Log In
November 1, 2013
Offline
December 21, 2006
Offline
That’s one of those guns I would want to have in My hands to say, but I’m thinking it’s looking legit.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
April 15, 2005
Offline
That rifle is not factory original. The front ramp sight is sitting on top of a front sight dovetail cut. The other clue is the condition of the Proof Mark stamps.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said
The front ramp sight is sitting on top of a front sight dovetail cut.
Can’t believe I missed that, though I was pretty sure the wood & metal looked too perfect to be legit. Wonder why the refinisher didn’t simply replace the original front sight, rather than go to the trouble of soldering on a non-original ramp, that was going to be a dead give-away?
July 9, 2011
Offline
That’s a correct 97A front sight (4 piece sight)
and is made to sit in a dovetail.
December 31, 2012
Offline
Bert, you had better bone up on your 22’s and get Jeffs new book. Swabbie !!! Big Larry
April 15, 2005
Offline
Larry,
I have a copy of Jeff’s superb book, and I will defer to Jeff’s expertise in this topic. That stated, it is my opinion that the subject rifle rifle is not “mint” (factory) original.
Bert – Submariner (swabbies are surface pukes)!
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
I have a similar vintage rifle sans receiver sights in nearly new condition so I know they’re out there. For what I paid for it I’d be surprised if someone spent the money to have one refinished. I’m thinking “parts cleanup” but I’ll join y’all in waiting for Jeff’s learned opinion.
Mike
March 31, 2009
Offline
I don’t see anything that would cause me to think it has been restored. I defer to Bert on the proof stamps?
July 17, 2012
Offline
To be honest guys, that is one I would have to have in my hands to tell for sure.
It is a late 50’s rifle and the front sight is correct. I don’t see any glaring red flags but some things look just a bit “off”. It may be the lighting but the wood finish is a bit shiny and the metal surface finish does not appear to be quite as coarse as I would expect from a later production rifle.
Again, I have no opinion either way without seeing it in person.
Sorry Clarence, I can’t answer that one.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
June 5, 2015
Offline
IMHO, the wood finish isn’t factory. The blueing was done after the proof marks were stamped. The depth of blueing is just wrong but could be photo effect. But I’d still buy it to shoot. Heck my whole collection is made up of uncollectables.
Vince
Southern Oregon
NRA member
Fraternal Order of Eagles
“There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle.”
Teddy Roosevelt
January 27, 1992
Offline
The rifle over all appears fine, to me. My only question of originality would be the magazines. One magazine appears to be of too early production and the other too late production. 
Roger B
1 Guest(s)
