I bought this model 53 in 218 Bee back in the early 1980’s.  So they do exist.  Even has a Nickle Steel barrel.  Counterfeit Winchesters have been around for some time!  I have more than one counterfeit, but not on purpose!  I lean towards ‘unusual’ guns and now I have some that are not real, but some are the real thing.  You win sometimes and you loose sometimes.  Buy what you like, you may get stuck with it!   RDB

Hi Bert,

Serial #933650 much to early for the 218 Bee cartridge.  The barrel isn’t dated and if I remember right only has an indexing mark.  I think you saw this when I had my “Undocumented Winchester” display at the Reno show (Nov. 2016).  It shows well with my 218 Bee 92 and Model 64 219 Zipper carbine.(You’ve ok’d them).  I bought the 53 when I first started collecting.  Way before we met.  I had no idea people would make up phony guns back then.  I have always known that it was refinished. I was told that the 53’s flaked badly and this was done to improve the looks.  I was told it was made in the late 1940’s parts clean up.  I bought it. 

Roger

Hi Bert,  That’s why the “parts cleanup” explanation seemed to make sense, at the time I bought it.  I only had the Madis book to go by.  I understood that Winchester just used what they had available to clear inventories of unused parts.  I bought into this explanation more than once.  I have a Model 92 ser. #1006356 25-20 round barrel with what appears to be model 64 deluxe wood and a round proof steel barrel.  I was told the gun was purchased at the in plant “Winchester Store” for the employees.  The gun appears unfired and I left it that way.  RDB

Bert,

I am afraid to attempt to remove the forearm, magazine tube, etc. and take a chance on a scratching or dinging something.  I will take some pictures and hope that will work.  I know the bottom of the barrel would tell all, but I couldn’t live with my self if I damaged an unmarked gun. 

R

Roger, looking at the Model 53 survey that I have, regular production of the Model 53 appears to have ended around the last week of June, 1930. No further Model 53’s appear to have been manufactured until March of 1932, when there seems to have been a final ‘clean up’ of Model 53 barrels chambered in 25-20 and 32 W.C.F., all assembled in the month of March. The estimated number of rifles in the “clean up” was roughly 80, extrapolating from the survey. These were all serial numbers (thus far discovered) in the 999xxx range.

As Bert mentioned, your serial number is too early for the Model 53 and much too early for the 218 Bee. It is strange that your 218 Bee barrel on the Model 53 does not have a date stamp underneath … nothing but an index mark. That is “fishy”. Are you sure it is a Winchester barrel? Does it have the “MADE IN U.S.A. WINCHESTER REPEATING ARMS CO.” with “NEW HAVEN.CONN.” between too long dashes, on the left side of the barrel? I do have one Model 53 that has a 218 Bee barrel, but is an obvious re-barrel with the Model # peened out and over-stamped with “53”. It is mounted on a receiver which was serialized in 1928 and in a serial range that probably was chambered in 32 W.C.F.

I compared the font on the barrel with a normal Model 53 barrel and there are subtle but definite differences. For example, the “53” uses a different font on your rifle. A normal “3” on a Model 53 has the top half of the “3” rounded, whereas on yours the top have is composed of two straight line segments. If you refer to my article on the Model 53 in the WACA journal a few years ago, you can see what the “53” font looks like. There is also a difference in the “W” of “Winchester” …. note that the little curlicue makes the top of the “W” look like a “T” on a normal Model 53, rather than the abbreviated version curlicue on yours. The “TRADE MARK” is much closer to the underside of “WINCHESTER” on your rifle than it is on a normal barrel. I’ve not compared the font with a Model 65 barrel, however, to see if yours matches the later, Model 65 barrel fonts. I see there is a Winchester proof mark on the top of the barrel, which is totally out of sync with the absence of markings underneath the barrel where no one normally sees. This suggests to me that the barrel might not be a Winchester barrel, but was made to look like one only where people would see, but not under the barrel where no one would see. Whoever did it, however, did a very nice job on the engraving/roll stamping. 

The rounded edges of the receiver show it has been buffed and re-blued, as you already mentioned, and that is likely when the 218 Barrel was mounted. I’ve owned a Model 1892 that was rebuilt by Winchester in the 1930’s to a Model 92 carbine, and the receiver edges and proof marks were sharp even though Winchester had rebuilt the carbine from an early rifle made in 1894. The rounded edges on yours suggest that the refinishing of the receiver was not done by Winchester. (Note that I am just going from the photos, so my assessment depends on the lighting in those photos).

I think it most likely that your receiver was originally part of a Model 92 assembled in 1923 and when the 218 Bee came out, someone thought it would be great to re-barrel it to 218 Bee and restock it with Model 65 stocks.

If you get a chance, could you post a photo of the barrel address on the left side of the barrel? I would also be grateful if you could post a photo of the upper tang stamp.

Kirk

That 1892 is very very cool.

It is an interesting rifle none the less and nicely put together. One can only wonder what the story is behind it. By the way, is your other Model 53 in the survey? If not, it would be great to add it. I would need the full serial number, caliber, TD or solid frame, and any special features it may have.

rogertherelic said
 Just for fun…..

On page 66 of the Renneberg Model 94 book “A Century of Craftsmanship” is a model 94 that was “made up” of correct Winchester parts that bears a strong likeness to my 92 only with an octagon barrel.  Even has an identical sling.  Who knows what went on “back in the day”?

RDB  

Roger, the story of your rifle is very intriguing.  I certainly agree that a lot of stuff happened, “back in the day.”  And a portion of the oddball stuff we see is legitimate – these rifles were manufactured and assembled at Winchester.  “Parts clean up” occurred at Winchester and other plants.  I believe there were (financially tough) years where Marlin engaged in this to a greater degree than Winchester.  In the case of your Model 65, you have that direct connection of purchasing it from a retired Winchester employee who purchased the rifle directly from the factory.  For me, that is a powerful connection, dramatically more so than were it purchased from, “someone” who purchased it from said employee (and that is the story that goes with the rifle).  There are many of these rifles around with such a story.  But again, very cool rifle.  I really enjoy the looks of it and love the sling Thanks for sharing.