Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
"Mint" or refinished M. 69 ?
October 15, 2020
12:57 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1989
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
October 15, 2020
1:12 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 553
Member Since:
December 21, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.

October 15, 2020
2:15 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 10411
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

October 15, 2020
2:29 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1989
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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?

October 15, 2020
3:36 pm
Avatar
So.VT
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 90
Member Since:
July 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That’s a correct 97A front sight (4 piece sight)97A.jpgImage Enlarger97A-front-sight.jpgImage Enlargerand is made to sit in a dovetail.

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
October 15, 2020
4:10 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1462
Member Since:
December 31, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bert, you had better bone up on your 22’s and get Jeffs new book.   Swabbie !!!     Big Larry

October 15, 2020
4:18 pm
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 10411
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

October 15, 2020
4:31 pm
Avatar
Northern edge of the D/FW Metromess
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2577
Member Since:
November 7, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

Life Member TSRA, Endowment Member NRA
BBHC Member, TGCA Member
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove
Some of my favorite recipes start out with a handful of depleted counterbalance devices.-TXGunNut
Presbyopia be damned, I'm going to shoot this thing! -TXGunNut
October 15, 2020
5:47 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1964
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don’t see anything that would cause me to think it has been restored.  I defer to Bert on the proof stamps?

October 16, 2020
12:08 am
Avatar
Location: 32000' +
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1374
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

October 19, 2020
12:50 am
Avatar
SO. Oregon
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 587
Member Since:
June 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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 

4029-1.jpg

October 19, 2020
2:27 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 349
Member Since:
January 27, 1992
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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.   Confused   Roger B

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: Bert H., win4575, tionesta1, deerhunter, Big Mac
55 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 7747

Posts: 64770


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1051

Members: 9609

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 4484

twobit: 2586

TXGunNut: 2577

clarence: 1989

Chuck: 1964

Maverick: 1632

Big Larry: 1462

JWA: 1374

steve004: 1338

Wincacher: 1185