Zebulon said

Bert H. said

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

You assume correctly... I did not.  However, that does not answer my question about the question I posed.
  

I disagree with your premise and your question assumed facts not in evidence. I am not an idiot and I don't think whoever took.off the factory buttplate was an idiot either. I might have disagreed with what he substituted but, after using the rifle these many years, it is simply not worth (to me) the several hundred dollars it would require to install the Winchester checkered steel buttplate. I have one in my parts kit but it would reduce the LOP and require refinishing the stock. 
  

Zebulon said

Bert H. said

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

You assume correctly... I did not.  However, that does not answer my question about the question I posed.
  

I disagree with your premise and your question assumed facts not in evidence. I am not an idiot and I don't think whoever took.off the factory buttplate was an idiot either. I might have disagreed with what he substituted but, after using the rifle these many years, it is simply not worth (to me) the several hundred dollars it would require to install the Winchester checkered steel buttplate. I have one in my parts kit but it would reduce the LOP and require refinishing the stock. 
  

Bill,

1. I did not infer that you are an "idiot", nor did I ever use that term.   What I did infer, is that the person who intentionally removed the original butt plate (steel or plastic) in favor of a recoil pad is a "moron". You are falsely assuming and choosing to believe that I am insulting you, which is definitely not the case.

2.  The facts are indeed in clear evidence... in at least two cases, somebody (not named Winchester) purposefully removed the original factory installed butt plate, and then installed a recoil pad. 

3. From my personal point of view (and to my point), there was/is absolutely no practical reason for removing the original butt plate and installing a Pachmayr recoil pad on a .22 rim fire rifle, especially one as well built as a Model 52 rifle. 

4. I believe that we can all agree that by doing so, the value of the rifles in the collector market question was negatively impacted, and that no measurable improvement was made to the rifles in question.

Bert

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. 

Bert H. said

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

You assume correctly... I did not.  However, that does not answer my question about the question I posed.
  

I disagree with your premise and your question assumed facts not in evidence. I am not an idiot and I don't think whoever took.off the factory buttplate was an idiot either. I might have disagreed with what he substituted but, after using the rifle these many years, it is simply not worth (to me) the several hundred dollars it would require to install the Winchester checkered steel buttplate. I have one in my parts kit but it would reduce the LOP and require refinishing the stock. 

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

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

You assume correctly... I did not.  However, that does not answer my question about the question I posed.

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. 

Bert

Per Pogo, who wudda thunk it?  The linked auction is of a 1956 vintage Model 52C that has been restored and is at auction on Guns International. It has the exact same, thin brown Pachmayr recoil pad as mine.  (The images attached here are of my rifle, not the auctioned gun.)

Now, I know from Seewin that my 1960 specimen very probably wore a plastic buttplate identical to the one installed on the Model 88 and Model 100. As Winchester began to run low on the checkered steel diamond screw bezel buttplates previously standard for 52 Sporting models, the cheap plastic job became the substitute standard. At some point after mine left New Haven, a prior owner discarded the plastic buttplate and installed a Pachmayr pad, maintaining the factory LOP plus a little bit. 

I haven't been able to download the GI pix but you can see by following the link that the pad on the 1956 specimen is identical to mine, except mine shows more wear. 

I never expected to see its duplicate. I wonder if it's coincidence or if there are more?

Tony

I was hoping that someone had found a drop-in replacement from Numrich, MGW, Wolff, etc., perhaps designed for another application, but which would be workable.

There's a local shop selling vintage parts here in DFW (Lee's Gun Parts) who may have something; I'll try them first.

Sorry, I don't have a 10 round 22 Short magazine (or spring) to compare against, so wouldn't know what to look for.

I would also contact Wisner's, they make the current 5-rd magazine springs and maybe can make you one the correct length for the 10rd magazine.

I am looking for a .22 Short 10rd spring and they are unobtainium.

Best Regards,

I haven't found anything specifically made for it, and while I see a few that might work, I would rather not do this by trial and error.

Thanks!

...and thanks for the tag pic, Jeff. I may still make one to put on there to remind me!

Thank you so much ! I'll post pics tomorrow night