Thanks for the clarity on the statement.
As for Pirkles book. When I had a new barrel made for my 76, I know from the Cody letter it had a 1/2 magazine. I listed as a needed feature of the new barrel the small groove for the magazine cap just beyond the forearm cap. I was told that is incorrect, that they were button magazines and captured by the forearm. I pointed out that this is not what Pirkle stated. I then called Mike Hunter who was doing other work on the 1876 50-95, and he confirmed the error in the book. I called another well known author and restoration guru Mike suggested and he pointed out the same error. No notch was to be made. That maybe on a rare 5 round magazine, which would require the magazine to extend beyond the forearm cap would a notch be made. The full magazine had the notch, but not button.
The sights he mentions are not that accurate. They do exist, but he did not account for the express semi-buckhorn, and other variations.
On my copy, some of his screw references are incorrect, thread and size.
But these are to be expected I think. Even Houze, who had unprecedented access to Winchester records is missing data. My rifle and one I know of are not mentioned in his book on factory modified 50-95’s. My Cody letter states it was changed, and the other I know of states it was changed, but Houze did not record them in his otherwise detailed accounts in his numbers. His age for 50-95 ammunition differed from the Shulyer accounting and research.
These are great books, but like all, give us a basis to go from, but are not definitive or gospel. Not that people take them as such, but just because the book does not mention it, just means it may not have crossed that authors path. Since these rifles were subject to special orders, anything is possible.
I think I saw a 44-40 1873 sold at a major auction house. It was in a 32/38 style receiver. Don’t recall the facts with clarity, but something to the effect it was factory made this way.
The NRA tweeted a picture of a left hand load, 1876 with late SN, but early 1876 run parts, attributed to General Sheridan. It was a customized and oddity of parts, purportedly made just for the General for his Buffalo hunts. But Houze does not seem to mention such a gun. He devotes a bit of ink to a special order by Custer for a friend. Why? Did it escape his research? Don’t know. Point is, I’ve learned that the two books are good, but not definitive. That’s all I’m saying. If the book is silent on it, keep looking for another source, if it has data in your subject, trust by verify.
It’s not a rebuke of any of these fine authors. I wish I knew 20% of what these learned individuals understood. Just my insight.
I also think versions have important changes. Maybe that’s why my Kindle version has some data the prints don’t have.
Just my view. Again, not a rebuke of the books, just that they are not free of errors.