Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
This scope had already gone out of production (rights sold to Lyman) BEFORE the M.67 was introduced! This seller is one of the most, if not THE most, flagrant & shameless BS artists on GB. Naturally, due to the ignorance of the know-nothings bidding on GB (& ebay) his carnival-barker line of BS has made the SOB a “Top Seller.”
Online
You guys are correct about the scope and bases but that is not even a 677, the 677 did not have iron sights, it was the ‘scope-only version of the 67.
Here is one of my 677’s for comparison –
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
You guys are correct about the scope and bases but that is not even a 677, the 677 did not have iron sights, it was the ‘scope-only version of the 67.
Something I don’t know, never having seen one, but is the 677 marked on the brl as such, or only 67?
rogertherelic said
The bases and rings are also incorrect. Nice condition though. RDB
Roger, Though bases are “who knows what,” what do you see incorrect about the rings?
clarence said
JWA said
You guys are correct about the scope and bases but that is not even a 677, the 677 did not have iron sights, it was the ‘scope-only version of the 67.Something I don’t know, never having seen one, but is the 677 marked on the brl as such, or only 67?
Hi Clarence,
The barrels were still marked identically with the Model 67. The same thing occurred with the Model 697, the barrels were marked the same as the Model 69.
I guess Winchester did not want to make a specific roll die for such a limited production rifle.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
You guys are correct about the scope and bases but that is not even a 677, the 677 did not have iron sights, it was the ‘scope-only version of the 67.Here is one of my 677’s for comparison –
Best Regards,
That sure is a good looking combo, Jeff. Thanks for the pics!
james
Thanks for the reply’s. I knew the bases weren’t right for a duel sight rifle and that the crown was wrong. I wonder how many of the new in box are made up after looking at this one.
Thanks
Jay
cranky2 said
I wonder how many of the new in box are made up after looking at this one.
And the fool that buys it will never question it’s “super-rarity,” even though all the info needed to expose this fraud is readily available. But you can’t doubt the word of a GB “Top 100 Seller,” can you?
rogertherelic said
Clarence, I believe these mounts are the correct ones. Roger
Misunderstood you, Roger. Thought you meant incorrect for the A5 scope on this phony 677. Ironically, the A5 is worth far more than the “correct” scope & mounts, but this will be lost on whoever buys it
clarence said
This scope had already gone out of production (rights sold to Lyman) BEFORE the M.67 was introduced! This seller is one of the most, if not THE most, flagrant & shameless BS artists on GB. Naturally, due to the ignorance of the know-nothings bidding on GB (& ebay) his carnival-barker line of BS has made the SOB a “Top Seller.”
Don’t mean to change the subject, but wondering what the thoughts are regarding this 1894 from the same seller.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/872070875
Don
At first glance I think it is a nice gun. It is not worth more that it’s latest bid to me, maybe not quite this much even? I thought the gun looked too black and I know they got blacker in this range but there is enough patina and the roll die markings look good. I wish I could see it in person and that is was an antique.
I have a Winchester.22 WRF single shot rifle,the barrel is marked model 67,it has offset proof marks on the bolt and the barrel,it has what I think are #6 bases mounted on the barrel,6 or 9,depending how you look at it, that appear to be “low”. The front of the barrel has a dovetail,or mortise,but the rear has no such mortise, but rather a hole,threaded,in the white. I have a picture of a “regular “ model 67 side by side,for comparison,in which it certainly looks like the threaded hole is in the same spot on the barrel where the “normal “ rear sight would be. Could this rifle be a model 677? I am going to think about having the barrel recrowned and a new dovetail cut in at the same time,any help identifying the rifle would be greatly appreciated
If this is the rifle that was listed on gun broker. The bases should be numbered 5. The hole where the rear sight should be I would guess someone added along with the front sight dove tail. This is to bad because I think it might have been a true 677 at one time. The only way to add a modern scope is to have more holes drilled or glue them on. You can find shells for it sometimes. You know this is not a modern 22 mag right?
JewishJedi said Could this rifle be a model 677?
Only if it had two pairs of holes in the brl for attaching scope mount bases. Considering the cost of WRF when you can find it, & its relative inaccuracy compared to L.R., I’d be reluctant to spend very much on it. I’ve had two WRFs, one a Stevens target rifle in beautiful cond, but neither performed well enough to keep.
You can re-crown the brl yourself using a round-headed brass screw, about 3/8″ dia., chucked in an variable speed drill. Smear valve grinding paste on the screw head & hold it vertically against the muzzle at low speed. (A hand-operated drill allows better control.)
Yes,it was/is the rifle that was on Gunbroker, I have fired the rifle and am aware that it is not a modern.22 mag round. Thanks for the reply, I understand that it has lost true collectors value,I have an interest in returning it to shooting condition,remove scope blocks and just use open sights maybe,read many posts on here,really enjoy your site,Thanks again,Steve
Steve
I agree with cranky that this was likely a 677 that someone buggered up. If that’s true, it’s a pretty rare rifle. Not many 677s were made, and very few of those were chambered in 22 WRF. I collect 67s, and I don’t think I’ve ever even seen a 677 in WRF.
Are you the seller on gunbroker? Are you in Wisconsin? I’d love to see the gun if possible.
Rob
1 Guest(s)
