1893 Turks and import marks?

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
micmacman	1893 Turks and import marks?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1809 (08/22/06 08:04 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None i cant understand why M93 Turks are import marked,i thought if the receiver was pre 1898 that they didnt need to be import marked
28 Mosin	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#1	[-]
Posts: 976 (08/23/06 03:04 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mine isn't. Was the importer Century? If it was than that is the reason IMHO.
micmacman	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#2	[-]
Posts: 1809 (08/24/06 07:59 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	i have one M93 import brand "NAC RID NC" anouther M93 that is branded with a CAI import stamp and anouthe M93 that isnt branded
WVchuck	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#3	[-]
Posts: 12648 (08/24/06 08:48 PM) Forum Site Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Navy Arms Company, Ridgefield New Jersey.
micmacman	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#4	[-]
Posts: 1809 (08/24/06 09:01 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	NJ,ok,the stamp was kinda light so i took a stab at it,lol
jjk308	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#5	[-]
Posts: 2959 (08/25/06 10:39 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Century just chucked all the 1893's in their import system for C&Rs. The ex-post-facto reasoning was that the date marks were wiped on most, but there's little question that production ended by 1897, and anyone with the right acid can bring out the dates if they though it worth the effort. (If you dont have access to the gels used by forensic experts you have to build a clay dam around the location. And you need a fume hood - hack, cough, wheeze)
OldIronMan	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#6	[-]
Posts: 1281 (09/11/06 08:59 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There is no import mark on my new Tapco '93. "A cheerful heart is good medicine."
micmacman	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#7	[-]
Posts: 1809 (09/11/06 09:30 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	lets see some pics old man,lol
OldIronMan	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#8	[-]
Posts: 1281 (09/11/06 09:51 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There are some in the thread on the Tapco M93s. "A cheerful heart is good medicine."
micmacman	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#9	[-]
Posts: 1809 (09/11/06 10:10 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	ahh,hadnt looked at that thread
28 Mosin	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#10	[-]
Posts: 976 (09/12/06 01:34 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The three I bought from Tapco have no import mark. All three still have the Arabic script.
Trezevant06	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#11	[-]
Posts: 72 (07/14/07 10:41 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	No import mark on my Tapco 93 either. Has old lettering/date on side rail for 1895, though.
cetracer	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#12	[-]
Posts: 133 (07/15/07 04:08 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	From the understanding I have regarding the subject and several long discussions on the C&R FFL email list. The BATF has taken the position, according to those involved in those discussions, that "if" the rails have been scrubbed and in the process scrubbing off the "original" production year, the records be damned. The BATF has taken the position that it is post 01/1899, therefore not "antique", requiring an import mark and transfer by either Form 4473 or C&R FFL. I am just the messenger, so I have no bone in this fight, this is just what I have been told. I have both an 03 & 01 FFL. Had this talk with my Century rep, as I indicated, there's been long, drawn out disussions on the C&R FFL email list, involving Dennis Kroh of Empire Arms, or own Jack C. (mman92) and others. What were my results? I have one (1) very nice 1893, still wearing an original, straight wrist stock w/ the cut out for the magazine cut-off, and the mag cut-off box still present on the rifle, although the lever ground off. It still bears the Arabic / Farsi script with date although the Sultan's crest has been scrubbed. This one, I got as antique and no import marks from Century. The other six (6) are totally scrubbed, are accordingly import marked and were transferred, by Century via my FFL. Chuck Chuck Chuck Carter COG #2112 COA #10462 "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with one step." Lao Tzu
micmacman	Re: 1893 Turks and import marks?	#13	[-]
Posts: 1809 (07/18/07 10:57 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	well this is a old thread i started almost a year ago,since then ive aquired several more 93's and have sold as many so ive had more examples to look at still about half of the 93's ive owned/own were import marked reguardless of 93's being antique,some with a CAI nasty,deep,unsightly brand on the right side of the barrel towards the muzzle,,,,,,and the others on the side rail right over top of the script writing i think i have two still in my possession with the import marks branded right over the script on the siderail,so the "if it has script writing on the side rail,it doesnt need import marks" theory doesnt hold in either instance be it a side rail import mark,or the barrel mark they were calus in how it was applied,whether it needed it or not
Trezevant06	blast from the past	#14	[-]
Posts: 71 (06/08/09 12:26 AM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Trezevant06 wrote: No import mark on my Tapco 93 either. Has old lettering/date on side rail for 1895, though. I was going through the old files and found this about the old Tapco 1893's. I had to sell off all milsurps save one, due to recession finances, and it was that 93 that I'm keeping. I'd taken it apart to clean up the stock last year, but never put it back together. Figured in the end, as I'd sold about everything, and just had this left, that I'd keep it and reload for it, as originally planned. It still has a minty bore and I'd like to finally try it out. Was going to get some Romy surplus, but was thinking about either getting cases and reloading from scratch, or maybe some privi reloadable. Is the latter a bit too hot? What's the best brass? Wondered about Remington vs. Winchester, or maybe even some privi, but the latter brass is oos at grafs, etc.. Was thinking about a set of collet dies and reloading with cast bullets.
jjk308		#15	[-]
Posts: 2943 (07/16/09 11:44 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	cetracer wrote: "From the understanding I have regarding the subject and several long discussions on the C&R FFL email list. The BATF has taken the position, according to those involved in those discussions, that "if" the rails have been scrubbed and in the process scrubbing off the "original" production year, the records be damned. The BATF has taken the position that it is post 01/1899, therefore not "antique", requiring an import mark and transfer by either Form 4473 or C&R FFL." The BATFE must supply proof that they are not antique. Their own letter on the antique status includes dates in the perso-turkish numerals that only go up to 1897, so apparently they have never seen later ones and dont think they exist. In any case they could prove that they are modern by using an acid paste to bring out the dates. But the evidence so far indicates that it'd be futile and they wont bother. My own research indicates that the contract was filled by the end of 1896, October if I remember correctly, and the inclusion of 1897 on the list of dates is simply because of the mismatch between the lunar Islamic and solar western calendars for the beginning of a year at the time these rifles were made.