Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I probably should have started a new thread, I obtained and installed a Wollensak on the 57. It’s a bit short but
looks great and functions okay. I will keep looking for an A5 or a 5A to replace it but chances are it may stay like that
especially since the 52 is also setup for scope mounting. Until then I would like to install the correct peep in the
existing holes in the receiver side of the 52. Like I said, it has a cutout in a T shape in the stock below two tapped holes in the left side of the receiver.
[email protected] said
I obtained and installed a Wollensak on the 57.
A more appropriate period choice for a 57, I think, than an A5/5A–the type of scope the original owner of a 57 would have been most likely to buy.
clarence said
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.
I agree, the later (mid-1930’s) scopes were cheaper and more closely matched the value of the mid-price range Model 57 but I guess it all depends upon your definition of “period correct”. To me, period correct means contemporary with the rifle, not 6 or 7 years later. Chris’ Model 57 was produced in 1931, prior to the introduction of Bill Weaver’s initial scope, the 3-30 and well before the 1937 Winchester line of .22 caliber scopes. In truth, Chris’ rifle was produced even prior to the Wollensak scope. So, depending how broad your “period” is for “period correct” I guess you could install just about anything you want on it.
Now, having stated that, I think the Wollensak is an excellent choice for that rifle as the quality of the optics is excellent vs. the price and it suits the rifle well.
The main reason I suggested the A5/5A is that they meet MY definition of period correct and, in fact, Winchester supplied some Model 57’s with the A5 scope prior to 1930.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Thanks for the responses, the scope blocks were an ” aftermarket ” accesory and as such could be used with
a similar non factory scope. I found a reasonably priced, about half the cost of the 57, externally adjusted Wollensak
that fit the blocks to a T. Speaking of T’s , what about the peep for the 52? Could I get a Redfield ( Olympic or International)
mount for the already tapped holes?
Chris
Sorry, I meant to respond earlier, the inletting is possibly for the Lyman 48 which was a popular sight on the 52 during that time. That would probably be the easiest replacement but to verify we would need the CtC distance of the holes and a photo of the stock inletting. Anything without that is just conjecture.
And for the 57, the Wollensak is a good scope, I wouldn’t worry about it.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Sorry, I meant to respond earlier, the inletting is possibly for the Lyman 48 which was a popular sight on the 52 during that time.
That was my first thought, except I was under the impression that 48s specifically designed for 52s required no stock butchery. Believe the first variant was the 48T, noted in catalog description as requiring D&T, but no mention made of hatchet work necessary for mounting it…which any prospective customer would certainly like to know, you’d assume. (48T, called “new,” appears in my 1930 Lyman catalog, but don’t know how much earlier it was available.)
I am certainly not a 52 expert by any means but I was under the impression that the first (early) 48’s on the 52’s required the notching of the stock for the elevation arm and screw and the later 48’s did not require modifying the stock. But again, I am no expert on the 52 and may be mistaken.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
I am certainly not a 52 expert by any means but I was under the impression that the first (early) 48’s on the 52’s required the notching of the stock for the elevation arm and screw and the later 48’s did not require modifying the stock. But again, I am no expert on the 52 and may be mistaken.
Big Larry would know, as he’s got one of the early & rare 52s factory-fitted with a 48T.
Of course, Lyman had no monopoly on rcvr. sights, but Pacific’s 52 model required no stock chopping either.
1 Guest(s)
