Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
M54-
My recollection is that Model 54 (nickel steel and CMS) and pre-war M70 (CMS) barrels were rust blued. After the war Winchester adopted a black oxide bluing process for its barrels. Part of the reason for the “in the white” muzzles on pre-war target rifles (as in your photo above) was that the bore had to be plugged to protect it from the strong acid solution used for rust bluing. In ’55 the factory went back to rust blue on SG barrels only, this being the same time they started routinely stamping ‘SUPER’ on the bottom of SG barrels (denoting the different finish).
Pre-war M54/70 receivers and other parts, e.g. bottom metal, were bone charcoal blued (Winchester called this “machine bluing”). Somewhere around ’41, when the factory began to bead blast the M70 receiver, they changed to the black oxide process for receiver/bolt/bottom metal/etc. That said, because of a large parts inventory carrying the “old” finish, it is not at all uncommon to find rust blued barrels (with pre-war barrel dates) and charcoal blued bottom metal on late pre-war and even transition M70s.
I think the decision to change finishes was based more on manufacturing efficiency (labor saving) rather than improved durability. M54 floor plates (which were charcoal blued) did not hold the finish well and are commonly brown or flaked even on otherwise 98% guns. OTOH the barrels and receivers held their rust/charcoal finish very well.
From the aesthetic perspective, the pre-war M70s with polished charcoal blued receivers and rust blued barrels (generally S/Ns below 20K) were the best looking IMHO. The two finish processes, while totally different, gave the barrel and receiver a very similar “soft” black finish that is very attractive and difficult to duplicate.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks everyone. Realize how hard it is to find nice model 54’s. Probably why most collect 70’s instead. Will continue learning about the different finishes and what they look like before jumping back in. Lots to learn and appreciate all of the help from the experts.
Black oxide bluing. Is that Dulite?
Online
mfivefour said
Black oxide bluing. Is that Dulite?
Yes–just a proprietary name for hot salt bluing.
Much confusion about the different processes because they’re called by different names. There are two distinct processes using charcoal, both often lumped together: packing the metal in charcoal in a heated & sealed iron box is one, placing the parts on a rotating rack in a furnace, then blowing in charcoal dust or smoke is another; the latter is “machine bluing” and is supposed to be more durable than the former & older method–which I think is sometimes called the carbonia process.
Would be interesting to see those processes in action. Not sure if they are still used or have been updated.
Du-Lite is still in common use today. The Du-Lite Corporation in Middletown, CT is still in business (since 1939) and is a large supplier of black oxide (bluing) chemicals.
As far as I know, the Carbonia bluing is not used much anymore in the U.S. except for restorations and custom guns.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
I’ve been watching Youtube videos of DIY “bluers”. Some of the comments are hilarious.
“You forgot to plug both ends, hate to see what the inside looks like now”.
M1 carbine manufacturers also used Dulite and other finishes. Each has a “look” to it and I also prefer the matte black finish.
Every M54 floor plate I’ve seen so far has the mottled appearance in some form or another. Model 70’s floor plates are usually in better condition.
Does the finish hold up better depending on the metal used, like aluminum on a FW?
If other members were going to bench shoot their 54, what could be done (other than not shooting it) to protect the finish?
mfivefour said
Every M54 floor plate I’ve seen so far has the mottled appearance in some form or another. Model 70’s floor plates are usually in better condition.
Believe the 54 plates were blued by the Carbonia process. Unsatisfactory results with that process motivated development of the machine-bluing process.
Composition of the alloy, and degree of polishing, can have considerable effect on how well a particular process “works.”
Seems like the finish adheres better to later Model 70 FW’s with aluminum floor plates. Could be from lack of use, but the color looks different a little darker and no signs of a mottled patina. Some of the parts have a dark black color. Think this is anodizing on the aluminum though.
The finish on the pre 64 Featherweight aluminum parts is indeed anodizing, which is a completely different process than hot salt bluing. The color and finish quality is dependent on the amount of pre polish, pre etching with acid, and dye used in finishing of parts. Anodizing is basically a clear aluminum oxide outer layer on the base aluminum parts. Final colors are achieved with a dye. The colors also fade very easily if exposed to UV light.
Steve
seewin said
The finish on the pre 64 Featherweight aluminum parts is indeed anodizing, which is a completely different process than hot salt bluing. The color and finish quality is dependent on the amount of pre polish, pre etching with acid, and dye used in finishing of parts. Anodizing is basically a clear aluminum oxide outer layer on the base aluminum parts. Final colors are achieved with a dye. The colors also fade very easily if exposed to UV light.Steve
Is the same true for rust and/or charcoal bluing?
mfivefour said
Is the same true for rust and/or charcoal bluing?
No, it is not. Rust blue and charcoal bluing are not affected by UV light.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Is color the best way to tell if a finish isn’t legit? I’ve read that some of the new bluing techniques left an awful smell. Have a chance to look at a Model 54 later this week and I’m trying to come up with a list of what to look for. It’s a Frist Standard .30-06.
I’ve been told it may have been touched up with cold blue on the barrel. Not sure what to look for though.
How do you guys devalue a 54 when inspecting it? For instance, lack of finish to me would be better than refished or touched up. Just trying to get an idea of how expert collectors evaluate a 54. Thx.
mfivefour said
I’ve been told it may have been touched up with cold blue on the barrel. Not sure what to look for though.
Most cold blue formulas leave a very characteristic odor, though it dissipates over time. But a bit of it applied to a nick or scrape wouldn’t be a problem for me; it it’s been applied to a larger area, you can probably detect it easily by its contrast with the original finish.
M54-
A person could write a book on how collectors evaluate and assign value to collectable antique or C&R rifles. For me, in a nutshell:
First criterion is ORIGINALITY. A truly “original” rifle would have all the parts/finishes on it that it left the factory with. This is often not the case with M54s and M70s. So the two questions are:
1) Have any irreparable alterations been made to the rifle? On a M54 1st standard rifle this would especially include extra D&T holes on receiver bridge, alterations to the bolt handle (and stock) for scope use, cutting the stock for a recoil pad, filling the stock cut-out for a receiver sight, and addition of loop type sling swivels to replace the swivel “eyes” (if the new swivels put marks on the stock that are not covered by the original eyes). For me, any such alterations reduce the value of the rifle to that of a shooter, and M54 shooters aren’t worth much since M70 shooters are nicer rifles.
2) If no irreparable changes have been made, then the question is what (if any) parts are missing and what would it cost/is it possible to find correct replacements. If you need to find, for example, a replacement pre-war Lyman 48W receiver sight you might have to look a long time and then pay a couple hundred dollars to get it. Ditto when it comes to finding correct swivel eyes and Lyman 6W or 66W rear sights. It can be done, but factor the added cost of the missing parts when determining how much you are willing to pay for a rifle.
Next is CONDITION. An unaltered but worn M54 is worth maybe half (at most) what a 90+% rifle of the same style/chambering would bring. With the M54, it is probably OK to tolerate more finish wear on the floor plate/trigger guard, as these parts did not take well to the blue finish used at the time. If you insist on perfect finish on your M54 floor plates you will either end up with very few examples to choose from or find yourself attracted to reblued guns. A rifle with a reblued receiver/barrel or stock that has been stripped/refinished is worth no more to me (possibly less) that a well worn original. Cold blue “touch up” is not really a permanent alteration (unlike a redone “hot blue” where the metal was polished before refinishing). So cold blue need not, of itself, hurt the value, beyond the fact that a gun with a lot of cold blue on it must have a worn original finish (as above). Otherwise it would not have needed to be touched up.
Unfortunately, the best/only way to learn to evaluate metal/wood finishes is to become familiar with them by handling a lot of original (and refinished) rifles and getting to know the difference. The best I can suggest is that (from the photos you have posted) the finishes on your M54 Sniper’s Match look original to me. So M54 finishes should look LIKE THAT…
The other oft mentioned criteria that affect value, rarity and desirability, are kind of subjective. To each his/her own… Any original M54 with >90% original wood/metal finish is already somewhat “rare” given the relatively low total production and high attrition due to scope mounting alterations.
Just my opinions. Hope some of this helps.
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Terms I’ve heard. Once a mixmaster always a mixmaster. It’s only original once.
Knowing all of these things is very helpful. Once it’s been monkied with, it’s no longer original no matter what was done. JMO, but it the trigger was refinished, it’s no longer collectible. Would prefer a rifle with 75% or 80% finish than one that has been monkied with.
Since I’started collecting, I’ve been keeping an eye on parts for sale on eBay. Don’t know what is what yet, but the legit ones aren’t cheap and every other M54 collectors also knows about them.
I’d probably put a M54 in original condition but 90% into the shooter category…maybe a little lowerI have a 54 .30-30 which is probably 70% It’s worn to heck but what’s left of the finish appears to be orignal. For cold blue, once I learn how to identify it, it would depend on how much and where.
I’ve read a lot of the past posts on this forum from those in the know. I hope other new collectors come here and find this discussion and others helpful.
Also try to keep up with going prices at auctions to compare to the blue book.
M54 Target & M54 Sniper Match w/era correct Unertls
M54 Sniper Match
‘...no quarter asked...none given...’
Louis Luttrell said
Hi M54-Not quite sure of your question.
The photo in my last post is a M54 first standard rifle. The cross dovetail block in the barrel sight dovetail is a Lyman ‘BK’ and the one on the receiver ring is a ‘U’ block. The scope is an early Unertl 6X small game/gallery scope. Together the U and BK blocks place the scope tube high enough to clear the M54 bolt handle. Same would be true using the factory-installed blocks on a M54 target rifle.
Of course with all the drop in that early M54 standard stock one should really add a lace-on cheek rest to raise the shooter’s line of sight a bit.
The M54 and M70 Target Rifles used the same medium heavy straight taper barrel contour, the only difference being that the M54 target barrels had an integral front sight ramp. The M54 and M70 National Match rifles likewise used the same standard weight barrel contour. The M54 Sniper’s Match rifle and M70 Bull Gun used the same extra heavy “bull” barrel contour, only difference being the M54 barrel was 26″ long and the M70 barrel was 28″.
Since the barrels differed in diameter, the height of the barrel mounted scope block differed: 0.417″ tall for M54/70 National Match; 0.360″ for M54/70 Target rifle; 0.262″ for Bull Gun. All used the same 0.185″ tall receiver sight block.
Hope that helps,
Lou
Lou:
Great info. Love the Unertl small game scope set up using the cross dovetail block in the barrel sight dovetail. The specs for the necessary blocks you called out to work that setup did not include the Carbine. I have a 54 Carbine. Would you know the exact blocks i need to duplicate that set up on my Carbine?
Thanks,
Jim
1 Guest(s)
