The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver. What interests me at this time would be the distance between centers of the blocks. I have witnessed two or three model 90’s that had a distance of, as I recall, 5 and 3/16ths or 5& 5/16ths instead of the typical 7 and3/16ths, but they had the offset proof mark. Still, the 5 inch measurements matched as I remember and that’s intriguing to me.

James

clarence said

jwm94 said
The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver. 

Well, that’s true, but such a mismatch demonstrates for sure that it’s no factory job!  My hunch is that blocks had been previously attached–either for a Win. scope, or some other–but that first scope had been separated from the rifle.  Then some later owner found a Win. scope lacking mounts, along with these mounts (which often show up on ebay, shows, etc.) and put this mismatch together.  In fact, when Gil Parsons bought out Lyman’s remaining inventory of scope parts in the ’70s, a large quantity of these mounts, out of production for decades, was part of the deal, and for several years afterwards, he sold them cheap.  

Agree with the factory-job bit. I addressed the scope block placement for a specific reason and that is help educate people like us that Winchester might very well have scoped some model 90’s with the five+ inch distance between centers of blocks. This is what I hope is not lost on people that might say, “Hey! Winchester would not have done that,” without at least offering up some testimony to support such a tired old response.  That and anyone interested in a rifle with blocks at this distance when all else looks good does not shy away from it buy such a retort.

You might be right in the remainder of your estimation too, but by the same token…the mounts, scope, and DOM of the rifle’s receiver match up extremely well for period purposes.

James

Great info, Clarence!   Something that all of us should try to remember.  

James

JWA said

jwm94 said
The Lyman mounts (1930?) are period to the 1930 DOM of the rifle’s receiver. What interests me at this time would be the distance between centers of the blocks. I have witnessed two or three model 90’s that had a distance of, as I recall, 5 and 3/16ths or 5& 5/16ths instead of the typical 7 and3/16ths, but they had the offset proof mark. Still, the 5 inch measurements matched as I remember and that’s intriguing to me.

James  

James,

Many of the Winchester .22 models used a 5+ inch base spacing so it would not be that unusual on a Model 90.

Here is the similar factory base spacing on a few other .22 models;

Model 61 (some) – 5.375″

Model 67 and 677 (some) – 5.33″

Model 74 – 5.50″

Model 75 Sporter (some) – 5.00″

The base spacing was generally dictated by the length of the scope (and eye relief) and the available space around the open sights.  Higher power scopes used a wider base spacing.  On some rifles an even closer spacing of the blocks was used such as 4.19″ on the Model 72 (with no open sights) and 4.41″ on the Model 63.  You will notice the base spacing is somewhat unique to each rifle model so although the distances were dictated by the length of the scope and eye relief, they were adjusted to accommodate the specific rifle.  As Clarence suggested, this was likely done to avoid the roll-markings and existing open sights/dovetail.  Hope that helps.

Best Regards,  

Hi Jeff!

I have saved the info in your post since information like this is interesting to lots of people.
I agree with the information you’ve noted about base-spacing, too, and it will greatly help those people that seek out these sort of details and why they exist, to include, help with determining the possibility of originality in a lot of cases. The 7.2 spacing for dope changes in clicks that represent a half or quarter minute change, to POI per hundred yards like Clarence alluded to, will help with determining the possibility of originality in a lot of cases, as will other spacing’s that do not relate to such a doping system based in part on era.

Have a great day!

James