Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Dear Esteemed WACA Members;
By way of introduction (as a recently-joined WACA member), my interest in in pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters. I have been collecting them for the past 30 years and my late father for at least a decade before that. I am not a dealer or private seller, and lack both the talent and equipment to be involved in fakery. Just an obsessive-compulsive student of Model 70 Winchesters.
One thing that I have never seen is an authentic Model 70 chambered in 9 M/M. I am interested in knowing what the M70 experts in WACA think about the caliber designation stamp on lot 1742 of the April 2013 RIA auction:
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/58/lid/1742
This rifle was described as 90% original blue finish with a revarnished stock. Unlike the very dubious (refurbished/refinished = rebarreled/restocked) 9 M/M’s in that (and subsequent) RIA auctions, this one ended up fetching a hammer price of $13K (sale price $14,950) in the above condition. No I did not bid on it or buy it, but might try to acquire one in the future if I ever find one that is “believable”.
As you know, the pre-war caliber designations were applied with a separate hand stamp in 0.10″ letter/numeral height. On this gun the manufacturer’s roll markings look perfectly correct, but the tips and points of the “Ms” and “/” in 9 M/M are somewhat rounded and struck deeper than the rest of the caliber designation stamp. I’ve looked in Whitaker and Rule for examples of presumably genuine 9 M/M caliber designations. Whitaker shows photos of two different 9 M/M caliber designation stamps, but the photos are too grainy to make out this level of detail. Rule shows three, of which the two earlier stamps have the same “9” as this RIA listing. One of those has a “hint” that the “M/M” character points are struck deeper, but I cannot tell if the points are rounded or square. Interestingly, the “M/M” on the 7.65 M/M pictured just above it in Rule does seem to have the same characteristics as the RIA lot 1742 9 M/M.
I’d sure appreciate it if anyone out there with knowledge of these rare rifles is willing to give me an opinion.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
This reply is begging the question in some ways and also isn’t intended as insincere. Yet don’t you suppose at the time such stamps were legitimately applied by Winchester, they were simply informational only and that absolutely no thought or care was given to collectors the better part of a century later. The point being that it just seem to me we can get too ‘terminally involved’ in hypercritical analyses. I do see the absolutely worthwhile point of avoiding the nowadays too often counterfeited Winchesters. I also understand that such as the subject rifle of your discussion would be an opportune forgery target. But I do think that some concession has to be made for the fact that the Winchester factory wasn’t at all concerned with the strike of a chambering stamp beyond perhaps such as a too faint or messy appearance. I would assume such stamps do vary in small strike impression details from time to time and to that extent, little manner in which to discern a ‘quality forgery’ from original.
I think in many close calls, it is ultimately a matter of punting!
Expressed here more an opinion of reason than expertise and …
Just my take.
Thank you for your thoughtful perspective. I agree. Particularly with the pre-war M70s where the caliber designation was applied by a hand stamp in a separate operation from the barrel roll markings, the stamp is often slightly misaligned or stamped unevenly, which does not provide much help. You are right on saying that Winchester was not anticipating their products would be subjected to forensic examination decades later.
I guess I’m just bemoaning the impact of ‘fakery’ on Winchester collecting, especially with Model 70s where there are no records linking serial number with as-manufactured chambering or style. I thought that particular RIA lot looked like it could be ‘original’, which is why I’m wondering what others think. The problem with “guilty until proven innocent” in Model 70s is that in the vast majority of cases “innocence” cannot be proven. As in the “scientific method”, where an hypothesis, i.e. that the gun is factory original, can never be proved correct, only disproved…
For example, I have a pretty large M70 collection that contains all of the catalogued styles/substyles, chamberings, etc., along with a few special order pieces. With close inspection, I believe them all to be original guns (even the .35 Remington with it’s 0.475″ bolt face recess and ‘R’ extractor). Yet the only M70 I can provide complete provenance on is a .243 standard rifle my Dad bought new in 1957 and that sat in the gun cabinet of our home the whole time I was growing up. Even such oral provenance doesn’t prove anything, since words are even easier to fake (lies) than paper/wood/metal.
When I get time to take the pictures, I think I’ll post images of another M70 “9 M/M” that has a fascinating “oral provenance”… But is it “real”…?
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I’m not a model 70 expert, nor do I play one on TV, but I took a look at the 9mm at the Rock Island link. In the description, it says that the bolt is not serial numbered. Why would that be? Did they polish the number off the bolt or was it not applied on the early guns?
It would be unusual for a M70 bolt not to be numbered to the gun. According to Rule’s book, and consistent with my own more limited experience, the serial number on pre-war bolts was often very lightly etched compared to later production. So on the one hand it could have been polished out. Alternatively, maybe it was actually there but not noticed by the description writer (sometimes they really are only partly legible).
To me that alone does not prove a fake, since it’s so obvious. Anybody having the ability to modify an existing barrel, falsify the caliber designation, rust blue the barrel, and then “age” it to match the gun (or do the whole thing from scratch) would almost certainly be clever enough to electro-pencil the serial number on the bolt (far and away the easiest thing to fake).
Pitfalls everywhere!!!!
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Unfortunately, it’s hard to say much by looking at photos no matter how good they are. Plus, in order to determine originality you must look at several features since only one may or may not be definitive. I would not invest $10,000 or more in any rare caliber Model 70 unless I had the rifle in hand and could carefully examine it inside and out. And I would have to have enough expertise (or know someone who did) to know what problems to look for.
The guys making phony barrels are pretty good but not perfect. They apply roll stamp markings, caliber designations and proof marks quite well. But there are a few other details they have neglected in some examples I’ve examined. I really don’t want to be too specific lest the fakers learn what they need to know to correct their mistakes.
In the case of auctions, when I see a bunch of M70s in any given auction that seem to have problems, I lose faith that anything in that auction is problem free. In the past year, the reputation of one or more of the auction companies has suffered as M70 collectors were aware of many fakes in some of their sales.
There is no substitute for looking a large number of M70s in order to learn what is real and what is not. It takes time and effort but is essential if you want to be a serious collector.
All posts here seem completely valid. I’d just like to add my own personal experience with Pre 64 70 rifles. Not an advanced collector nor expert, I have few ‘exotic sub-models’. Most of my plain Janes likely attest to originality by default. They appear original and most significantly are simply unworthy of counterfeiting! Among these, first to note that almost none reflect any bolt serial number markings and this across the spectrum from low four digit serial numbers to my apparently original 300 Win Mag chambering and from very clean apparently original specimens to well used ones. Second, to note that (particularly within ‘era’), many Model 70 parts are fungible. They might well have been replaced if sufficiently worn, broken or somehow nonfunctional without now necessarily generating a ’tilt’. The simple fact is that unlike such as pre WWII Oberndorf Mauser sporters which had almost all parts serialized to the rifle and multiple sub-model configurations exist, the Model seventy has many parts of which substitution(s) is undetectable. Indeed, I had two Model 70 barrels replaced. In both cases, the cinched-up sight alignment was perfect. One barrel exhibited correct headspace and the other required just a hand ‘kiss’ (as I was informed) of the proper chambering reamer.
Conversely, of course are all the strange configurations perported to be rare “factory orignal” configurations. There, I do believe that a pessimistic ‘prove it’ outlook is warranted. For instance, I’ve wondered how it could be there are so many apparently incorrect Super Grade rifles where the stocks and external features appear 100% correct but the barrel underbellies aren’t correspondingly annotated as I understand almost all (excepting perhaps ‘last gasp’ production specimens) allegedly were.
In conclusion, particularly in the Model 70 where such as factory letters are unavailable, “originality” in these minimally half century old rifles is a very ‘relative’ commodity. At trails end, there remains the ‘punt’ factor that simply can’t be displaced by the greatest practical diligence.
Just my take.
“Fungible” is indeed the word. Hence the brisk business of parting out Model 70’s and selling everything but the stripped receiver on Ebay…
Some parts always seem to get separated, most notably sights, scope mounting blocks, and bakelite plastic hand stops on target models. Seems that the folks who shot their target rifles in iron sight matches tended to take the blocks off, while those who used a scope tended to prefer the flat top Unertl blocks to the factory installed Lyman type that was relieved on top to facilitate use of metallic sights. And contoured Al Freeland hand stops were always better than the plastic Winchester part…
With a mass produced item like the Model 70, I at least do not consider it a sin to replace changed-out parts such as these with the correct original parts. After all, Lyman receiver sights were made by Lyman, not Winchester, and completely fungible.
As for the Super Grades, it can be a slippery business. My understanding is that the underside of the barrels were not consistently stamped ‘SUPER’ (with a one-piece hand stamp) until about 1955. The reason was that in 1955 the factory reinstated rust bluing for the Super Grade barrels (around the same time they started engine turing the bolt body, extractor and follower). Hence the barrels were marked ‘SUPER’ to market he ones with the upgraded finish. (Except, as you note, for some late production guns).
Prior to that, the metal finish on the Super Grades paralleled that of the Standard Rifles. Hence (on both Standard and Super Grade) the pre-war barrels were rust blued, and the post-war barrels were hot blued (until 1955-ish). According to Roger Rule, some earlier Super Grade barrels were stamped ‘SUPER’, possibly because the Super Grades were advertised as having ‘hand lapped barrels’. This was done with a pieced together die that is different from the post 1955 one, and is not consistent.
Hence the slipperiness. When considering a Super Grade made before 1955, one might be inclined to question it if it IS stamped ‘SUPER’ (since most were not). Especially if it is a rare chambering, where the forger might be trying too hard to prove “authenticity”. After 1955 is easier, since the barrel would likely as not be rust blued and carry the under barrel marking.
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
When Winchester liquidated Pre-64 Model 70 stocks and parts in the late 1970s a bunch of Super Grade stocks became available. I recall seeing them quite often at gun shows about that time and for 10 years afterward. A lot of Super Grades were created as a result. There was a guy in Texas who advertised in Shotgun News that he would stamp floorplates and I think he did a lot of business. Before Rule’s book correctly stated that Super Grades had Redfield gold bead front sights, I saw a lot of “Super Grades” with silver bead sights. I asked one big M70 dealer about 1987 how many of the Super Grades he sold had silver bead sights. He replied “most of them.” Finally, after the word spread, Redfield gold beads sold for big bucks for a time. So did Super Grade sling swivel bases and screws. I saw them advertised for more than the swivels. The factory stocks came without the swivel bases.
Think about the incentive to convert a rare caliber Standard to a Super Grade. Super Grade stocks in the early years sold for maybe $150 to $200. A floorplate might be up to $100. So switching $300 worth of parts on a Standard 7MM, 250 Savage, 300 Savage or 35 Remington could increase its value by $400 to $1000 or more at that time.
Better yet, buy an original 30-06 Super Grade and switch parts with a rare caliber Standard. You might devalue the 30-06 by $300 or $400 but increase the value of the rare caliber by $400 to $1000. Why was it that original 98% 30-06 Super Grades suddenly became rare? And quite a few 300 Savage and 35 Remington Super Grades appeared?
Often, the guys switching parts to create Super Grades did nothing about poor fitting floorplates, actions and barrels. I’ve seen some with 1/4 or more inch gaps under barrels at the forend, big gaps under floorplates, proof marks partially under the wood, etc. Rest assured they did not come out of the factory that way.
All genuinely quite interesting! The net, net here seems that pre 64 Model 70 encountered today may be quite different than as departed the factory and ironically nowadays perhaps of little concern. Such goes to the very inherent mix & match susceptibility of the rifle. As to stocks, given the correct basic prewar or postwar genre (and of course barrel channel details), most stocks are completely fungible too.
Of course as this thread was initiated it related to rare chambering stampings, and there forgery is no less forgery. But in ‘improving’ I also agree that within reason is legitimate. I’m not as comfortable with the ethics of ‘upgrading’ to a Super Grade, but as noted above (and thanks for the information) ultimately it may be a factually harmless result under the “If it looks like a duck…” test. Likely just a fact of life nowadays, yet I just don’t want or need to be engaged in such.
My take
Appreciate and agree with other’s above.
My personal take, for what it’s worth, when dealing with guns like Model 70s where many parts are freely interchangeable, and often undetectable.
Replacing internal parts that are worn or damaged with period-correct parts is OK to the extent that it constitutes proper maintenance of the firearm in safe operating condition. IMHO, replacing owner-changed or removed peripherals, like sights, telescope mounting blocks, etc., is also OK. For me, at least, knowing that a factory installed Lyman 48WJS sight that was missing its slide had been replaced with a correct complete one with matching assembly numbers would not detract from the value I’d place on the gun.
Where I (personally) tend to draw the line is at replacing action/barrel/stock (major visible components), even when it preserves the original configuration of the rifle. One can argue, with some validity, that replacing the stock on a 7 M/M standard rifle that had an owner-installed recoil pad with a period correct uncut standard rifle stock simply makes one more example of a relatively rare rifle available to collectors. In my view, such guns, while “factory correct”, are not “factory original”, and such restoration should be disclosed at sale, as it may (or may not) affect the value of the gun (depending on the buyer). As far as I know, none of my collection Model 70’s have replacement wood, but of course I could be wrong given the “fungible factor”. All I really know is that I did not replace the wood.
My real issues are with:
1) Assembling parts in a way that changes the Catalog Symbol of the gun, e.g. as described above by vicvanb. Making a Super Grade out of a Standard Rifle to enhance its value, or fitting an original Carbine barrel to a Standard Rifle. A worn but original looking 30-06 Carbine barrel recently sold on Ebay for over $800, so I’m sure that now there’s one more pre-war Carbine on the market than there was a couple months ago. The “reworked” rifle is now something it never was before. Of course, if done well these are still “undetectable” frauds.
2) Substituting recently manufactured parts, mostly barrels in uncatalogued chamberings, and representing the resultant fantasy gun as factory work. Even “refurbished/refinished” factory work. If done for monetary gain, this constitutes criminal fraud. But because proving “intent to deceive” is difficult to impossible in court, there is little recourse for the buyer once the terms of sale have been established. Auction houses are legally protected in any event. As long as they disclose that they do not guarantee the item description and that the sale is on an “as-is/where-is” basis, they have met their obligations to the buyer.
I do not know what proportion of “rare” Model 70s out there are fakes, or “how good” the fakers really are. I found vicvanb’s comment above about how 30-06 Super Grades have become so rare to be particularly astute. Same is probably true of 30-06 or 270 WCF Model 70s with 3- or 4-digit serial numbers. They’ve all been turned into .219 Zippers or 7.92 M/M…
My only solace is that most of the “rare” chamberings that I own were collected by my Dad more than 30 years ago. That does not prove they’re “real”, but it does prove they weren’t made last month. At least it proves it to me… There’s no way anybody else should accept my “oral provenance” as truth. When my Dad passed away we turned in his FFL bound book (as required by law), so I do not have the original record of purchase/transfer on many of these guns.
When the collector market gets flooded with “good” fakes it devalues the original guns that do exist because nobody wants to take the risk. I suppose there’s a class action lawsuit in there somewhere (that will never be filed). Too bad… I’ve become so paranoid that I’m about done with collecting Model 70s…
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
1 Guest(s)
