I don't have a phone camera. so you'll have to put up with words.

I attended a small area gun show today, mostly black guns and Chinese knives, but one dealer had the following extremely- high-condition low-wall sporter: full-octagonal # 1 barrel. standard open rifle sights, case-colored action. standard stock with an ebony insert in the forearm tip, serial number 38,xxx.

The owner claimed it was original and factory.  Well, you did have to look long and very, very carefully to discern that the rifle had in fact been fully refinished; indeed, even Turnbull's best work is seldom that good.

But what the man claimed justified his $33,000.00 asking price - yes, you read that right - is that the "rifle" was factory-chambered as a .410.

Now aside from the ".410 " stamp where you'd expect the caliber stamp to be, the only other immediately odd thing was that the expected factory barrel stamp was located on the left-hand rather than the center flat and approximately 4 inches in front of the rear sight.

Did he have a factory letter?  He evaded that question.  So what was his story?  A special order gun for a trick shooter.

Possible, I admit, for Winchester was not the only company that made "disguised" riles and pistols for just such a reason.

In any case, what says the Forum?

Bill Lawrence

The owner is a non truth teller... Winchester never made an original Model 1885 in .410 bore.   

Bert H.

In the absence of factory documentation (which you’d figure would be standard issue with a price tag like that), the word “fugazi” comes irresistibly to mind.

Winchester offered .410 shotshells in their 1916 catalog, stating they were for the usual run of Stevens, Folsom, Iver-Johnson, etc., small-size shotguns, but made no mention of any Winchester chambered for them.

Winchester did not manufacture a .410 bore shotgun until the Model 20 was introduced in the year 1919, followed by the Model 41 in 1920.

Bert

Since the .410 was developed in the 1870s, in France I think, the fake was at least plausible.  But I would've thought .44-40 shot cartridges in a Winchester 73 or 92 would have been the most obvious choice for a less-than-confident trick shooter back then.
Cody was reputed to have used them.  Oakley, at least in her early years and when performing out-of-doors, claimed she did not.

Bill Lawrence

I had an excellent lo-wall that had made it to england and back, chambered in england to the .410, where it was in more demand.

Many rifles in England were made in to shotguns as they are simpler to register.
Cheers,
Laurie

In England it is illegal to sell any firearm that is not in proof unless it is an obsolete caliber or of historical significance and is given a proof exemption certificate by one of the Proof Houses. An out of proof gun also can not be exported. 
Cheers,
Laurie

As I started reading this thread I kept thinking to myself that this must have started life as a 44-40, smooth bore or not.  It would have been a very simple thing to rechamber it to take the 410 X 2 1/2" shot shell.  Why somebody would have put the large number of $$$ into a high end restoration with such a mutt is a mystery to me though.  I would have had a hard time keeping a straight face at that offer though! 

Froggie

next thing you know, there will be a market for fake letters for that kind of money.

My personal favorite was a butchered-up Ruger #3 that had the curlicue sawed off the lever, amongst other depredations.  Hoping to get it for cheep for a possible project, I asked the price and got a number in excess of what a Number One would have cost brand-new.

I asked him why the thing was so expensive, and he told me that it was a rare, factory Ruger #2.

I didn’t find a thing to buy at that gunshow, but that reply was worth the drive and the entrance and parking fees.