Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
[email protected] said
The trouble is confirmed. I went back to my favorite store and got a 68 complete and in good shape. They have two 75’s, one heavily sanded and one with 8 extra holes drilled in it, I passed on both. On an up note they said that they’re pop, who opened the store in the 60’s ,was thinking of selling his 75 target. If he decides to I get first crack. Yep, it’s trouble for sure, time for another pack of rifle socks. JWA, I spoke with Bob Beach yesterday, thanks. Chris
M68’s are quite common. The grooved stock type is not. Only made one year in 1934. Yes, do not be a buyer of Swiss Cheese.The M75’s also are very common. Two that aren’t are the G7527, the one with the Vaver sights, and the G7521, the one with the original Winchester 8X scope. Prices on M75’s run all over the board. Just make sure the bolt serial number matches, and it has the proper magazine for the time period. I have never seen one with a bad bore. Big Larry
November 7, 2015
Offline
Big Larry said
AAny high $$$ Winchester can and will be faked. Read and heed others advice. Learn your craft well. The fakers are getting real good at this. Big Larry
I’m thinking that is what attracts me to the .22’s. Most, even the high condition specimens, are not high dollar items (comparatively) and simply not worth faking in most cases. I envy the folks with a good eye for fakes but I know I would be fooled by most of them so will always stay away from the classes of collectables that attract fakers.
Big Larry said
M68’s are quite common. The grooved stock type is not. Only made one year in 1934. Big Larry
Larry,
The grooved stocks were used on the Model 67 and Model 68 from 1934-1938 and are not that uncommon. There are probably more grooved stock Model 68’s than un-grooved.
You are quoting an erroneous piece of information published by Houze in his book To the Dreams of Youth: Winchester .22 Caliber Single Shot Rifle. Houze probably based that 1934 statement on a memo or PCA but in fact, the grooves were not omitted until 1938 when the semi-beavertail blunt forend stock style was introduced. The Model 67 semi-beavertail stock was introduced about the same time as the 69 stock change and the introduction of the Model 72 as part of an effort to standardize and update the appearance of the Winchester .22 bolt action line.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
I was happy to get a clean, complete example with just a visit to my local store. The stocks were surprisingly similar layed side by side. I do like to research before I buy and applaud the hours and dedication you had to have to write a book. Impressive
JWA said
Big Larry said
M68’s are quite common. The grooved stock type is not. Only made one year in 1934. Big Larry
Larry,
The grooved stocks were used on the Model 67 and Model 68 from 1934-1938 and are not that uncommon. There are probably more grooved stock Model 68’s than un-grooved.
You are quoting an erroneous piece of information published by Houze in his book To the Dreams of Youth: Winchester .22 Caliber Single Shot Rifle. Houze probably based that 1934 statement on a memo or PCA but in fact, the grooves were not omitted until 1938 when the semi-beavertail blunt forend stock style was introduced. The Model 67 semi-beavertail stock was introduced about the same time as the 69 stock change and the introduction of the Model 72 as part of an effort to standardize and update the appearance of the Winchester .22 bolt action line.
Best Regards,
See, this is why we need a smart person to write a book. Like Brophy on his M1903’s, many errors in that book, but it took years of research to get it all right. Fortunately , I was much younger then. Now, at 75, I don’t have a whole lot of time left. GET THE BOOK PUBLISHED, so I do not make any more errors. It’s worth a lunch at Bruno’s for you. Thanks for keeping me honest. Big Larry
I am working on it today as we speak. It is getting very close. I just need to stop adding chapters……
I didn’t mean to scold you about the grooves but I know you like to be accurate.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA,
Are you going to be at the Reno Show ?
I’m at table 79-2. Would love to talk to you.
I’ll have my 1873 22 short with me too, also the Graduated Peep tang sight that came with it.
Bill
JWA said
I am working on it today as we speak. It is getting very close. I just need to stop adding chapters……I didn’t mean to scold you about the grooves but I know you like to be accurate.
Best Regards,
Don’t apologize for being particular about grooves–I’m absolutely queer about them! Despite having one of the ugliest & most ill-designed stocks ever put on a target rifle, the first M.52 stocks were blessed with grooved forearms; how I wish they’d been retained on the much improved later 52 stocks.
Somebody sure ought to undertake a new study of 52s; even if House’s book wasn’t OP and selling for about $200, its many omissions justify another examination.
Blueliner said
JWA,Are you going to be at the Reno Show ?
I’m at table 79-2. Would love to talk to you.
I’ll have my 1873 22 short with me too, also the Graduated Peep tang sight that came with it.
Bill
Hi Bill,
I am normally there at the Reno fall show and WACA meeting but will not be able to attend this year due to the show date change.
Hopefully I will catch up with you somewhere else down the road soon. I will be at the Tulsa spring show for sure.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
clarence said
Don’t apologize for being particular about grooves–I’m absolutely queer about them! Despite having one of the ugliest & most ill-designed stocks ever put on a target rifle, the first M.52 stocks were blessed with grooved forearms; how I wish they’d been retained on the much improved later 52 stocks.
Somebody sure ought to undertake a new study of 52s; even if House’s book wasn’t OP and selling for about $200, its many omissions justify another examination.
I am partial to the grooved stocks as well but then I am old fashioned and think that Schnabel forends are cool too.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
I am partial to the grooved stocks as well but then I am old fashioned and think that Schnabel forends are cool too.
Best Regards,
Schnabel’s look good on the M56.
Two types grooved stocks on the early M52’s, but the Laudensack stocks were better.
The Springfield M1903 looks great with a early grooved stock.
Your post was not taken as scolding. I love it when you show me the error of my ways. You are the GUHRU !!! Big Larry
Big Larry said
The Springfield M1903 looks great with a early grooved stock.
So does the 1922 M1 & M2 stock, although I concede that the NRA style has a better proportioned buttstock (less drop at heel); no reason, of course, it couldn’t have been made with grooves.
Still think the 1922 series is the ultimate bolt-action .22. After putting a train-load of ammo through my M2, I quit shooting it for fear of “wearing it out” (ridiculous idea, I know) and got on the M.52 herd path.
clarence said
Big Larry said
The Springfield M1903 looks great with a early grooved stock.
So does the 1922 M1 & M2 stock, although I concede that the NRA style has a better proportioned buttstock (less drop at heel); no reason, of course, it couldn’t have been made with grooves.
Still think the 1922 series is the ultimate bolt-action .22. After putting a train-load of ammo through my M2, I quit shooting it for fear of “wearing it out” (ridiculous idea, I know) and got on the M.52 herd path.
Clarence, I once had a M1922, M1922M1, both NRA and service, and a rare M2 NRA,(papered), and several standard M2’s. They are extremely accurate as you probably already know, but not in the same class as a M52, especially the later C’s and D’s. Now, Springfield did make a few heavy bbl. 22’s, but I have never heard of anyone shooting them as they tend to be quite rare and well over $20,000. Big Larry
More trouble, for sure. Up to four with the addition of an M57 and an M72A. I passed on an M67 but I’ll
probably go back for it, how can I not have it next to the 68 and the 69? The M57 has scope blocks on the barrel spaced
far apart. Is any target style scope appropriate or should I start lookingfo a Unertl? A day without a Win 22 is like a day
without sunshine. Chris
A Lyman Super Targetspot is cheaper and easier to find. Get a nice 20X for 22 shooting and get one with a return spring. Big Larry
November 7, 2015
Offline
Congrats! Four is an excellent start. 🙂 I like my little 57 and a 72A looks like fun too. Your reasoning for returning to rescue the 67 is sound, by any and all means proceed with your mission. 😉
So far I’ve avoided ‘scoping any of my .22’s but I suspect an original or replica will work best with the existing scope blocks.
[email protected] said
The M57 has scope blocks on the barrel spaced far apart. Is any target style scope appropriate or should I start lookingfo a Unertl? A day without a Win 22 is like a daywithout sunshine. Chris
Any target scope of that vintage would be appropriate. Depending upon the vintage of the 57, the most appropriate/correct scope would be the Winchester A5 (until late 1928), then the Lyman 5A from late 1928 onward. Those were the common/standard catalogued scope options for the 57 and are a good match in size and quality to the 57.
There were certainly better scopes available during that period and of course modern optics are probably even more superior. It all depends on what you want. In general, the better target scopes such as the Fecker, Unertl, etc. were used on the high end target rifles such as the Model 52 and Remington 37. If you put too high a quality scope on a less accurate rifle you are just spending money to more clearly see your misses. If your shooting is absolutely dependent upon using optics then don’t worry about aesthetics and get a larger diameter modern scope with all the bells and whistles and just be satisfied by keeping them in the “X”.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Thanks for the replies guys, I figure since someone else did the dirty deed I would get the right scope for the 57.
I’m not into competitive shooting , I’m as much into the aesthetics of a well proportioned rifle/scope combination
as I am worried about a tight grouping. Frankly, It will spend more time in the gun/fly tying room than at the range or field.
A few more Winchesters have made their way home with me. I found a late 60’s Model 70 in 22-250, still a .22, that I really appreciate.
Today my first Model 52 followed me home, serial # 8338 from the 20’s with matching bolt and ladder sight. Not perfect or unmolested but
oh so sweet. My question is this , it has a globe front sight and is drilled and tapped on receiver left and the stock is notched in a T configuration
for a receiver sight, which peep will fit? Thanks in advance, Chris
JWA said
Any target scope of that vintage would be appropriate. Depending upon the vintage of the 57, the most appropriate/correct scope would be the Winchester A5 (until late 1928), then the Lyman 5A from late 1928 onward. Those were the common/standard catalogued scope options for the 57 and are a good match in size and quality to the 57.
What about the No. 3 & 5 scopes that came along in (I think) 1937? Specifically advertised as “.22 scopes,” and much less expensive then & now than A5/5As…which would have equaled or exceeded the cost of a M57. Inclined to believe that any customer having the dough to spend on a A5/5A would probably not be buying a 57.
1 Guest(s)
