Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Probably, this 1932 vintage Model 65 is near the end of the “Flaking” era. When I purchased it, in Nov. 1999, there were no signs of of the impending plague.
The very elderly gentalman that sold it to me claimed to be the original purchaser and said his new wife, at the time of purchase, didn’t approve of his guns and he only shot it a few times. I believed him.
A standard 25-20 W.C.F., ser. #999895 with a Lyman “D” 1A tang sight. It has a “flat, in the white” muzzzel. Thanks for looking. RDB
Rodger,
Is it a Model 92, or a Model 65 ?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
It is a Model 65. Sorry I failed to put that in my post. I put “Model” and omitted “65”. Sorry Burt, good question. I edited the post.
RDB
rogertherelic said
Probably, this 1932 vintage Model is near the end of the “Flaking” era. When I purchased it, in Nov. 1999, there were no signs of of the impending plague.
Amazing if all or most of that happened only since ’99! I wonder if any kind of surface treatment with grease, wax, silicone, etc., would have prevented it.
January 26, 2011
Online
I am somewhat shocked as well that this amount of blueing loss happened while being properly stored in Roger’s collection. Still a nice looking rifle in a fairly scarce 65 caliber but sad to see it continue flake away.
~Gary~
clarence said
rogertherelic said
Probably, this 1932 vintage Model is near the end of the “Flaking” era. When I purchased it, in Nov. 1999, there were no signs of of the impending plague.
Amazing if all or most of that happened only since ’99! I wonder if any kind of surface treatment with grease, wax, silicone, etc., would have prevented it.
Amazing it is – maybe some kind of surface treatment caused or accelerated it? Over the years I owned quite a few of these guns from the “flaking period” and never had one start or accelerate flaking while in my posession and I owned all of them for a long time. As an example, this one in 218 Bee was in my safe for about 40 years and a touch of flaking on top of the receiver and minimal wear at the carry point on the bottomof the receiver was there when I acquired it and never changed in all those years. But, I have seen a lot of badly flaked receivers which are a real eye sore.
These two stand next to each other in the safe. The 218 Bee, ser. #1005211 was purchased in 2004. My photo taking is not the best. RDB
rogertherelic said
These two stand next to each other in the safe. The 218 Bee, ser. #1005211 was purchased in 2004. My photo taking is not the best. RDB
Too bad about the flaking on the 25-20 – it is still a rare and desirable gun – the flaking is just part of its history. Any 65 that is original and correct is a hard gun to find and certainly not enough survived for all Winchester lever collectors to have one.
rogertherelic said
It is a Model 65. Sorry I failed to put that in my post. I put “Model” and omitted “65”. Sorry Burt, good question. I edited the post.
Rodger,
OK, next question… what is the barrel date on it? I suspect it will be “33” but would be pleasantly surprised if it is a “32”. Please send me a clear photos of the barrel date stamp.
I did not have either one of your Model 65 rifles documented in my research survey… how many more of them do you have tucked away?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Barrel date ’33 as you suspected. It has no provision for the sight hood. My camera is an ‘auto focus” and seems to focus on the background and not the subject. RDB
What happened to the OPs firearm makes one think long and hard about buying a peach specimen from that era at a premium price only to realize the condition is sorely lacking at the time of eventual liquidation.
rogertherelic said
Barrel date ’33 as you suspected. It has no provision for the sight hood. My camera is an ‘auto focus” and seems to focus on the background and not the subject. RDB
Depending upon the type of camera you have you might be able to change the focus spot. On cell phones touch the screen where you want it to focus.
rogertherelic said
Barrel date ’33 as you suspected. It has no provision for the sight hood. My camera is an ‘auto focus” and seems to focus on the background and not the subject. RDB
The trick to getting the camera to focus is the lighting and the background. Go outdoors on a cloudy day (or find a location with indirect sunlight). Then position the area of the gun you want to photograph at least a few feet above the background (I do this by placing the rifle on chairs at each end).
The attached picture was taken (by yours truly)… note that the background was too distant for the camera to try focusing in it, and it focused on the intended target area.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Good cameras will let you pick where you want to focus and a separate setting for where to want to read the lighting. Like Bert said, take pictures in the shade or use a flash. Next time make sure the background is not so much more lighter than the subject.
rogertherelic said
It has no provision for the sight hood.
Roger,
Please send me some clear pictures of the front ramp on this rifle. Like the real early Model 94/64 rifles, for a real short period of time, the front ramps were not provisioned for a sight hood.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Roger,
Thanks for posting the pictures. Your Model 65 rifle has the exact same style front ramp as serial number 999659. The non-grooved style front ramp sight was very short lived based on what I have observed and recorded in my research survey. I need to write an updated version of the Model 65 article that was in the Winter 2016 edition of the Winchester Collector magazine. At the time it was published, I had documented just (325) rifles of the total production (allegedly 5,714). In the years since, I have increased the survey population to (708) and made a number of new discoveries along the way, one of which is that the true production total was at least 7,700 Model 65 rifles.
For those of you who may have a Model 65 in your collection, I would truly appreciate it if you would contact me with the details.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I am of the opinion that either metallurgy or the type of finish was changed between 1933 and 1937. Is that possible? RDB
rogertherelic said
I am of the opinion that either metallurgy or the type of finish was changed between 1933 and 1937. Is that possible? RDB
A major change in the bluing method occurred in Feb, 1939, but that wouldn’t be relevant to what was happening between ’33 & ’37.
rogertherelic said
I am of the opinion that either metallurgy or the type of finish was changed between 1933 and 1937. Is that possible? RDB
Roger,
It was a combination of metallurgy changes and bluing formula, and it took place beginning in 1933 culminating in early 1939. Depending on the specific model, Winchester began changing from the older Nickel Steel alloy (MNS, CNS, and BNS) to the newer (and stronger) Proof Steel (chrome-moly) alloy. In conjunction with that change, the bluing formula was changed to Du-light solution bluing. When Winchester made the change on the older models, they began stamping a “W” on the receiver frames to test the bluing. For the Models 71 and 70 (introduced in 1935 and 1936), they receiver bluing was the Du-light solution from day one of production, and those models were not ever stamped with the “W”. It was February 1939 when the change was made for the Model 94 and Model 64. I have not pinned down the precise month for the other models (e.g. 97, 12, 61, 62/62A, 63, 65 but have seen examples of each with the “W” stamped on them.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
