52C Sporting with Pachmayr pad -- like mine. Are there more?|Winchester .22 Rim Fire|Forum|Winchester Collector

Do you recall any of my prior posts about my 52C ?   I assume not. 

Steve has one a few serial digits off that wears the 88/100 buttplate. By 1960, the last year of production, most of them did. They downgraded the appearance of an expensive rifle to the point at least one owner fixed it with what was available, I suppose. Particularly if he wanted to adjust LOP. 

My rifle came to me with what I’ve just illustrated. I just saw this GI auction and somebody else did the same thing.

I can’t complain very much because it — and a couple of other anomalies — made my dealer believe it was a parts gun. It isn’t but I bought it in 2002 for $950. 

Blue Ridge Parson said
I have seen several 52 Sporting rifles that have been similarly altered (I was going to say “mutilated) and the rationale given for doing so has usually been: 1) to increase length of pull, or 2) to keep the rifle from sliding off the rifle rack while at the range.  
I find neither argument terribly persuasive.  
As I understand it, the changes made to the 52 Sporting rifle (which also occurred to the Model 70) were based on lowering the production costs.  To wit, it’s substantially less expensive to create and install a plastic butt plate than to make and fit the “widow’s peak” steel butt plate previously used. Similarly, the use of a brazed front sight ramp instead of the previous integral forged sight ramp was another cost cutting measure.   For these reasons, I find the last of the 52 Sporting rifles to be a sign of the waning of quality at Winchester-Western in the late 1950’s.  To my eye, Winchester took what was a great rifle, and lowered it to being merely good. Perhaps that is why I have never been able to talk myself into buying one of the last 52-C Sporters.  If I do ever buy a 52-C Sporting rifle (to go with my pre-A, A, and B Sporters) it will be one of the early rifles made before the cost cutting measures were put in place
BRP
  

Well, Timothy, if you ever choose to lower yourself in such fashion, it may require a bit more cash than I spent on this one. One recently crossed on Lock, Stock & Barrel for well over six thousand dollars. 

I make no attempt to run with the big dogs and was happy to get mine for $950 and tax in 2002, deficiencies and all. 

You saw through my lawyer’s debating trick.  I am downstairs from my laptop, where Steve’s photo of one of his 52C Sporting Rifles with factory plastic buttplate resides. I’ve got to go pick up an RCBS collet for my bullet puller, another step in my quest to get my 07 shooting. When I get back, I’ll post the photo so we can see what it does to the Sporting rifle. 

As always, taste is indisputable – although that argument has a thin, crumbling edge in some cases. 

Later

For those interested to see s/n 99076C in its present state, here it is as of this evening.

steve004 said
Bill –
Your M52C is still a nice looking rifle and all the fine characteristics that embody the M52C remain intact with your rifle.  The exception would be the buttplate, but the original buttplate that came with the M52C was not a defining characteristic or make it stand out in any way.  
As you suggest, your only path to owning a M52C was through the good fortune of a previous owner installing that pad.  M52C’s have been hard to find and have commanded high prices for a very long time.  I’m not much of a .22 guy but I have had my eyes open for one for a long time.  I’ve had many opportunities over the years but the price points have always kept me away.
I stated at the beginning, I think you have a very nice looking rifle. I am a strong admirer of originality in rifles and definitely prefer it.  However, I don’t consider the pad on your rifle aesthetically offensive.  I would happily own that rifle.
  

Steve, this rifle has taught me several lessons over a couple of Decades,  the most ironic of which has been to learn the Monte Carlo comb of the C version stock is not suited to iron sights, even the very expensive set collectors want to see on the rifle – the Lyman 48F and the Redfield Full Gold Bead, preferably with the genuine (unobtainable) #3279/H Winchester sight hood. Even our most exalted collectors often have to settle for the marginally lower #3278/M hood, which you see on #99076C.

I acquired fine specimens of the irons for about $700 all up and installed them, only to find i would need major plastic surgery to get my face down on the comb to see through the aperture. The elevation adjustment range of the 48F, combined with the factory height of the Redfield, is narrow and obviously intended for standard (target) velocity ammunition and a six o’clock hold, at 50 yards. 

Conversely, the Leupold variable – the brightest compact scope I’ve ever owned – in medium height rings is perfectly adapted to the rifle.  So equipped, it’s a bell ringer and a peerless understudy for my 1960 Model 70 Featherweight .30/06 and its sight equipment, a Leupold VariX III 2.5 – 8X 30mm.  In its current state, this 52 is Death personified on destructive North Texas squirrels.  [CCH makes a low velocity Long that will feed from the 52 magazine. A large Shumard Oak in my fenced back yard is a safe backstop. Further Affiant Saith Not.]

I’ve given thought over the years to eliminating this 52 sporter’s Mark of Shame by replacing the old Pachmayr pad with a vintage Model 70 steel buttplate from my parts box. Because the stock has been squared off for the black 1/4″ back plate of the Pachmayr, I would lose too much LOP once the stock was recut for the draft of the steel plate. To conserve LOP, a 1/4″ or (more likely) a 1/2″ black spacer would have to be face-glued to the squared Walnut, after the necessary draft was bandsawn into the spacer. The widow’s peak of the steel plate would be let into the spacer.  This particular steel plate shows a little blue loss and I would not have it re-blued, for better verisimilitude with the rifle. 

I think this work could be done without refinishing the entire stock but one highly skilled stockmaker says not. Because he’s no longer available, the point is moot. What holds me back are two things,  money and loss of utility. I think a very good gunsmith with stockmaking skills would require at least a half day’s work to do this job,  at at a fee of three to five hundred dollars. And, frankly, for a rifle I  use in the field,  a rubber buttpate is a safer alternative for the gun.

Steve,   The Guns International listing I posted the link for – the one advertising a 52C with the same buttpad as mine – did not disclose a price and was marked “Sold” by the time I saw it.   I mistakenly called it an auction but it wasn’t.  I’m curious enough myself that I tried to call the seller this afternoon, shown on the listing as Antique & Modern Firearms, Inc. of Lexington, Kentucky.  The phone number didn’t work but had an odd message, something like “this number cannot place outgoing calls.”  Googling the seller’s name brought up the news that the seller’s business had been closed and various people were commenting that law enforcement had closed it and were investigating charges of theft because of the failure to pay over sale proceeds to consignors.  I have no idea whether any of that is true – but I have the feeling we are not going to be able to learn what that restored 52C Sporting sold for!  Monday I’ll call Guns International and see if they will at least disclose the original asking price. 

There are auction houses that archive past auctions and I’ve seen quite a few C sporters crossing on those sites. However, none of them were wearing a Pachmayr pad!  Just my luck to finally see one like mine and the seller’s lips are sealed!

You’ve encapsulated my experience with this 52C in one sentence – a sale price almost below ground level and some interesting lessons.  To that, we could add more than one serving of a fine Hopkins County Stew – if only the local tree rats didn’t frequent too many attics for me to risk Warfarin poisoning.

Stay well,

Bill    

Thanks for taking the time, Lou.

I knew I’d seen that pad before!  That little Weatherby automatic was just dripping with Pininfarina attitude, about as inconspicuous as a 4-alarm fire! If Il Commendatore had ever owned a squirrel rifle, it would have looked just like that. A lease partner of mine owned one and had a 10-round magazine for it. It was very accurate and cut down a lot of Prickly Pear fruit. And a couple of corn feeder-raiding raccoons. 

Yes, the LOP on 99076C looks more like 14.125 than 13.50 although my wife’s cloth tape was not made by Starrett or Brown & Sharpe.

If I were obsessed with originality,  there are only two possible choices for the rifle.

1. The Model 70 checkered steel, one of which is in my kit. 

2. The plastic one I’ve illustrated using Steve’s photo (and to my jaundiced eye, so in-your-face-cheap it’s appropr.iately Number Two.) 

It might be possible to determine which one the factory installed on my rifle, if removing the pad revealed the location of the original screw holes. I think they were spaced slightly differently. 

However, there are some things not even a lab rat or a lawyer will do. Installing Number Two on my 52C is one of them. 

I’ll keep the Beretta look for the time being.  

But thanks for the excellent memories!