The butt plate has a 1 stamped on back side below screw hole. 

Appreciate any info. Don

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.

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.

First things first. So everybody can be clear on what buttplate was being furnished by the factory, intermittently and then almost consistently, during the last production years of the 52C Sporting rifle, I've attached images graciously furnished me by Seewin that illustrate that buttplate clearly.  It is the same buttplate furnished on the Model 88 during its production life, beginning in 1955, and later on the Model 100. 

All of us are familiar with what was traditionally furnished on the 52 Sporting line because it was the same buttplate as furnished on the Pre-64 Models 70, 71 and 64: a much more elegant checkered steel design with a pair of vertically spaced, diamond-shaped bezels for the mounting screws and a widow's peak inletted into the stock heel. 

In my opinion, the illustrated "substitute standard" buttplate on the 52C  is not even close to the best hard rubber buttplates Winchester had furnished in the past. I didn't think it did the Model 88 I once owned justice and it certainly cheapens the appearance of a 52 Sporting.  Originality to the Devil, I'm pleased not to have to look at it on my own sporter. Others differ, of course. While taste is indisputable, good taste is not universal. 

There were other downgrades to the "C" made in Fifties as inventories of certain parts began to run low. Sporter barrels milled with integral front sight ramps were likely put aside for presentations and friends of John Olin, who was fond of giving Sporting rifles. This happened to the steel buttplates, too. We know this because there are 52C Sporting rifles with very late production serials that have integral ramps and steel buttplates, typically owned by influential people.  One common thing seen in many C sporters is dark, plain, straight-grained wood. That is not universally true but I think it is far more common than in earlier versions.  I believe Seewin agrees with me in that respect. 

So, as background we can all agree that the C is the red-headed stepchild of the 52 Sporting rifle line. I cannot prove it but I believe most of the the very few shipped from the factory in 1960, except for several Special Orders, were remarkably plain in appearance. Mine is one of those.  

It is generally accepted that the more elegant and physically beautiful is a a weapon, the less likely it is to be abused or treated carelessly.  Exceptions, of course, but I think it's as true with Winchester guns as it is with automobiles. 

I wish I'd thought to photograph my rifle as it was when I bought it out of consignment from a local shop.  Collectors of early Lenard Brownell rifles will understand when I say that, in appearance, it looked like a miniature Model 70 Super Grade with an aura of California Modern. The brown butt pad (mercifully not ventilated), an aftermarket sight hood that  could have been Redfield (with a ring of knurling), a flared plastic grip cap with molded fleur d'lis on its face (Herter's?) and the base of a Redfield 70 receiver sight (coded for a Model 70 but fettled to sort of fit) on it's left receiver wall. The Super Grade swivels were attached, a Redfield Jr. one-piece scope base was mounted, and a Weaver J4 in small diameter Redfield rings.  You can see the grip cap below.

The dealer believed it was a parts gun, for a variety of reasons. With Herb's book in hand and some measuring tools, I was allowed to go over the gun for as long as I wanted. I believed it was a very late Sporting that somebody had tried to "modernize" and somebody else had tried to "restore" by adding an incorrect receiver sight.  

I had wanted a Model 52 Sporting Rifle ever since I'd seen one illustrated in the 1957 Gun Digest - in 1957.  It was a C.  So, even though it was a strain at the time, in 2002, I bought the rifle for $1059.99, $1,147.74 tax included.  (I'd previously thought $950, but I've just checked the bill of sale.) 

It has since had some of its dignity restored, a correct grip cap and washer installed, a 3278/M Winchester hood installed, a Lyman #12SF blank in the front ramp dovetail, a Leupold Compact 2x-7x scope in 1" rings, the egregious Redfield 70 base removed. The one thing that remains is the thin, brown Pachmayr buttpad.  

So, Bert: I can't answer your question with certainty but my best guess is a prior owner - maybe not the original owner - wanted a Weatherby. We can wish he hadn't but I did get my 52C Sporting rifle at least partly because of it. 

Mike

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

Later

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 has been 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.