Log In
November 1, 2013
Offline
https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/907038888
Check out seller’s comments about the production history of this model–appears to be quoting from JWA’s book, which has caused 69 values to escalate since it’s publication.
Scarce model for sure, but scope looks repainted to me (note tube under front mount), & stock appears to have been touched up with tung oil or something similar.
July 17, 2012
Offline
That seller is not quoting me (hopefully I write better than that). He appears to be quoting Wikipedia which has a few notable errors in the 69 data.
The stock has definitely been over-coated with something and the metal finish on the stock hardware (magazine plate and trigger guard) is extremely worn/non-existent and does not match the finish on the barrel.
That rifle also has a blank in the rear sight dovetail so the overall barrel length should be checked to insure the front dovetail has not simply been cut off and recrowned.
697 Prices have been on the rise but even so, that rifle seems to be priced a bit high for the condition. It is Gunbroker though, anything can happen, all it takes is someone with a laptop and credit card to shock us all.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
November 1, 2013
Offline
JWA said
That seller is not quoting me (hopefully I write better than that).
Sorry for slandering you! Just couldn’t imagine where else seller would have acquired such detailed info. on this model.
July 17, 2012
Offline
Wikipedia is getting a little better with their firearms descriptions but they are not perfect and many times repeat errors in previous publications.
If you look at the bibliography for the Model 69 you will notice they used the Blue Book of Gun values for reference, not my first or even second choice for historical information on specific models. They also quoted Houze’s work on single shot rifles, I am not sure in what manner since it did not cover the Model 69 at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_69
One of these days I will have to get you a copy of the 69 book so you can critique it firsthand.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
January 27, 1992
Offline
With the dovetail cut, would it be classified an authentic 697? Wouldn’t this be the “G6951R” dual sight? RDB
November 1, 2013
Offline
rogertherelic said
With the dovetail cut, would it be classified an authentic 697? Wouldn’t this be the “G6951R” dual sight? RDB
I was too ignorant to know what to make of the slot cut in the rcvr. But provision for a rear sight makes no sense without provision for a front sight. So is it simply a fake? It’s easy to pick up one of these scopes on ebay.
July 17, 2012
Offline
rogertherelic said
With the dovetail cut, would it be classified an authentic 697? Wouldn’t this be the “G6951R” dual sight? RDB
If it has both front and rear dovetail cuts then it would be a dual sight but the sightless barrel is what truly defines it as a 697. Winchester used some of the G6901R receivers with the rear dovetail and sight blank in the parts cleanup for the 697 so it is likely correct.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
1 Guest(s)
