Thanks, Steve

That is helpful information.  I do have one other 4-digit S/N M70 lying around, that I didn’t mention b/c I don’t have the S/N recorded down here in SC.  (Given that I live/work in a coastal hurricane flood zone most of my guns live on “higher ground” and I only visit them a couple times a year.)  That gun is a well worn 30 GOV’T’06 Standard rifle that nobody has tried to restore/upgrade, S/N 5XXX range.  It too is fitted with the squared magazine release plunger.

I guess my take-home is that the S/N for a design change marks the point at which it began to be phased in.  So if Rule’s figures are correct, a M70 with S/N under 2200 or so should be type I-1, thereafter it could be type I-1 or I-2 until the factory used-up all the squared-off plungers in inventory.  Which must have taken several months given your experience, at least into the 5000+ S/N range.

Here’s another question… What is the LATEST S/N you’ve seen on a 1st variation target rifle (with the #2 ramp medium heavy straight taper barrel)?

The type I-1 target model I mentioned above, S/N 3339, is a first variation target rifle in 257 Roberts.  I am confident that it is original.  I have another gun, S/N 24716, 1939 DOM based on the WACA site.  It is chambered in 220 Swift and has a correctly marked ’36 barrel date, 26″ straight taper, #2 ramp Chrome Moly Steel (not stainless) barrel.  Ramped medium heavy 220 Swift barrels made of CMS were apparently produced for the Model 54 Target Rifle up until ’36. Rule’s book states that while most ramped target models have S/N under 10,000, a few were produced with S/N into the low 30,000s (ironically in 257 Roberts or 220 Swift).

Cheers

As I read Threads like this, I’m reminded how utterly rude the Winchester factory was in failing to consider the sensibilities and investigative efforts of collectors the better part of a century later!  Possible even that their ‘mix & match’ parts bins formed some sort of gigantic time capsule conspiracy! 

…On the other hand, isn’t this is the ‘stuff’ that we love to ponder as we scrutinize our rifles for such details?  So, after all, maybe “Thanks Winchester” for keeping collecting interesting and collectors on their toes!

Just a take!

Steve-

Thank you for the great information.  Beyond my own experience, I only know what I read in books.  So it is very helpful to hear from collectors with first hand knowledge.

Although Rule mentions the existence of (at least one) example of a ramped target model with S/N in the low 30K range, the highest S/N he shows photos of is S/N 11843 (.257 Roberts).  As I mentioned above, the 1st variation target rifle I have that I am confident about is S/N 3339 (also .257 Roberts), which is similar in configuration to S/N 3827 from the Michael Kokin collection also pictured in Rule.

For comment/entertainment, I have posted a (not very professional) photo composite of S/N 24716 (assuming the Photobucket link below works).  I apologize for the image quality. My digital camera equipment/studio lights are not very good, and getting the image light enough to see details causes the stock to look too light. The neither the wood or metal on this rifle appear to be refinished: 

http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah272/luttrell4/Model%2070%20Target%20Rifle/M70%20TARGET%2024716_zpscme3pegr.jpg

S/N 24716 also has a ’36 barrel date, and I’ve had it completely apart (except for disassembling the bolt sleeve).  As you can see it has a standard stock. It’s in about 95% condition (wood and metal), and all the parts look like they belong together in terms of finish wear/handling marks, etc.  The only non-period thing about it is that someone put a post-1947 Lyman 48WH sight on it (the stock is NOT cut for a receiver sight).  I’ve left it on the gun b/c the sight has made a minor indentation in the wood.

Thanks again for the info.

Cheers,

Lou

Hi Steve-

Yes, rifle does have a “T” trigger.  

I’m pretty sure the barrel is “real” (it has worn blue finish – carry wear – above the breech end right where the gun balances and a dime-sized area of pitting below the stock line about 4″ forward of the receiver ring – it would seen to be a pretty sophisticated forgery to first make up “perfect” looking barrel with “perfect” markings and then “age it” in that way).  I just have no way of knowing if action S/N 24716 left the factory on this action in this configuration.

Appreciate the info-

Lou 

Vic is certainly right.  When it comes to M70s that have any atypical features, “originality” is most often in the eye of the beholder, b/c even if everything looks “right”, it still may not be factory.  “Obvious” repairs/modifications are of course “obvious”, but there are some things that leave one guessing…

I’d also concur with Vic in that Rule’s exceptional book agrees with my personal observation about 99% of the time.  Not that I’d challenge any of his research… I’ve been collecting M70s since around 1980, but have never devoted anything like the energy to studying them that Rule did in researching his book.

One curious minor discrepancy is that Rule asserts that there are no 1st variation target rifles (ramped straight taper barrel) known in 300 Magnum.  This is based on the fact that 1st variation target barrels were mostly made from leftover unmarked M54 target rifle barrels, and that the M54 was never chambered in H&H Magnum length cartridges.  

Yet Steve (above) reports a ramped straight taper barrel 300 Magnum S/N 4594 with a sporter stock, and I’ve seen two that were possibly believable.  One was a 300 Magnum Super Grade with ramped straight taper barrel that Randy Shuman had in his safe about 3 decades ago (I didn’t make note of the serial number – I was a poor grad student at the time and the rifle was not for sale anyway). The other was S/N 11235 with a standard sporter stock that Rock Island Auctions sold in April 2013 (http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/58/lid/1646).   

My “rationale” for these guns is that even though the factory stopped making Target rifles with ramps very early on, they were making that exact barrel contour for the 375 Magnum (24″ ramped straight taper) up until ’38 or ’39.   So if somebody had ordered a heavy barrel sporter in 300 Magnum, the factory might well have used those dimensions to make up a 26″ 300 Magnum barrel with No. 2 ramp.  The standard sporter stock (Part No. 1670) without a recoil pad and inlet for a target weight barrel was a cataloged part at the time.  I’d assume that is how many of the early target rifles with standard stocks originated – anybody wanting one could order the correct sporter stock direct from the factory.

Has anyone seen a pre-war 300 Magnum M70 with a ramped straight taper barrel that was in Target rifle configuration (as opposed to sporter)?  Rule would say they don’t exist.

I don’t think one never can really be sure…

Hi Vic-

I was just trying to reconcile Rule’s book (which states that #5 barrels in 300 Magnum are unheard of) with my own (and others’) observation that #5 barrels in 300 Magnum do exist.  The rifles I’ve seen (or heard about) were equipped with Sporter stocks, and Rule makes specific mention of a ’37 barrel date 300 Magnum Target Model having the second variation barrel (dovetailed – no ramp).  

As I understood his thesis, the argument for why #5 barrels in 300 Magnum did not exist (which they do) was that the 1st variation target rifles were put together from unmarked M54 target barrels, and the M54 was not chambered in 300 Magnum.  Since, he posits, the decision to eliminate the ramp was made very early on (’36 or early ’37), all of the M70 Target rifle barrels in 300 Magnum were made according to the new (rampless) specification.  That part seems logical, apart from the fact that a few ramped target barrels were made in ’37 (during M70 production), which at least admits the possibility of some ramped  300 Magnum barrels being made for Target rifles.

So I was curious whether any of the advanced M70 collectors (such as yourself) had ever seen a 1st variation Target Model (in Target configuration) chambered for 300 Magnum.  My (unsubstantiated) hypothesis is that #5 barrels in 300 Magnum were not routinely produced for Target rifle production, but some were probably made up in case customers ordered a 300 Magnum Standard or Super with a heavy barrel (as a companion to the 375 Magnum as then produced).

Like any good bench scientist (not a bone fide field biologist/scientist like you), I’m just looking for evidence to destroy my hypothesis.  Wouldn’t be the first time!!!!

Cheers,

Lou

Hi Vic-

I’m sure no expert.  I always thought that Rule based that number (<40) on how many he had recorded within the collector community.  Still, there can’t be very many, as target rifles in general were only a small percentage of total production.  Even if all the target rifles made in ’36-’37 had front sight ramps (which is not the case) there still can’t be many.

The one 1st variation target rifle I have that I am confident of is S/N 3339 in .257 Roberts.  When I picked it up, it was missing the target mounting blocks, the front sight was a high Lyman post in the ramp dovetail, the receiver sight was an odd combination of a Lyman 48R base (mounted backwards) and the (probably original) 48WJS (not 48WH) slide/aperture.  Worst of all, it had a thick coat of varnish over the original stock finish (at least the stock had never been stripped or shortened).  

I put period correct Lyman 17A, early 48WJS, and scope blocks on the rifle.  As carefully as possible I removed the varnish overcoat without adding any finish (at least I got rid of the drips/runs from the overcoat).  Finally I added a Winchester 1 1/4″ M1907 type sling with Albree Keeper.  

The rifle looks pretty respectable now, but is clearly a ‘used’ target rifle.  Given the state is was in I doubt it’s one that Rule knew about in collector circles.  This is a gun somebody actually put to use.

Best,

Lou