Anthony said
Bert,
I find this interesting as I'm sure others do! I most certainly didn't try to hijack the thread previously with the added information, and pics of the #779 S.S. that you mentioned. 
I also like, and find it interesting, what Jim and Steve added previously.
Tony
  

Your post about S.S. #779 was completely germane to this topic, as it was the first Single Shot rifle chambered for the (new at that time) 22 W.C.F. cartridge.  Some of the real early Winchester literature actually listed it as the "22 Single Shot" cartridge, as it was specifically developed for that model.  I simply found it very interesting that Winchester apparently thought that they were going to add it to the Model 1873 line-up.

Bert

I sure do like you're example and find the knowledgeable comments interesting once again. My first thought we're when I saw it yesterday was I would probably gone after it, if I liked the asking price! 

I was glad to see a couple expert members help us out with they're knowledge.

Thanks for Sharing!

Tony

I find this interesting as I'm sure others do! I most certainly didn't try to hijack the thread previously with the added information, and pics of the #779 S.S. that you mentioned. 

I also like, and find it interesting, what Jim and Steve added previously.

Tony

Bert

I'm going to get in trouble here, b/c I'm going to contradict the "Gospel according to Rule" and agree with the lesser known tenant of Dean Whitaker...

There's a difference between Standard rifles and Super Grades.  Standard rifles were originally all 20-line checkered.  The factory authorized the change to 18-line checkering in 1941, but either the "memo" didn't reach the factory floor before WWII hostilities broke out, or they had a healthy inventory of already finished standard stocks, b/c you can encounter 20-line checkered stocks at least into 1947 (mixed with 18-line after 1941).

Super Grades OTOH...  Both 20-line and 18-line checkering was used from the beginning.  According to Whitaker, it was up to the checkerer and based on whether they thought the wood could handle the finer wrap-around pattern.  Rule just says that Super Grades (like Standards) were all 20-line before 1941. 

The best evidence I have that Whitaker is correct stems from the position of the front sling swivel base relative to the black fore end tip.  Initially the swivel base was further forward such that its front edge was only about 1/4" from the black tip.  This apparently led to wood splitting between the swivel base and fore end tip, so pretty early on the swivel was moved back to leave about 5/8" of wood in that location.  Best I can tell, these "later" SG stocks appear in good numbers in early 1938, although the "early" stocks can be found on guns well into 1939.  So IMHO the front swivel position is a way to "date" pre-war SG stocks (since stocks aren't dated).

So what's that go to do with checkering?  Looking at stocks with the early swivel position (c. 1936-1938), you can find either 20-line or 18-line checkering.  Same is true of pre-war SG stocks with the later swivel position, but they're harder to date.  For example, in my gun room I have three Super Grades with the early swivel position.  The earliest, S/N 3789 (early 1937) has 18-line checkering, while S/Ns 13264 (early 1938) and 26401 (1939) have 20-line checkering.  The SG Carbine I posted yesterday, S/N 21064 (1939) also has the early swivel position and 20-line checkering.  I do not believe any of these guns were re-checkered at any point.  Small sample, I know, but I've also discussed this with some dealer friends (Dave Morris and Justin Hale) and their observations coincide with mine (and Whitakers).

So, short story is that in my opinion, the 18-line checkering on Roger's SG Carbine stock is period correct...

Just my take,

Lou

Louis Luttrell said
 The SG stock (with 18-line checkering and later front swivel position) is appropriate for the 1941 date. . . . . .

Louis . . . I thought all pre-war M70s had 20-line checkering . . . .as does my December 1939 M70 Hornet? 

I like your rifle!!! It would look real nice in my gun room...

Like Bob said, the problem with Super Grade Carbines is that they are too easy to "make" (inside or outside the factory) if you have the three necessary parts (stock, floor plate and front sight) to swap.  So I too regard them all as "parts guns" (that includes the two I have).  The question is where were the parts assembled, inside or outside the factory...

Since you invited comments...  IMHO the rifle is definitely a pre-war 30 GOV'T'06 Carbine (not a fake barrel).  The SG stock (with 18-line checkering and later front swivel position) is appropriate for the 1941 date.  The monogram plate looks to be about the right size and right place for where Winchester would put one if so ordered.  I've seen some pre-war Super Grades with very slick finishes that I think are factory, so I wouldn't question yours.  Of course if the monogram plate was added later the stock may have gotten extra attention at that time.  I wouldn't care.  The floor plate should read with the Helvetica "G" and probably the oversized/misaligned "P" and "A" like on the GB gun we were discussing in the other thread.

I do have a couple issues with the sights... The Lyman 48WJS receiver sight appears to be one with the coved base that didn't require a stock cut and the shortened external leaf spring on the left side.  That is a 1947-1950 sight.  The front sight is a Redfield full gold, I think a 255 (0.360" tall).  Most Standard Carbines and most pre-1952 Super Grades I've seen have a 0.310" tall front sight.  So my guess is that the sights have been changed at some point.  Are there "elevator tracks" on top of the barrel from a Winchester 22G?

Very Nice!!!  Factory original???  I don't think it can be determined with certainty.  That's the problem with SG Carbines...

Just my take,

Lou

steve004 said

That was great information.  I appreciated the detailed measurements and the comprehensiveness of your post. 
I see you've been around here for about 18 years.  We don't often hear from you but when we do, it's notable.  
  

You are kindly welcome. I don't post much here, as there are many fine folks with much greater knowledge regarding all things Winchester than I have. But on those rare occasions when I feel I have something useful and constructive to add to the conversation, I do my best.

Thank you for the kind words.

On an additional note, it appears there was a change to the .22 W.C.F. cartridge's O.A.L. From the earliest appearance through early 1907 (Catalog No.73), the catalog illustration, as well as cartridge box labels, showed the .22 W.C.F. with the bullet seated with an exposed groove just ahead of the case mouth. In 1908 (Catalog No.74) the cartridge illustration showed the cartridge with a bullet having an obvious profile change and a larger flat on the nose. If you compare the 1907 and earlier illustrations to those from 1908 and later, there is a noticeable - and measurable - difference between them. This difference is roughly equivalent to the difference between the factory Winchester cartridges I have (which, like the early illustrations, have the exposed groove) and the factory drawing of 1911... just shy of 1/16-inch (0.0625-inch), somewhere in the neighborhood of the 0.058-inch difference between my measurements and the factory drawing. 

And, yes, I'm aware that measuring the illustrations in the catalogs is imprecise and subject to errors in printing, but I've found that if you compare actual cartridges to them, side-by-side, they're not that far off. 

Cartridge box labels also reflect this change, but just a bit later (the earliest label date I have seen is 4-10). I attribute this to there being box labels I haven't seen, combined with Winchester's policy of continuing to use up old stock - even if newer was available.

Jim

30gov03 said
The elevator mortise in my Model 1873 (mfg. in 1892) measures 1.627 inches in length. A factory drawing of the .22 W.C.F., dated Feb. 10, 1911, indicates a max. O.A.L. of 1.630 inches. I have a handful of original Winchester-manufacture .22 W.C.F. cartridges which measure 1.688-inches O.A.L. I have also loaded .22 W.C.F. cartridges, using bullets from an original Winchester bullet mold which were seated using an original Winchester loading tool. These cartridges measure 1.678-inches O.A.L.
SAAMI O.A.L. min./max. for the centerfire Model 1873 chamberings: .32-20 - 1.540 / 1.592; .38-40 - 1.560 / 1.592; .44-40 - 1.540 / 1.592
At least in the case of my Model 1873, a cartridge O.A.L. of 1.592-inches leaves only 0.032-inches of clearance to prevent the cartridge dragging against the ends of the elevator mortise. With an O.A.L. of 1.630-inches, as shown in the 1911 drawing, there would be a 0.003-inch interference. It MIGHT feed, but not without some difficulty (and aggravation). The original Winchester cartridges I have, as well as my reloads, would be an outright impossibility.
Could the Model 1873 be made to feed .22 W.C.F.? Of course it could, and Winchester certainly could have done it. I kind of hope there was at least one made, sitting quietly forgotten and yet to be rediscovered in a dark and dusty corner. Maybe Winchester considered it, cataloged it, then quietly abandoned it. Too bad, 'cause I'd really like for there to be one.
Jim

Jim -

That was great information.  I appreciated the detailed measurements and the comprehensiveness of your post. 

I see you've been around here for about 18 years.  We don't often hear from you but when we do, it's notable.  

You mention Winchester could have made the .22 WCF feed through the action.  I agree and when I think about this, I reflect on the effort Winchester went through to make the .50 caliber cartridges feed through the Model 1886 action. They did it - but it wasn't easy.

It sure is a very nice looking rifle

I don't have the knowledge or experience to comment on the originality.

Roger - you have added some very interesting and appealing rifles to your collection over the years.  You've enjoyed them - and that's what counts.  

I often reflect on how my enjoyment of a piece can get derailed by that, "fussy collector" section of my brain that can be a real downer. 

Louis Luttrell said
At the risk of showing everyone that I am a total fool, I did buy this gun earlier this year.  "Super Grade Carbine" 30 GOV'T'06 (s/n 21164).  I am NOT saying that I believe ANY Super Grade Carbine to be genuine, but at least this one is made of all the right parts/finishes and has handling wear/marks consistent with the parts being together a long time.  IMHO it's what a 1938 Super Grade Carbine SHOULD look like if there ever were a "real" one...

Bo Rich said
Louis,  Like many Model 70 Collectors when I see a Super Grade Carbine I automatically assume that it is a made up gun.  If Winchester in fact made a Super Grade Carbine I would expect it to be in .30Gov’t06 chambering.  Since we know that this is by far the most popular chambering you would think that you would see more Super Grade Carbines in that chambering.  This is not the case.  If Winchester made such  a thing,  I agree that it would be the gun that you posted.  
  

Lou,

I like everything about you're example. Bo brings up some good points also. You gents have made me aware enough to surly be careful out there, as my reckless nature can sometimes get me in trouble. LOL!

Tony