Log In
February 2, 2010
Offline
As far as I know shorts only are 24″, and LR were 22″. A friend says he found one that is neither. Told him it could have been cut back to any length.
I have not seen it yet to measure for myself.
Also, were any just marked LONG?
Thanks
July 17, 2012
Offline
The Model 74 was offered in only 2 calibers, .22 Short and .22 Long Rifle, none were marked “Long” only although the earlier caliber roll-markings spelled out “.22 Long Rifle” and later roll-markings simply stated “.22 L. Rifle”.
BOTH calibers were manufactured with 24” and 22” barrels. In general, the pre-war rifles have the longer 24” barrel and the post-war barrels are the shorter 22” length. The barrels are measured from the breech face (not the front of the receiver) to the muzzle so make sure he is measuring correctly as the 24″ and 22″ are the only lengths I have seen. And yes, the barrel could have been cut back or re-crowned at any time.
Some of the confusion about the 74 stems from erroneous information published by Madis. He states that the 74 was chambered (and the barrel marked for) “.22 S, L & LR” and that is simply not true. I think he mixed up the description with the Model 72.
Madis also stated that the shorter barrel was implemented “around serial # 200,000”. Again, not true based on personal observation, it occurred much earlier than that.
Madis also misidentifies the usage range when the changes were made to the loading port size and location.
These observations are not meant to disparage Madis or the vast amount of work he did to create his books, I have simply posted the discrepancies so that the correct information based on current documentation can be utilized.
Best Regards,
.
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
February 2, 2010
Offline
Thanks so much for taking time to address my questions. I’m sure he was misreading the roll-mark.
When I see it next week, the mystery will be solved.
July 17, 2012
Offline
john.41 said
Thanks so much for taking time to address my questions. I’m sure he was misreading the roll-mark.When I see it next week, the mystery will be solved.
Please let us know after you examine it, I would be interested in seeing any deviations from the norm.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
November 12, 2018
Offline
Jeff,
Re: “Some of the confusion about the 74 stems from erroneous information published by Madis. He states that the 74 was chambered (and the barrel marked for) “.22 S, L & LR” and that is simply not true. I think he mixed up the description with the Model 63.”
I think perhaps you meant the Model 72 S,L,LR. The Model 63, of course, is 22 LR only, except maybe for a few rumored to exist in 22 Short.
Not wanting to be pedantic, but want to keep the info accurate. 
July 17, 2012
Offline
Yup, you are correct.
That is what I get for trying to second-guess the origin of someone else’s error.
I fixed it in the previous post for posterity, thanks for the correction 
Best Regards,
PS, forgot I owe you some #6 and #8 base info. Will dig them out in the morning and shoot some pictures. The #6 and #8 are the same height, just the hole spacing is different. I think your other base was lower?
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
