Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Maverick,
In the regards to the marking of the later 52’s, the receivers were too hard to stamp. They were liquid cyanide case hardened and were extremely hard for wear resistance. If you ever notice the proof stamp on a 52C,D or E, it looks washed out like it has been amateurly reblued. That is because unlike all other Winchester firearms, they actually proof stamped the receiver prior to heat treatment, then polished and blued it subsequently.
Steve
seewin said
Maverick,In the regards to the marking of the later 52’s, the receivers were too hard to stamp. They were liquid cyanide case hardened and were extremely hard for wear resistance. If you ever notice the proof stamp on a 52C,D or E, it looks washed out like it has been amateurly reblued. That is because unlike all other Winchester firearms, they actually proof stamped the receiver prior to heat treatment, then polished and blued it subsequently.
Die marking could have been applied to brl.
clarence said
seewin said
Maverick,
In the regards to the marking of the later 52’s, the receivers were too hard to stamp. They were liquid cyanide case hardened and were extremely hard for wear resistance. If you ever notice the proof stamp on a 52C,D or E, it looks washed out like it has been amateurly reblued. That is because unlike all other Winchester firearms, they actually proof stamped the receiver prior to heat treatment, then polished and blued it subsequently.
Die marking could have been applied to brl.
I have an idea that receiver marking was specified by the Government, since it is considered the actual “firearm”. If you recall, the 40X Government contract rifles were marked on the receiver as well. Also, it was quite common to change barrels, not so with receivers.
Steve
seewin said
Maverick,In the regards to the marking of the later 52’s, the receivers were too hard to stamp. They were liquid cyanide case hardened and were extremely hard for wear resistance. If you ever notice the proof stamp on a 52C,D or E, it looks washed out like it has been amateurly reblued. That is because unlike all other Winchester firearms, they actually proof stamped the receiver prior to heat treatment, then polished and blued it subsequently.
Steve
Steve, more great information that I most certainly wasn’t aware of. I did notice the “amaturely re-blued” stamp as you said and just figured that’s the way it was, but really didn’t concentrate on it. Remarkable. After you explained why it looked like that it does make sense.
Anthony
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’m the current custodian of an exceptional 52C and the person wielding the electro-pen had remarkably good penmanship. The rifle shoots quite well considering it is a retired competition rifle and has an excellent trigger. For the record my penmanship is…a fine excuse for a tablet or laptop.
Mike
seewin said
Maverick,In the regards to the marking of the later 52’s, the receivers were too hard to stamp. They were liquid cyanide case hardened and were extremely hard for wear resistance. If you ever notice the proof stamp on a 52C,D or E, it looks washed out like it has been amateurly reblued. That is because unlike all other Winchester firearms, they actually proof stamped the receiver prior to heat treatment, then polished and blued it subsequently.
Steve
So the firearm in conversation here, and once again showing the stamp of the “Iron,(Maltese),Cross”, would have had to been placed before the “liquid cyanide case hardened receiver” being extremely hard. Has no washed out look to it whatsoever.
I have an idea that receiver marking was specified by the Government, since it is considered the actual “firearm”. If you recall, the 40X Government contract rifles were marked on the receiver as well. Also, it was quite common to change barrels, not so with receivers.
Steve
No other markings were found on the barrel or elsewhere on the rifle as far as I know at this time. A lot of very good information has come to light here on the model 52B and others sub-sequentially that relate to a wonderful firearm that Winchester developed to compete in National Matches and did very well besides the shooting public that enjoyed this firearm and still do to this day. I feel we as a collecting community has done our due diligence to bring to light and the forefront as much information that we possibly could and who knows maybe another one might show up in the future.
Anthony
Antonio said
seewin said
Maverick,
In the regards to the marking of the later 52’s, the receivers were too hard to stamp. They were liquid cyanide case hardened and were extremely hard for wear resistance. If you ever notice the proof stamp on a 52C,D or E, it looks washed out like it has been amateurly reblued. That is because unlike all other Winchester firearms, they actually proof stamped the receiver prior to heat treatment, then polished and blued it subsequently.
Steve
So the firearm in conversation here, and once again showing the stamp of the “Iron,(Maltese),Cross”, would have had to been placed before the “liquid cyanide case hardened receiver” being extremely hard. Has no washed out look to it whatsoever.
I have an idea that receiver marking was specified by the Government, since it is considered the actual “firearm”. If you recall, the 40X Government contract rifles were marked on the receiver as well. Also, it was quite common to change barrels, not so with receivers.
Steve
Anthony
Antonio, the C,D&E’s were the only 52 receivers to be heat treated with the liquid cyanide process. The B receivers did not receive this process. They were however case hardened in the rear half locking lug area. This would have allowed the front ring area to be stamped as normal.
Steve
seewin said
Antonio said
seewin said
Maverick,
In the regards to the marking of the later 52’s, the receivers were too hard to stamp. They were liquid cyanide case hardened and were extremely hard for wear resistance. If you ever notice the proof stamp on a 52C,D or E, it looks washed out like it has been amateurly reblued. That is because unlike all other Winchester firearms, they actually proof stamped the receiver prior to heat treatment, then polished and blued it subsequently.
Steve
So the firearm in conversation here, and once again showing the stamp of the “Iron,(Maltese),Cross”, would have had to been placed before the “liquid cyanide case hardened receiver” being extremely hard. Has no washed out look to it whatsoever.
I have an idea that receiver marking was specified by the Government, since it is considered the actual “firearm”. If you recall, the 40X Government contract rifles were marked on the receiver as well. Also, it was quite common to change barrels, not so with receivers.
Steve
Anthony
Antonio, the C,D&E’s were the only 52 receivers to be heat treated with the liquid cyanide process. The B receivers did not receive this process. They were however case hardened in the rear half locking lug area. This would have allowed the front ring area to be stamped as normal.
Steve
Steve,
Thanks for the Clarification.
Anthony
1 Guest(s)
