Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
1946 Supergrade model 70 questions
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
August 28, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
August 28, 2019 - 7:06 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi all – long time reader, first time poster. I just joined WACA today. I’m a newer collector to Winchesters and have a desire for a pre 64 super grade model 70, but I understand many have problems and some are frankenguns. I want a good honest one, like I suppose most of us do. 

I read up about the tear drop markings on an original floor plate vs standard dashes on the late plates. I’m wondering if this plate is ok? This is a 1946 gun I am considering. It has pre war action, 270, 59XXX and an untapped rear bridge which is special. However, it is cut for a winchester pad, which isn’t standard for a 270 and therefor unlikely to be original. Thank you for helping a new gun in advance! 

I have two questions: 

1) Is this gun worth $2500? The seller is firm there. I was advised by another collector that is considered a type 1, despite its post war shipping date and tear drop safety? I know a transitional super grade would have to be scarce compared to a post war 1949 to 1963 example. 

 

2) Is this floor plate original? 

superImage Enlarger

-~Jim~-

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
August 29, 2019 - 4:25 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

JR-

Thanks for joining WACA!!!  Hopefully you’ll find it rewarding. Laugh

The photo you attached is of borderline quality to answer your question, but I’ll go out on a limb and say YES, that looks like a M70 SG floor plate.  There is A LOT of minor variation in these stamps, but in general the pre-war stamps look something like the photo below:

Early-SG-floor-plate.jpgImage Enlarger

The slightly oversized and misaligned “P” and “A” are typical as is the “S” that sometimes looks “upside down” (not backwards), but the main thing on pre-war (and early post-war) SG floor plates is the font of the “G” (being a Helvetica serif font with the little “tail” on the vertical downstroke).  Sometime in the 1940’s (around later type II and type III rifles) the “G” was changed to a sans serif font and the stamp looks something like this:

Later-SG-floor-plate.JPGImage Enlarger

The above are pictures I’ve saved off the internet and I was trying to select worn out examples that are likely to be real.  There are indeed many fakes out there, but many are crude like the one below.  This one was probably laser engraved as the ends of all strokes are completely round and the letters too uniform and wide:

Fake-SG-floor-plate.jpgImage Enlarger

The “teardrops” on real SG floor plates can both point “out” (far and away most common), both point “in” (not rare), and even both point in the same direction, i.e. one “in” one “out” (probably a factory error).  There are also numerous minor variations in the letters that show up in “real” SG floor plates, but that’s too much to try and cover here.  Besides, I’m sure I’d just get into trouble given the level of debate this topic can spark!!! Cry As for the “teardrops” versus “dashes” issue… I’m SURE to get into trouble here!!! Wink Both Rule and Whitaker state that all pre-64 SG floor plates have teardrops and that post-63 SG floor plates have dashes.  The post-63 floor plates were castings, very different from the pre-64 milled part, but do indeed have dashes (this is SN 769974):

Post-63-SG-floor-plate-SN-769974.jpgImage Enlarger

Yet I have seen several LATE PRODUCTION pre-64 SG rifles with dashed floor plates, mostly Africans or SG FWTs with receivers dating from 1957 or later.  By this time the factory was not making many M70s in SG configuration (all SGs except the African were last cataloged in 1959, and they only made 900-some SG FWTs and 1200-some Africans).  There was never a complete transition from teardrops to dashes, but I SUSPECT that these dashed floor plates on late production SGs are “real”.  It’s just that the change was made after the majority of SG rifles had been manufactured.  Others will disagree, of course…  WinkIMHO a dashed floor plate on a M70 SG dated earlier than 1956 has certainly had parts swapped, but I’m not so quick to condemn one with a SN above, say, 400,000…

As for value of the subject rifle…  I’d say an intact unaltered pre-war (type I receiver) .270 WCF Super Grade could be as much as a $4500 gun.  I think I paid something over $4000 for mine, but then again I am something of a fool…  Unfortunately, the non-factory recoil pad kills the collector value.  The only thing that would “fix” the problem would be a replacement cloverleaf tang SG stock in comparable condition, and that alone would cost a fortune if you could find it…  Plus you’d know the stock was replaced…  IMHO the subject gun is worth no more that 50% of the above figure, and then only if you are looking for a classy “shooter” SG M70.  If you want a collector piece to just look at, be patient…

Best,

Lou 

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6281
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
August 29, 2019 - 5:25 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Louis Luttrell said 
  There are indeed many fakes out there, but many are crude like the one below.  This one was probably laser engraved as the ends of all strokes are completely round and the letters too uniform and wide:
   

Your explanation of these differences is the clearest I’ve seen, but I think you should reserve “crude” for the original, first variant marking!  The “S” IS upside down & the “A” belongs to a different set of dies!  That the company should have allowed such sloppy work on their top-of-the-line rifle makes me wonder where the quality-control inspector was while it was being done.

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
August 29, 2019 - 5:53 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Hi Clarence-

Well… I’ll at least go with “distinctive”…  “Crude” is so judgmental!!! Wink For the OP, here are a couple more of the first style:

57766.jpgImage Enlarger75969.jpgImage Enlarger

Note the weird little “feet” on the “A” on SN 57766, like the “A” suffix that was added to M54 serial numbers.  I’ve seen two otherwise believable M70 SGs, both early post-war, with that funky marking.  Real???

And a couple more of the second style:

226329.jpgImage EnlargerLater-SG-floor-plate-2.jpgImage Enlarger

This one is from a 1961 African with dashes: 

538197-Afircan.jpgImage Enlarger

Note that the whole font is different, the serif “G” is back and the letters more uniform.  The “dashed” ones I’ve seen on some late pre-64 SGs are in this third style.  I can’t say whether these are truly of pre-64 Winchester manufacture or made up by some non-factory source using genuine pre-64 floor plates.  I can’t imagine the factory made these milled parts up in the post-63 period after they’d changed the floor plate to a casting, but they’re not “rare” on late SG rifles in both steel (SG rifles and Africans) and aluminum (SG FWTs).  Anyone have a definitive answer?

Lou

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6281
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
August 29, 2019 - 6:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

That’s SOME collection of photos you’ve assembled!  Although this multiplicity of variations makes my head spin!  Rather glad I’m well out of the “game.”  First SG I ever bought had that “distinctive” marking, which seriously disturbed me, even though I knew nothing then about fakes–except that this one looked fakey to me!. (That was so long ago, I doubt there was a great deal of real faking going on, anyway.)  I brought a friend who knew much more about 70s than myself over to the table to look at it, & he told me, “fakey” looking or not, that’s just how Winchester did it at the time. 

What amazes me is the failure of the company to take the trouble to have a proper roll-die cut (even with engravers on the payroll!), because these misaligned, non-matching, letters can only have been stamped with individual letter dies.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 347
Member Since:
February 18, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
August 29, 2019 - 8:01 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Thanks Louis as ever for the absolute expertise! I’d also like a couple of opinions concerning factory recoil pads.
First, my assumption that any of the Model 70 rifles could have been special ordered with recoil pads. Such least in the era when Winchester was more amenable in catering to special orders. Would that be correct and if so, a true Winchester pad, might well be correct on any Model 70. Second, many of those nice pads have since hardened and deteriorated badly. I wonder if such as a rifle pushing fifty plus years for instance, is worth more for “originality” than a decent, supple Winchester replacement pad of later era quite possibly a factory ‘redo’??? I do have some rifles which are pure safe queens, but the idea of a hardened, useless and moreover delicate pad doesn’t seem to fit well despite originality.
In saying all this, also my assumption that one should pay particular attention to length of pull for “normal” adjusted length w/pad. (Also the irony that any special order pad which might have included shorter than normal pull, such owner now, with the strong presumtion of “non-originality.)
Requesting your expert opinion please.
Thanks, John

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
August 29, 2019 - 10:23 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi John-

I’ve saved well over a hundred photos of M70 SG floor plates in an effort to educate myself about what is real and what is fake.  RIA has been a good source (for both) since they usually include a reasonable quality photo of SG floor plates in their digital catalogs.

As for the recoil pad issue…  For me, the place to start is, according to Rule’s book, some 13,283 M70s were processed as “specials”.  This makes guns with non-standard features almost as common as cataloged Super Grades (14,644 according to Rule).  Such “special handling” guns range from simple non-standard sights or recoil pads to full blown factory customs.  As for which recoil pads, the 1939 Winchester Component Parts catalog, under “Accessories” listed pads by Winchester, Noshoc, Hawkins, Jostam and even the “Pachmayr or Fray-Mershon Recoil Pad, red, brown or black medium or large (White line)” as options that could be ordered on Winchester rifle or shotguns.  Shortly thereafter, the Winchester pad with leather face or fully leather covered was specifically added.

So I’ve no doubt that a goodly number of M70s were ordered with recoil pads, and just about any contemporary pad could be ordered.  The PROBLEM comes when trying draw conclusions about the origin of a pad on any particular example.  As you know, there are no (known) surviving records of Product Services Department order sheets that would link a serial number to a non-standard feature.Cry The only thing one can do is take each rifle on a case-by-case basis.  If a rifle has a contemporary pad (particularly one of the solid red Winchester-marked pads) and the installation looks “factory” (compare to a contemporary 375 MAGNUM) then it MIGHT have been ordered that way. 

OTOH… The VAST majority of recoil pads were after market installed, so by sheer law of averages MOST recoil pads will not be factory, and MOST collectors will shy away from such guns.  If, by some chance, a particular M70 with a recoil pad has several other special order features, I’d tend to assume the pad was ordered with the gun.  But such rifles are few and far between…  

Replacing a worn out factory pad (even on a 375 MAGNUM) makes good sense on a “shooter” but will also scare-off most collectors (375 MAGNUMs in good shape are not exactly rare, so collectors will generally just wait for a “good one”).  NOTE that the Galzan replica solid pads have that tell-tale “typo”, the <sp> inserted in the date line…  

These same arguments apply to “factory” D&T for side mounts and top mounts for scopes.  The original 1937 M70 brochure shows a M70 with a side-mounted Noske scope, as they were touting the fact that the new shape of the bolt handle (compared to the M54) was compatible with low mounted scopes.  So Winchester was not hiding the fact that the rifle could be scoped and would no doubt be willing to accommodate customers.  Question, as always, is whether the work is factory or after market, and the majority will be after market…  

Hope this helps,

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 347
Member Since:
February 18, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
August 30, 2019 - 7:05 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi Louis, and again thanks for your willing sharing of expertise for benefit of all of us here. (Let me momentary expand that to all the other experts of this forum.) As I understand you, rather like my approach to valuing other guns too; the “what are the chances” approach. I believe that’s reasonable and fitting. Ironically some apparent value wins, undue and some losses sadly misjudged. But all in the grand scheme of “best educated guess”. Nothing wrong there.
That said, the recoil pad a uniquely, entirely disproportionately, a “depreciating asset”. Time and service taking its toll. I’m yet caught up and in the opinion of a poor condition recoil pad ‘exuding originality’ of questionable value-plus. Conversely, an arguably professional level factory replacement, a net, net, value addition. The ‘otherwise’ handsome Super Grade with shoddy ostensibly original pad, or an arguable quality factory replacement… Not suggesting for others, but I’ll take the latter. Here ‘factory replacement’, of course also very much dealing with odds.
The Paris runway model, rising from destitute origins, never achieving ‘sheik’, in shoddy native boots attesting/urging such origins! ?
With particular thanks again for the ‘expert’s expert’ opinion and not to diminish. Simply a different, if amateur, perspective.
Just my take

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
August 30, 2019 - 10:24 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi John-

Fair enough… I’d agree that a rifle intended for use should be functional, and a decaying recoil pad undermines its utility.  Factory original or not, IMHO it would be OK to replace a destroyed pad on a hunting gun. Personally, I’d find a second (field) stock, but to each his own…

Like you said, it’s a case-by-case thing…  So let me get your take on the following HYPOTHETICAL…

Some of the earliest M70 375 MAGNUM rifles, including the infamously rare (and often faked) “pencil barrel” guns, were fitted with NoShoc recoil pads that were so-marked.  I’ve seen a couple such examples (don’t ask where – I sure don’t own one)…  The Winchester-marked solid red recoil pads were made under contract by the Seamless Rubber Company of New Haven, based on the June 6, 1922 patent awarded to Seamless.  Except for the imprinted name on the back, they are identical to the NoShoc pad made by Seamless.  

Now suppose that the recoil pad on one such rifle looked like the one below (worn, cracked, probably hard as the stock it’s attached to):

NoShoc-3.jpegImage Enlarger

Would you keep it as-is or replace it with a modern Galzan repro?

Repro-NoShoc-pad.jpgImage Enlarger

FWIW… I’d keep the grubby original every time, but that’s just my take.  Besides, shooting a “pencil barrel” 375 MAGNUM might shatter the unreinforced stock.

Lou

P.S.  The illustrative photo in my hypothetical example is not (to my knowledge) attached to a “pencil barrel” M70 375 MAGNUM.  The real ones I’ve seen have (somewhat) better condition pads on them… Smile

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 347
Member Since:
February 18, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
August 31, 2019 - 5:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Well, Louis :)… A simple question you asked of me. Turning to something of a Descartes quality question of whether we exist beyond the Eye of God! Caution! Hard Hat area…

There are some guns which are simply absolute safe queens. Rarity and value particularly coming to mind. That situation, I’d definitely vote with you. Certainly keep such original. Yet beyond, the hoards of very nice collector guns where it does become considerably more a matter of personal judgement, tastes and utilization. The condition of the original component likely more pivotal against a ‘balanced’ rifle presentation.
Frankly in your pad exemplar, it really appears pretty good to me. The ‘mere’ fact of hardening one matter. Predominant ‘fault lines stretching out’ to adopt a California-common analogy, with flaking and disintegrating rubber both visually and functionally a mess; that I do distinguish and feel it compromises the very dignity of an otherwise good, original gun. Something of a visual ‘say what’ moment! I’d likely remove the original, replace with best available ‘period’ repro, put the carcass in a plastic baggie and retain for demonstrable non-originality decision. I would not alter the stock itself in any manner and if required, perhaps yet to vote for pad retention.
Returning to related matter, the length of pull to me a critical element in ‘originality’ estimation. While Winchester in fitting a recoil pad, presumptively to accede to stock length adjustment requests. Yet my view of any shorter length as presumptively non-original. Adding to… Such rifle often succumbing to an unbalanced look. Adding the strictly personal prejudice of relatively tall & long arms, personally disdaining short butts! (?)
Now, all said, another hypothetical question occurring. You’re with two nice about-equal prewar Model 70 SG rifles. Chambering on one making it considerably more valuable. That one with the bad recoil pad (or non-original/damaged stock; whatever detriment). Would you consider switching, assuming the inletting dimensions essentially the same. My view that any ‘purist’ to say, resounding “No”. But if indeed ‘fungible’; the same sort of issue as “if a tree falls in a forest and no one to hear it, is there “sound”. Otherwise put, no harm-no foul. Conversely, a sense of collector ethics prohibiting, or compromised with sale event “disclosure”. The real-life issue embracing the terms “fakery” or bowing to the fact of almost surely ‘common practice’ in the collector world. Now also ask about even such as barrel replacement. For instance a carbine barrel relocated from a ‘swiss-cheesed’ receiver reflecting sight hole disasters. (I’m also wondering concerning the likelihood of the Win Factory itself engaging in such pre-delivery swapping for enhanced delivery time such as one with needed pad.)
Finally! Shall we call this all, “Winchester Collector Ethics 101”. Presumptively an advanced course and next question, to be ‘WRCA’ collector prerequisite as ‘Mandatory’ or simply ‘Elective’. ? ? ?
I’d hope for both Louis’ expert view as well as other Forum members. Also both moving beyond the Model 70 to all Win models of collector interest. Replies distinguishing clearly between ‘personal’ views and ‘views suggesting a wider ‘conscientious collector norm’.
Whew and…
Best,
John

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
August 31, 2019 - 10:07 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi John-

I LOVE the word “FUNGIBLE”!!!  I think you taught me that one…  And therein lies “the rub” with M70s…

My approach to any “collectable” M70 these days is to ASSUME that it’s been tinkered with BEFORE I ever laid eyes on it.  My job is to decide whether I can tell what was done…  Often period incorrect parts are a give-away, as can be bad-fitting stocks, partial or total refinishing, etc…  At the end of the day, if I CAN’T TELL, then MAYBE it’s original??? Confused I’ve stated here in the past that there are only two M70s in my moderate sized collection that I will swear are ORIGINAL.  One of those is a rifle my Dad bought new the year I was born (1957) and the other is a full factory custom with complete provenance.  Everything else, I’ll only claim is “CORRECT”…  

All this has bearing on your “Winchester Collector Ethics 101” question.  The “purist” who insists they will only own “100% factory original” specimens is either deluding themselves (dismissing the fact that “restoration” in the form of swapped parts may have occurred many times over in the rifle’s past) or they only collect guns with impeccable provenance (in which case they probably don’t have many guns in their collection).  I think that where ethics really comes into play is when someone represents a gun as “original” for the purpose of making money when they know the gun has been altered.  Of course, the ethical collector may sell a gun with a swapped stock and offer full disclosure, but the next guy selling it may not be so forthcoming, etc.  So the whole thing gets messy and at the end of the day circles by to my “Caveat Emptor” approach above.

Understand that I am NOT a dealer…  This is purely a hobby to me and I figure I can do whatever I want with my toys as long as I don’t hurt anyone else.  My own version of “ethics” starts with the position that I would not misrepresent a gun with, say, a replaced stock, as “original”.  But I enjoy the challenge of putting these things back together.  Since I’m such an OCD Geek when it comes to details, that’s a big part of the fun for me…  Sights are often incorrect and I don’t give a second thought to putting the “factory correct” parts back on a gun.  Stocks are a bigger deal, but if it’s an uncommon variation that I’m interested in I may replace an altered stock.  Understand that things that interest me, like type II-2 rifles, are not necessarily guns that would command any sort of premium price in the market…  Some may have an issue with my approach, since someday the gun will no longer be locked away in my gun room and the “fraud” will be loosed upon an unsuspecting public.  All I can say, again, is Caveat Emptor…  Know what you’re buying and be able to decide for yourself whether it’s “correct” or not!!!  And IMHO NEVER use the word “original” when referring to any M70…

If you go back and look at my old posts, I’ve talked about a couple of my little “restoration projects” (including photos and serial numbers).  Mainly two different pre-war 257 ROBERTS target rifles.  One is “rare” 1st variation (ramped) Target Rifle that when I got it from RIA was such a jumble of parts that (excluding a few minor bits) only the barrel, receiver, and stock (probably) belonged to the original gun.  The other is a 2nd variation Target Rifle that suffered from a grotesquely owner “improved” stock.  Such a HORROR to see what was once a nice gun treated that way…  It’s better now…  But it SURE AS HELL isn’t “original”…

Where I personally draw the line is at changing the Catalog Symbol No. of a gun.  For example taking a standard rifle in an uncommon chambering and turning it into a Super Grade (which as you know only takes three parts)… So…  Would I replace the stock on a 300 SAVAGE Standard Rifle that had a non-factory recoil pad with a correct uncut one???  Mostly I think I’d avoid the purchase in the first place.  Would I turn a pre-war .250-3000 SAV. Standard Rifle into a Super Grade???  I think I’d avoid the purchase in the first place.  Would I take a genuine carbine barrel from a messed up D&T receiver and install it on a clean receiver???  I think I’d avoid the purchase in the first place…  Are there people who do that and then market the rifle as “100% factory original”??? HELL YES!!!  Ethics are good…  Realism, i.e. understanding that others do not subscribe to one’s own personal code of ethics, is also good…  But in the “collectable” M70 market, it’s all about Caveat Emptor… And “FUNGIBLE”!!! Frown

How’s that for a ramble… Surprised FWIW… I’d encourage any WACA Member who’s suffered this diatribe consider reading Vic Van Ballenberghe’s excellent article “How to buy a fake Model 70 Winchester” in the Winter 2001 edition of the magazine…  Vic would probably thrash me…Wink

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6281
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
September 1, 2019 - 12:19 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Louis Luttrell said 
For example taking a standard rifle in an uncommon chambering and turning it into a Super Grade (which as you know only takes three parts)…   

Where are those who might do so finding original SG stocks, esp. pre-war types?  I’m aware that they (but not the floorplate) could be purchased separately, but aren’t they by this late date both very scarce & expensive?

For many years, I longed for a substantially original (lock, stock, & brl., at least) WWII Garand.  Eventually I gave up, after accepting that if such a gun could be found, I’d never be able to afford it.

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
September 1, 2019 - 2:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi Clarence-

Back when Olin sold out to USRA (a LONG time ago), I hear tell that many M70 SG rifles were “born” from the substantial inventory of parts that were sold off.  The days when factory original “virgin” parts could be found for sale at gun shows, I suspect, are largely behind us.

Nowadays it’s more about part swapping and trips to the “beauty parlor”…  For example, I have a “spare” 1949 type III-1 SG in a common caliber AND a “spare” 1948 type III-1 Standard Rifle in 300 SAVAGE.  So chances are (with little or no fitting) I could “build” a pretty convincing 300 SAVAGE SG this afternoon if I were so inclined.  Such is the “fungible factor”…  

I have no interest or intention of doing such a thing, but the opportunity to create a fake is there…Confused

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6281
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
September 1, 2019 - 4:08 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Louis Luttrell said
Hi Clarence-

Back when Olin sold out to USRA (a LONG time ago), I hear tell that many M70 SG rifles were “born” from the substantial inventory of parts that were sold off.
Lou  

Well, if that inventory included factory-made SG floorplates as well as stocks, one might say that the chief difference between SGs put together before vs. after that sale was the hands that assembled them; the rather predictable consequence of barreled-actions unmarked in any special way for SGs.  Am I right to assume also there’s no readily discernible difference between late & early (esp. pre-war) production SG stocks?

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
September 1, 2019 - 5:10 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

In reference to replacing original factory installed recoil pads:  I would replace a useless original factory installed recoil pad provided the gun was still in use, be it on a collectible piece or not, but  I’d keep the removed pad from a collectible gun and pass it on to the next owner.

James

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 347
Member Since:
February 18, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
September 1, 2019 - 6:21 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi Clarence! Thanks for your input.
A momentary aside that sometimes in answering questions/addressing issues, I happily suffer from the “me first” syndrome (Conjure a small kid sitting in class, waiving his hand wildly as teacher calls for responses.) While I fully understand that such experts as Louis, Bert and others in this Forum are far and beyond my level of kowledge, much less expertise… Still I want to ‘impress’ with, if not being ‘best’, at least being first to answer. So here.
There are two fundamental Model 70 Winchester action configurations (that in addition to many barrel configs). The original style now descriptively referred as “cloverleaf” tang and the “later”, essentially other tang. The change was early postwar though it seems something of a floating date rather than ‘hold the production lines’ pending new augmentation. The stocks will not interchange. Thus the necessary distinction where particular sub-models were of such vintage as to be encountered in both early and later styles. Some of course not subject, such as Featherweight, since its intro after the new version firmly in place. Conversely the universal of all prewar 70 rifles by definition, the early, cloverleaf style. Nowadays, the two styles often referred to over-simply as prewar and later.
As to market rarity of the Supergrade stocks, you likely know more than I do. But it seems quite likely. My particular reference paralleling Louis in owning two prewar stock style Supergrades, which ‘should’ be drop-in swaps. One with old, if authentic appearing recoil pad. One in 30-06 and the other in 257 Roberts with Stith mount. Both barrels presumably appropriately marked with the “S” symbol for Supergrade. An ethical question though minor in context of Louis’ example involving rarest of rare 300 Savage chambering, ‘upgrade’ to Super by stock swap. Where I personally think “restoring” a standard grade 30-06 with stock swap is OK, conjuring a ‘no harm – no foul’ context. I haven’t done it… ‘yet’. Because procrastination can be a wonderful thing, or so my excuse for any manner of things ‘undone’. 🙂
I’m also with Louis concerning what I’ll still refer to as “fungible” parts/components. In 99% of the instances of quality rifle ownership concerning makes/models over half century old, for instance; who really to know what elements are truly original. For me, also a ‘who cares’ if functionally & aesthetically indistinguishable factory original parts. If Winchester could have swapped it out, without notation, why not me… Or the seller from whom I purchased it or any prior owner/gunsmith, etc. I’m not going to pass up a good gun at a good price or sit around wringing my hands later. Nor as a seller (almost never so far), to feel incumbent on me to issue “disclosure” where my own purchase ethics without such expectation.
Interesting for me to read posts on the ‘Lever’ element of our Forum. There Bert and others, forensically dissect, much like “error codes”, the apparently pristine & original Winchesters that someone brings to the Forum. The same such that have me in awe of ‘pristine’… only to learn! Such, one reason I don’t by ultra valuable Winchesters. The other (Main) reason able to avoid such embarrassment… No worries! Can’t afford them anyway! 🙂
For me, here, an interesting Thread and to hold Louis’ kind attention, really appreciated. In ethics, by nature, seldom hard answers and often not even majority opinions in the more ‘testy/esoteric’ issues. Ethics influenced by concerned communities, but really ending with us each individually.

Thanks again to all!

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6281
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
September 1, 2019 - 6:40 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

iskra said 

There are two fundamental Model 70 Winchester action configurations (that in addition to many barrel configs). The original style now descriptively referred as “cloverleaf” tang and the “later”, essentially other tang.   

Thanks for reminding me–stupid to forget that obvious difference, because the only 70s I’ve ever owned were pre-war.  Another, more historical, name for that shape might be “Springfield tang,” because it was inherited (indirectly, through the M54) from the ’03 Springfield. 

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
September 1, 2019 - 8:31 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi Clarence-

I’m glad we’re back discussing “facts” rather than “ethics”… Laugh

You put your finger on the problem with M70 SGs…  Prior to about 1955, there were no differences in the metal finishes applied to Standard Grade and Super Grade M70s:  

Pre-war (type I) receivers (1936-1945) had the cloverleaf tang, undrilled roll marked bridge, and rust blued barrel, regardless of style.  Post-war “transition” (type 2) receivers (1946-1948) had the cloverleaf tang, factory D&T smooth bridge, and Du-Lite blued barrel, regardless of style.  The later (type III) receivers (1948-1954) had the oval tang, D&T bridge, and Du-Lite blued barrel, regardless of style.  Since there were no practical differences, these barreled actions are almost never stamped “SUPER”, and there is really no way to reliably identify if they came from a Standard or SG rifle. 

It wasn’t until 1955-1959 SG production that the bolt body, extractor, and follower were jeweled and the barrels went back to being rust blued.  Unlike the earlier guns, these actions are almost always stamped “SUPER” under the barrel, so from 1955-on it takes outright fakery to turn a Standard Rifle into a SG.  Prior to that, whether pre-war or post-war, it only takes a period correct stock, floor plate, and front sight.  Still fakery, but simple exchange of parts without needing to apply a “faux finish”… Cry

The stocks also evolved, but the timing of changes did not exactly parallel the action changes.  I’ll try to illustrate this b/c it’s easier than trying to explain without pictures:

The earliest SG stocks (found mostly on 1936-1939 S/N rifles) had the low comb oval cheekpiece, and a front sling swivel base that was located very close to the Bakelite forend tip.  Rule’s book claims that these stocks also have an extra “fishtail” to the pistol grip checkering, as pictured in the M70 introductory brochure, but I’ve yet to see one.  Below is S/N 1748.  Note the position of the front swivel:

M70-250-Savage-SG-1.jpegImage Enlarger

The first change started appearing (as best I can tell) sometime in 1938.  The front swivel base was moved back about half an inch to prevent wood splitting between the front of the base and the fore end tip. Below is S/N 50821:

SN-50821-270-WCF.jpgImage Enlarger

This stock style stock continued, virtually unchanged, through type 1, 2 and early type III production.  It wasn’t until 1952 that a significant change occurred.  Something to mention though is checkering density, i.e. 20 l.p.i. versus 18 l.p.i.  On standard stocks, the distinction is easy and 18 l.p.i. was phased in (rather gradually) starting in late 1941.  To my eyes, the distinction is less obvious on the SG stocks with their more complex wrap-around checkering, and the book authors differ on this point.  Rule asserts that pre-1941 SG stocks were checkered 20 l.p.i. and the checkering changed to 18 l.p.i. in parallel with the standard stocks.  Whitaker asserts that from the outset SG stocks were checkered in 18 l.p.i. or 20 l.p.i. depending on the checkerer and the characteristics of the wood.  I don’t have the answer, except that I’d swear one of mine (S/N 3748) that has the early swivel placement measures out at 18 l.p.i. on a checkering gauge. Confused

The biggest change occurred with the introduction of the MC stock style in late 1951. The cheekpiece was changed for both the Monte Carlo and low comb styles.  Obviously, this affects only type III oval tang rifles:

240509-257-ROBERTS.jpgImage Enlarger

273197-1.jpgImage Enlarger

Note the two illustrations above are from 1952-53 rifles, so the metal finishes are still the same as the Standard Grade.  The jeweling, rust blue, and “SUPER” stamp under the barrel were still three years off.  It’s also worth noting that there were apparently a bunch of those oval cheekpiece stocks in inventory in 1952, so they continue to turn up well into maybe 1954.  In other words, a M70 SG with a S/N earlier than 1951 and a later style cheekpiece is probably “made up”, while one from 1954 with the oval cheekpiece could well be “legit”. 

It gets confusing, I know.  It would take a book chapter to cover/illustrate all the nuances that help the M70 collector figure out whether a given gun is/is not “correct”.  Note I did NOT say “original”… Confused FWIW… I don’t recommend that a M70 newbie go shopping for Super Grades without doing their homework.  There is a lot of good/accurate information in Rule’s book so that’s a place to start.

Just my take…

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6281
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
September 2, 2019 - 12:18 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Much obliged for this very helpful tutorial, Louis.  Actually, there’s a good bit more the would-be stock swapper needs to know than I had suspected.  Glad that these days, I’m merely observing from the side-lines, not participating in the hunt.

And since auctions have largely replaced gun shows & individual dealers as the main gun-buying venue (sadly, in my opinion), it must be frustrating for knowledgeable & discriminating bidders (such as yourself) to know there’re bidding against those who don’t recognize the problems that a “tinkered-with” gun might have.

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
September 2, 2019 - 12:42 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi Clarence-

I agree 100% that nothing can replace “hands-on” no matter how much you (I) think you (I) know…  

FWIW… EVERY auction house I’ve dealt with will answer your questions and provide any additional photos on request. This includes Amoskeag, CWOCO, Julia/Morphy, RIA, and Ward’s, at minimum.  Don’t be shy…  So as long as you know what to ask, they ALL seem more than happy to oblige…

Sadly, I seem to have an unfortunate talent for picking out the (very) few M70s in any given auction that will bring the big money…  I’ve gotten a few decent prices over the past few years on guns that were mis-described, but usually I just get CRUSHED when the bidding starts… Frown 

So I’m sure not all that clever!!! Laugh

Best,

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: wally
Guest(s) 132
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6281
TXGunNut: 4970
Chuck: 4571
1873man: 4282
steve004: 4160
Big Larry: 2324
twobit: 2291
TR: 1710
mrcvs: 1706
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12650
Posts: 109996

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1745
Members: 8791
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation