Old-Win said How hard would it be to find a B model with either a special order without sights or the listed order #?
  

Houze’s 52 book gives a production of 742 of the C models in that 5272 configuration, but I find no corresponding number for the B.  I, too, dislike Monte Carlos, but they were the rage in the ’50s.  Your best bet, I think, would be to look for a B that’s already been drilled either on the rcvr for a Redfield type mount or the brl for target mounts.  A scope in target mounts would be high enough to clear the rcvr sight & bolt handle, I think.  A Stith mount requires a rear sight slot to attach the front part of the mount.  Are you good with a file?

All this aggravation to mount a scope because the factory was too retrograde to recognize the popularity of scopes, when ( and this is the unbelievable part!) Winchester had previously been a major manufacturer of scopes!  Explain that thinking, if you can!

I don’t like the looks of either one of the rifles. The Merz (2nd one) rifle should not have any cut outs for a receiver sight. This is a relatively late B Sporter and by this time they were using the later style sight with a relief machined in back side to eliminate the cut. If you consider the other mods that Clarence has mentioned, I have my doubts about originality. There is no way to determine for certain if the d/t’d receiver was done at the factory or not. Without provenance, I always consider these after the fact mods.

    The Gun Parts rifle (1st one) has lots of problems. The barrel appears to have a brazed front sight ramp. This process was not done by Winchester until relatively late in the C Sporter production. It should have a forged front sight ramp. Secondly, you can see marks in the barrel next to the receiver where it has been put in a barrel vise and appears the barrel has slipped in the process marking the finish. Lastly, the stock is a late 52C Sporter stock with the plastic buttplate. Also note it has been relieved for a full block 48 rear sight, again, not correct. 

Steve

First, let me apologize for my last post. I got the order of the 2 rifles mixed up. I edited the post, so hopefully it now makes more sense. 

Clarence, yes, I do believe the Merz rifle has had the barrel reblued. If you look very closely, not only do you see the “WINCHESTER”  roll stamp on barrel is partially buffed away, but the polishing marks are running the wrong direction (front to back lengthwise). I would just bet that whomever did the polishing was trying to blend in the topside area where ramp was removed with the balance of the top of barrel and not disturb the rollstamp as much as possible. That would explain why just the top edge of roll stamp is light. I would also examine the top of the barrel closely for filled holes. They could have been trying to blend in a filled scope base hole or two in the light stamped area.

Steve

Old-Win said
Thanks guys, I was suspect of both as well but your confirmation has helped.  Steve, you mentioned that, the late B models had no wood cut-out.  So by then, were they using Lyman 48 sights with the backside relief cut that cleared the stock?  This would be what I am looking for.  Might you have a serial number range that these rifles would fall in. 

  

57F used on early Bs; maybe that changed toward end of production.  Curious thing is that even after production of Cs began, Bs were still being assembled, so maybe that’s when the stock change was made.  But if you’re looking for one already drilled for scope mounting, combining that with the late B stock compounds the problem.  That’s why I said trying to negotiate a better deal with Leroy might be worth while–he KNOWS he’s lying about that gun being a special order with factory scope mount.

seewin said
I look at the rifles for sale, and it is minefield of fakes, modifications etc.
  

That’s why it’s wise to buy from a well-known, long-established, dealer & Winchester expert, with many thousands of high-end sales under his belt–such a one would never lead an inexperienced collector astray.  Right?

That is an interesting rifle. I had some discussions earlier with another collector about this rifle. The stock is an earlier pre-B model with the cut out for the LH side safety. I have seen several of these on B model Sporters and feel Winchester was using up existing inventory of the earlier stocks. This not only required the additional cut out for the later type B safely on the RH side, but also an additional hole for the rear tang screw which the prior models did not have. The other odd thing about this rifle is the finish on the receiver which is standard Du Lite blue. The s/n range of this rifle puts it in the time frame where Winchester was using the sandblast finish on the receivers, although an argument could be made that the receiver was manufactured prior to the war and never blued until after when Winchester changed the finish on them. The proofmark on the receiver is very light and based on the poor pictures, I cannot determine if it was polished away or just a light hit. I would like to see what front sight is on the rifle to determine if it is correct, as well as the barrel date. The 48F full block rear sight is late for this s/n range, but it would have been required due to the stock most likely already having the cut out for it. Nothing else jumps out that is incorrect, but again, the pictures are so poor, it is tough to make an accurate assessment. This is one of those rifles that I would need to see in person. 

Steve

Certainly nothing surprising in the factory making use of an obsolescent part, if it could be adapted to a newer model!

Ingo said  With the fraudulent sellers makes it frustrating and to proceed with such caution when you can’t inspect in person or take apart to view hidden markings. 

Yes, the fraudsters never keep working to put one over on the unsuspecting, but everything about this gun, the overall cond, patina, & wear, looks absolutely “right.”  I suspect the final price will confirm that many share this view.