Having read as much as I can find or afford on Winders, and my question was 'what is and is not a Winder Musket?; at this point I think that it might be easier to rule out what isn't a Winder. 

In general, from December 1904 forward, Winchester single shot muskets chambered for any 22rf might be fairly called a Winder musket.

At this point, having read everything I can, I would be hard pressed to call out the exceptions. However, I am sure there are a small few.
Anyone care to check my thinking here? Friendly please!
( I now have a lot of data)

I would add that the sights must be a U.S. Krag rear sight (any model) in the 1st or 2nd Model (or D&T for same), or it must be a 3rd Model with 4 holes in the right side of the action (if lacking the Lyman sight).  Also must be either Short or Long Rifle, not WRF or Extra Long.

If they have Hotchkiss sights, they are pre-Winders.  His first requirement was that the musket have Krag sights.  They were intended as National Guard training rifles.

Hi ,I just found this post . I have a Winder Musket as was researched by Bert ,a Great Guy by the way. Last year I somehow found out on the Rimfire Central website that a Gentleman named Bert was collecting imfo. on these rifles , so I sent him everything I had on mine and he got back to me with this  ;  Your Winder Musket was one of the 11,419 that were delivered to the U.S. Army's Springfield Armory. The really nice thing about it, is the serial number is early enough that the original Winchester ledger records for it still exist (at the Cody Firearms Museum). Per those records, it was received in the warehouse on July 30th 1918, and shipped on September 20th, 1918, on order number 846520T. It was part of the 6,289 that were shipped per contract P3745-1549Sa of May 15, 1918. Regards ,Bert
So if any of you guys want to get a Letter from Winchester I'll give you the rest of the imfo. to see if the Sights were on it when it lafe the factory. Regards , Bruce

waterman wrote on Aug 19^th, 2018 at 6:12pm:


Why not "exact"?  Indulge in that silliness on the Winchester Collectors Forum (of which Bert is the Chief Sachem), & other members will inflict the derision such foolishness deserves.

Redsetter wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 12:13am:


My interest is in the SPAN of SNs shipped in any particular batch, not in the SN itself.  If the subject rifle is included in both the Winchester records and the specific contract data, that provides some sort of time marker.  I could compare that with the SNs of my three Model 87 Single Shots to get some idea of the year of assembly.  

But with Gov't contract training rifles, there is no great assurance that receivers were selected in numerical order.  Put the Military Training Rifle contracts in context with everything that Winchester did during the 1914-1919 period.  The contracts were far less than 0.02 of 1 % of Winchester's business.  Williamson's economic history covers a lot and does not even mention those contracts.  Winchester made hundreds of thousands of P14s, almost half a million Model 1917s, almost 50,000 Model 1918 BARs, military versions of the 1897 and 1912 (?) shotguns, plus military versions of the 1907 and 1910 WSL rifles, plus the 236,000 Russian contract 1895s, plus the 1917 Browning machine guns, plus a bunch of special equipment, artillery parts, sights, etc., etc.  Plus continuing to offer their whole catalog of civilian guns, plus doing the developmental work on the Model 52 bolt action .22 target rifle and what would eventually become the Model 54 in .30-06.

They did all that with employees who were not trained to the same level of skill as normal peacetime employees.  The days of the Single Shot were over. It was an economic loser.  The Training Rifle contract gave Winchester an excuse to use up what would have been surplus parts.  As time progressed, the work got sloppier.  My highest number (very near the end of the line, > 132,000) is a far less desirable rifle than either of my lower numbered 87s.  I believe the stories about no heat treating, etc.  They were putting together military training rifles with parts that would otherwise be surplus or scrap, and turned them out with less-than-usual attention to detail.  That they work and shoot as well as they do is a tribute to a really good design.