It may be some sort of factory error, right enough.

Subject to correction by someone here who knows the model 90 and the model 62 better than I, it would appear that the finish-machined receiver itself would be the same, whether it was to be assembled to a short/long/long rifle barrel, or whether it was to be assembled to a WRF barrel, except for one difference, that being the diameter of the drilled/reamed hole for the mag tube, and, reasonably, the spacing of the centre-line of that hole with reference to the threaded hole for the barrel shank.

Since the rim diameter of the WRF round is nominally .016, approx 1/64th, larger than that of the short/long/long rifle round, it would seem plausible that the o.d. of the mag tube of the WRF version was also that sixteen thou larger, and also offset that same .016 farther from the barrel thread centre, to allow for the same clearance between the barrel and the mag tube.

I say ‘seem plausible’ WHERE post_id = but I don’t have a model 90 in WRF here, to check this.

Is there anyone here who can mike the o.d. of the WRF mag tube, mike the o.d. of a short/long/long rifle mag tube, note the difference, and note the difference, if any, in clearance between the barrel and the mag tube?

Whilst, obviously, I don’t know the sequence of operations on the receiver, it would seem ‘plausible’ that receivers for WRF rifles were so stamped at some point before the mag tube bore was done, so that the machine operator would know which machine or setup to use for that operation, and the assemblers would know, at a glance, which barrel and mag tube to fit to that receiver.

From that, two possibilities seem obvious. One is that a WRF receiver found its way into the model 62 assembly by mistake, and that rifle has a WRF mag tube and mag bands. (then, how did it get by the inspector, or did it go home with some worker, quietly and un-noticeably, to hide the error?)

This detail could be easily determined by asking the seller to take an accurate measurement of the diameter of the mag tube.

The other obvious possibility might be that a pallet or tub of model 90 receivers which had already been stamped WRF, but had not yet had the mag tube hole drilled/reamed/deburred could have been diverted to the model 62 production, and correctly machined for the short/long/long rifle mag tube diameter., with the WRF stamping simply disregarded.

If so, then they would eventually go to assembly to be assembled with short/long/lr model 62-marked barrels and model 62 mag tubes, presumably with a tag saying ‘ignore the WRF mark on these’.

It would seem ‘plausible’ that some foreman, under pressure to get the model 62 production going, might have made such a decision, as it would not affect the quality of the finished rifles.

If, as would seem plausible, the demand for model 62 rifles, at the time, was substantial, and a good stock of nearly-finished WRF marked model 90 receivers, with the mag tube hole not yet done, was on hand, that would seem a sound decision.

If I understand correctly, the model 90 in WRF was ‘obsoleted’ as a regular catalogue item, when the model 62 went into production, which, again at a guess, would have seen the actual WRF receivers ‘quarantined’ away from regular production, to be eventually used as ‘parts clean-up’ production.

As has been noted elsewhere, the model 90 actually stayed in production, even tho not regularly catalogued, so, again presumably, a separate assembly area would have been set up for that work, to assemble model 90’s in smaller quantities while the parts stock lasted.

Again, asking the seller for an accurate measurement of the o.d. of the mag tube would ‘tell the tale’.

If its a factory assembler’s error, a stray WRF receiver which, somehow, was put together as a model 62 with a model 90 WRF mag assembly, would the larger diameter of the mag tube cause failures to feed?

Again, I don’t know but if such was the case, that could be a reason why that rifle survived all these years with little use.

Note that the above is purely speculation…..theoretical ‘ifs’ and ‘maybes’…..but an accurate measurement of the mag tube of that rifle would ‘shed some light’ on the possibility of such an error.

cheers

Carla