular enough to warrant production. In some interwar years as many as 20,000 were being made while in other years only a few thousand. Even after WW2 Winchester was making several thousand 97s a year. It's kind of like the Winchester Model 1873 rifle versus the Model 1892. For over 25 years Winchester sold many Model 1873s right along side the newer Model 1892.

[scosgt]

They sold more model 97s to the Army because they had a head start. If the Army would have bought Model 12s just as readily as Model 97s. I wasn't just talking about trench/riot guns but about civilian sales as well. The Model 97 was a dinosaur by the 1920's and I stand by my statement that it was foolish to run 2 assembly lines.....and it wasn't a "dumb" question it was actually more of a "dumb" statement with a "why" in it.

As far as the Mossberg shotguns go, a 500 retails for over $100.00 less than a 590 so there's your answer on that. Model 12 riot guns did cost a few bucks more than Model 97s in 1950 but cost about the same to make and a Model 12 is a whole lot better shotgun than a Model 97. When I was a Kid in the '50s and '60s I knew a several people with Model 12s. I knew one person with a Model 97 and it had been sitting in his closet unused for decades. The first outside hammer shotgun I ever saw was a '97 in an arms room in my unit in Korea. Nobody ever used it either. The Katusas who guarded the gates all used hammerless shotguns, this 1967-69.

There are some people for whom nothing is to anachronistic or obsolete to keep around.

So I stand by my statement. The Model 97 wasn't a bad shotgun, just an obsolete shotgun that was kept in production long after what should have been its useful life. Just one more reason Olin offloaded Winchester, and why Winchester has been a basket case since the 1960s and companies like Remington (and Mossberg) haven't

NO NO NO
The US bought around 25,000 M97 trench guns in WWI. Regardless of why they chose the 97 (keep in mind that the 97 had been in Army inventory going back to the Philippine affair) that was not enough units to keep them in production after the war. They kept building them because people kept buying them. More recently, the Chinese made a cheap copy, no where near as good as the real thing, but guess what, they flew off the shelves. Since they can no longer be imported, the prices have gotten pretty high and they are hard to find. People like the design. Just because YOU pronounce it "obsolete" that does NOT make it so.

I stand by my statement, DUMB DUMB question. Simple answer: People kept buying them, so they kept making them.