Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
As not yet production guns , they may have had no serial, it was common then to produce guns without serials , -.. Ralph Fitzwater said
Not “serial numbers,” which couldn’t come into play before regular production began. But if two or more samples (or “experimental designs,” as the factory in some cases called prototypes) were built, some method of distinguishing between them would have been needed for testing purposes. Any kind of marking would do, but numerals were the easiest marking to apply. At least 10 samples were made of the experimental design which later became the Model 52 when production began, because #10 (numeral applied to the rcvr. rail) survived the vicissitudes of time to make it to Cody. The others, possibly more than 10, are apparently MIA.
There are dozen listings in the New Haven R&D inventory listed as “scrapped” by D Butler in 1966. The unserialized .257 Roberts , would be a possible production cartridge. . Those were R&D rifles. . T. WE . By late 1935, there would have been salesmen’s samples ordered -I suppose the big client guys, had first “dibs” on the line samples , to sell the product in 1936. Number 1 serial was Jan 20th 1936. That indicates the time frame to finalize , the tooling set up ,to full production capacity., and reset the serial numbering from the 54 to the 70. The 19 “finished model 70’s the barrels would have been marked Model 70, as no difference in barrel production other than the model number.
I looked at the 1936 production records, the first month produced 40 rifles, February produced 100 rifles, March 350 rifles and that seems to be steady stride 400 to 600 a month depending on how fast the parts were made..until 1941.
A very interesting Thread! Technical ,and I’m not at all sure I understand it in context of the R&D, tech modifications rationale. Some of these perhaps to be termed “trial rifles” seems a bit unnecessarily far afield. Over the better part of a century since most of these rifles were manufactured, seeming a lot of room for subsequent non-factory modifications. The “non-serialized rifles” seeming the best case for possible factory experimentation. ‘Others’ seeming particularly vulnerable to “Occam’s Razor”, simplest answer most often ‘best answer’. In terms of legitimate “objective researchers” truly seeking ‘truths’, the situation of being “results driven” as functionally prejudicial!
Admitting my personal prejudice from too much bombardment of apparent Bubba’ creations or simply utility “mix n match”; such billed as “rare factory variations”!
The expertise in this Thread perhaps the best case for legitimacy of factory origins, but I’m still more comfortable with tangible provenances supporting!
Last, a question. I’m familiar with information concerning the Factory substituting Model 70 bolts in Models 54 as required after Factory Model 54 bolt supplies were exhausted. My question. Were all such 70 substitute assemblies with the 70 striker componets, perhaps modified? Or were some 70 bolts themselves modified to accept Model 54 striker group assemblies… ‘Inquiring minds…’ 🙂
Congrats on scholarly work here!
Best!
John
at some point by mid 1935 , the 1934 drawings, the reciever and bolt body , changes, would have already been integrated into the existing 54 line. Like the gas hole- my 1936 ,30-06, has the integrated ramp front sight- crome moly barrels? , and gas escape hole drilled,,they needed to change the bolt body forgings, at some point for full- production.in 1936. in 1936 Model 54 production ceased, except special orders , from stock. they were producing model 70 marked parts, recievers new numbers etc., barrels, stock modifications , would all be the Model 70.
Hi John-
In response to your query, perhaps it would be useful to provide a timeline for some of the changes to the M54 that were adopted for regular production prior to the advent of the M70 (although the M70 was under development by 1934). I’m not trying to cover everything, just some of the things relevant to the M54/M70 transition. This info is largely from David Bichrest’s M54 book and the M54 chapter of his Roger Rule’s M70 book.
Winchester started using Winchester Proof Steel (CMS) barrels in 1932, replacing the Nickel Steel barrels. These barrels had the same integral forged ramp as was later used on the M70 standard contour barrel, and replaced the “pinned” front sight arrangement of the Nickel Steel barrels. The adoption of the modified “NRA style” stock, replacing the earlier M54 1st standard stock with Schnable fore end, occurred at about the same time. So while it is possible to find 1st standard rifles with CMS barrels and NRA standard rifles with Nickel Steel barrels, MOST of the regular production M54 standard rifles from 1932-1936 had NRA style stocks and CMS barrels with the M70-like ramp.
The “A” suffix that appeared in M54 receivers around S/N 21000 referred to a change to the front edge of the extractor from rounded to squared. The latter extractor is similar to that of the M70.
The initial M54 firing pin assembly was a two-piece affair. This was changed to a one-piece firing pin with integral striker around 1929. While the one-piece firing pin/striker is similar to that used on the M70, the differences in trigger mechanism and sear engagement (as well as the orientation of the safety) make them non-interchangeable. The M54 “Speed Lock” with one-piece firing pin/striker appeared initially on the new 22 HORNET chambering in 1932 around S/N 38000A. This did not change the basic trigger geometry of the M54. Of interest, the “PATENTS APPLIED FOR” seen on the right side barrel stamp of some CMS barrels dated ’32 referred to patents related to the Speed Lock, not the barrel steel. The two changes just occurred about the same time…
By way of comparison; original M54 (top) versus M70 firing pin/striker/main spring/bolt sleeve assemblies:
M54 (top) and M70 trigger/sear geometry:
The receiver and bolt gas porting, including the hole in the right side of the receiver and underside of the bolt, was applied to the M54 in regular production from 1934-36. It was adopted for the M70, but was designed by Arthur A. Rowley for the M54 and already in use.
Hence, many of the “improved” features seen on the new M70 had already been put into production on the M54 by 1934. The BIG differences between the later M54 and the new M70 related to the trigger/sear (hence bolt stop), the bolt sleeve safety, and the two-piece trigger guard/floor plate. Much of the other stuff was already in place on M54s before the first production M70 was assembled.
As you can see from the photo above, the M54 trigger cannot function with a M70 firing pin/striker. Also, on the M54 the sear acted as the bolt stop, hence the angled cut in the bottom of the M54 bolt body (and the fact that to remove the bolt from a M54 you pull the trigger all the way back). On the M70 the bolt stop is a separate spring loaded lever that protrudes into the left lug raceway and engages the left locking lug.
Bolt stop cut on the underside of the M54 bolt compared to the M70:
The change in safety from a horizontally rotating “flip over” style on the M54 to the vertically rotating “flag style” on the M70 also occasioned that the semi-circular mill cut whereby the rotating shaft of the safety engages the firing pin had to be moved from the top to the right side of the firing pin/striker. In the photo below both safeties are in the middle position that allows the cocked bolt to be withdrawn from the receiver. Hence, a M70 firing pin/striker/bolt sleeve will go into a M54 bolt just fine, but the rifle won’t cock (no sear engagement), the safety can’t go on (no notch on the right side of the striker), and there’s no bolt stop (no cut on the bottom of the bolt body for the sear to run into).
So… That was an overly long winded attempt to get at your question… 
Assuming that you are starting with a M54 receiver/trigger system that has the Speed Lock, I think 
you can make it work with a M70 bolt body as long as you add the sear engagement shoulder to the bottom of the bolt and keep the M54 one-piece firing pin/striker and bolt sleeve safety. If you want to use a M70 bolt sleeve/safety as well, I think you can make it work as long as you ALSO mill the right side of the M54 striker to engage the vertical shaft of the M70 safety.
Of course, I am NOT a gunsmith and do not have any late M54s around to try this out. So I may be TOTALLY out to lunch… I know that the old style “slow lock” M54 striker will not engage an old style M54 two-stage trigger when put into a M70 bolt body, but I think it would (might???) work with the M54 Speed Lock. Anyone want to clear this up for me??? If not, I’ll just have to take Tedk’S M54 22 HORNET (Speed Lock rifle) apart and see what M70 parts can be swapped in…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Helloo I thought i’d add a few photos from Allentown,PA, Forks of the Delaware Antique collectors show,last weekend.. and a few photos of the design without the advertising. made a great display, the rifle stores in a cloth bag in the case now. It’s an interesting rifle..the case does it proper..
i’ve been lookin for more information about Edwin Pugsley, this may have been in his office case.. He was the originator to Winchester’s production of the .22 Hornet cartridge, at the advice of his friend , Townsend Whelen, who developed the Hornet from the .22 WCF -Single Shot. The Model 54 was the first commercial production rifle in.22 Hornet, in 1933 .At the time Pugsley was part of the redesign of the 54 to the 70, starting in 1935 , transitioed the 54 production line to the 70. This “new safety and shroud” may have been his original design plan for the Hornet, in full production. Several other Model 54 rifles were introduced durig the same time the Target ,Match rifles, grades, etc were planned for the Model 70 , introduced as 54’s ,in the last 2 years of production.. while the line was transitioning.. I think it’s genuine sample, no one “fakes” a broken rifle. much less a sample, there’d be too many naysayers to begin with..to try. I see no reason to think it’s anything but, a factory original sample, there were dozen or so, like the 19 original model 70’s they completed in December 1935, were samples ,” the new models”No serial numbers , were common thing before 1968- the 70 production numbers didn’t begin till Jan 1936 when the full production of the 70 began..
Ralph Fitzwater said
i’ve been lookin for more information about Edwin Pugsley, this may have been in his office case..
There’s a 2-page bio of him in Vol. 2 of John Campbell’s two books on the Single Shot, both unfortunately now $200 books.
Very nice display. Is that a Winchester pocket knife your sling is folded around?
yes it is.. nice Ebay purchase, 100 bucks, shipping-nice clean condition,for the money. ebony slabs-never used much, the Winchester screwdrivers are the reciever screws and small one because i had it.fit the sight screws. i need a bigger safe for it ,lol RF
there’s two pages by Danial Sheuy , in back issues, The photo of The case in the office where Pugsley was inspecting a 1966 Commerotive, would be the kind of case my rifle sat in for years. The Stock was oiled every few years. He was retired by 1966 , He had a massive collection stored at the New Haven plant -offices -that became the Winchester museum Collection ,show room ,before the Cody museum was loaned part of it? most of it? It fills up a 6’table at my club show. I might keep it might auction it , if so it would be as a Sample 54/70 in .22 Hornet. with an AO Neider modified, B5 Winchester scope, i like looking at it but bought a Ruger 1 in Hornet to shoot. keep the Winchester pristine, as any collector here would..
I adding an interesting discovery, to research, in Milestone’s recent 6/18/22, auction, day 1– lot 507.. is he sister to this sample. i’ll bet the safety works, it sports the same engraved checkering as my safety, The reason mine never worked is the hole for the saftyt hole– needed moving, adjust the fixture, a few thousands and this next one, worked correctly. I’t in the same condition except the floor plate, that blue on 54’s, always truns before anything else. I’d have bought that in a heart beat- at the price. the pair would have good value. I think the pin to hold the safety in was the original design, it was dropped iniatilly but returned to production later.
1 Guest(s)
