As of the moment, YES I am planning to attend the OCGA/WACA show next month.  I hope we can get together (once you've snagged everything worth getting).  I'll probably be broke (as usual) as I'm kind of working on a (costly) deal at the moment... 

I'm thinking of treating the SG checkering thing as more of a "question" than a "fact"... Just include a footnote that "Roger says this..." and "Dean says that..."  If I make a dogmatic statement in the text it will tend to mislead people into thinking that 18-line checkering on a pre-1941 gun is OK, when IMHO it's at least a "yellow (caution) flag"... For me it's just not a total "red flag"...  Part of the plan is to confine my "opinions" to footnotes (and WACA posts) and limit the text to stuff I can "document" (even if the "documentation" is the survey, i.e. no factory paperwork).  Problem is that I can't "document" everything Rule says!!! 

The earliest believable SG I've actually handled is S/N 1748.  Early swivel position and, as you said, 20-lpi checkering.  No "extra fishtail"...  I do have a Super Grade with that checkering pattern (S/N 27881). A heavy barrel 375 MAGNUM. Later swivel position and 20-lpi checkering.  But it's also got select wood, a gold monogram plate (like Roger's SG Carbine), and a barrel without rear sight dovetail (factory Lyman 48WJS).  So if it's "real" it was a special order and the fancy checkering was a cataloged option.  

I just don't think that the fancier grip checkering was ever used in regular production.  If somebody can change my mind, PLEASE do so!!!

Cheers,

Lou

In my Model 70 SG K-Hornet I load it with 13.5 grains of Lil-Gun and am getting 3,330 fps.

Both rifles will cleanly eradicate varmints out to 300 yards with no problem!

This is a copy of Winchester's original blue print drawing for the 22 Hornet barrels made for the Single Shot;

Bert

I KNEW I was going to get into trouble for that one!!!  I hold a number of heretical beliefs related to Model 70s... 

Do we at least agree that the coarser checkering on Roger's 1941 Super Grade is acceptable, i.e. not definitive evidence of forgery?  

Rule says that the checkering was changed in "late 1941", in the description of the Standard stock (p.150) and later says the Super Grade went through the same change at the same time (p.159).  He never brings up the front sling swivel position change, even though he owned (and pictured) S/N 13264 which has the early swivel position (and 20-line checkering).  I have not seen the 1941 Product Change Notice related to Model 70 checkering so I can't say whether it applied to the standard checkering pattern or to all checkering patterns.  Nor have I seen enough M54 Super Grades to know how they were all checkered.

Whitaker says (in a footnote on p.45) "During the 'Pre-War' era, if the experts felt that a particular stock would not take and hold the 20-line checkering, then the coarser pattern was applied".  So maybe Rule and Whitaker are saying the same thing, only Whitaker didn't reckon on the 1941 change and just "made up" the part about the checkerer having some discretion when it came to the wrap-around Super Grade pattern??? 

It's a mystery I don't think I can answer... I'm pretty sure that we've all seen Super Grade stocks with cloverleaf tang inletting that have 18-line checkering.  Thing is they made those stocks as late as about 1947 or 1948.  Well after 1941.  But in my experience it's not uncommon for a Model 70 Super Grade made in 1940 or earlier to have the coarser checkering.  Maybe (???) that's because they're all upgraded guns put together with post-1941 parts???  That's certainly possible if the stock has the later front swivel base position, since the wood cannot be dated pre- or post-war.  The ones I can't explain are those with the early swivel position, which IMHO dates the stock to 1938 or earlier, that have the coarser checkering.

I'm currently drafting the book chapter on stocks, so I need to decide how I want to address this uncertainty (in my mind, if not yours).  I think I'll probably give the Rule dogma in the text and add a footnote saying that "Whitaker says...", while avoiding photos of the checkering on pre-1940 guns with the early swivel and coarser checkering.  I would save me from getting pilloried... . 

Here's a related question for you...  Have you ever seen a regular production 1936 or 1937 Super Grade with the "extra fishtail" grip checkering that Rule says was used during the first year?  I've see quite a few early Super Grades, but none with that checkering pattern.  Rule doesn't even picture one in his book.  The only place I've seen it is on guns with Special Order features, and it was a listed special order option.  But if, as Roger sad, it was used in regular production early on, I'd like to find an example.  It's true that the Super Grades pictured in the 1936-37 Pocket Catalogs and the first version of the "Green Brochure" have that grip checkering pattern, but I'm doubting that it was ever used for regular production.  Even the M54 Super Grade wasn't checkered that way...

Since I've "run on at the mouth" so long, here's pretty picture of S/N 3748.  Early swivel, coarser checkering, no "extra fishtail".

Cheers,

Lou

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said
For those that are curious, the following picture shows the official dimensions for the 22 Hornet as introduced in 1930.  Note that the only difference between it and the 22 WCF is the OAL and a .001" difference in the case neck diameter.
 
Bert
  

I got the first OAL from Donnally’s book. Nonte says 1.72″. But here’s the thing, chamber dimensions are often a range not an exact number. Different reamers, different bullet lengths and different seating depths. It is best to measure your chamber.  OAL is critical for making sure it will cycle through your action or fit in a magazine.  The Hornet started out as a Wildcat like the K Hornet.  Winchester was the first to standardize it. Who knows what other manufacturers do.
The current Saami spec shows the OAL as 1.630" to 1.723".
https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/SAAMI-Z299.4-CFR-2025-Centerfire-Rifle-Approved-2-10-2025-2026-04-27.pdf  GO TO PAGE 64.
  

My original point is that 1.723" is the maximum listed OAL by all of the many different sources (Hornady, Lyman, Nosler, Remington, Sierra, Speer, etc.). 
The biggest influence (factor) for the OAL that I have found is the bullet type (shape). For the blunt nosed bullets (typically used for the 22 Hornet), the OAL must be kept very close to the SAAMI specs.  However, when I load using the Hornady 40-grain V-Max, I can seat them as far out as 1.82" (I load them at 1.815"), but I have to single feed them as they are too long for the magazine.
Bert
  

I messed up the SAAMI page.  It should be 77 not 64.  The page says it is 64 but when searching you have to consider all the pages before #1 too.

I guess I wasn't clear.  Using the max OAL may not fit in some chambers.  Like Bert's fat bullet example.  The chamber has what is called a free bore area where the end of the neck and the bullet sits.  This length changes if different bullet weight/lengths are available.  Usually the free bore is set for the longest available bullet. After the free bore the chamber has an area where the chamber reduces down to meet the rifling. This area may be where Bert's bullet gets hung up?  Early Hornet dimensions often didn't meet the current SAAMI spec. If there was one?  If you look at the top of the SAAMI page it says Issued 5/1979 and Revised 2/2023. 

You will see that the Hornet cartridge was developed during an era where SAAMI may not haven been involved.  The Hornet appeared in the 1930's. 

Read these.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-22-hornet-history-performance/

https://saami.org/about-saami/history/

TXGunNut said
I think we can agree an 1873 in 22WCF was a great idea and would have been a pretty cool rifle to have today. As much as I like 22RF's I think the 22WCF makes more sense. I'm thinking Bert needs to have Mark build him a fantasy 1873 in 22 K-Hornet. 
 
Mike
  

Now that would be real cool!  I already have a Single Shot and a Bolt Action 22 K-Hornet... why not a Lever Action as well

This is why I really like the K-Hornet over the standard Hornet;

Bert

Mike

That's totally correct lMHO...  The "H" and "u" are typical barrel inspection stamps.  I've spent way too much time studying M70 inspection stamps... The "triangle I", "2"  and "3"  inspection stamps on the bedding flat are on most everything up to about 1952...  Much longer time than the "triangle I" stamp lasted on any other M70 part...

If anyone is interested,  this is what it should look like...  If you disagree, PLEASE educate me!!!

Lou