Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Hello, I am looking at a model 62A Winchester, serial #33682. From what I can find out it is a 1936 DOM rifle. It looks almost new. It has a 17 groove forend piece. Is that unusual? I have been told that the 17 groove forend piece did not come out until 1939 or so. Please advise if you know. Thanks, Peter
Offline
pday/Peter,
I have a Winchester model 62 with SN 73585. It has the small, 10 groove fore end and the top tang has the extra factory drilled and tapped hole for a tang sight.
Note, it is a model 62 and not a 62A. Are you sure of the serial number?
Jolly
Schwing makes note that the large, (17-groove, which would be the one that had the round bottom), slide handle may be considered a transition slide handle because its production spans both the prewar and postwar eras.
Schwing also made note that in 1939 a decision was made to convert the Model 62 to the Model 62A, and that a a 17-groove slide handle was authorized then. This handle was introduced in the 1940 catalog.
James
The problem as I see it, is that the rifle Peter is looking at is a May 1936 vintage gun (as per the serial number). Accordingly, it should not be a Model "62A".
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I agree Bert, and that is more than sufficient reason to be concerned about its originality. It’s also apparent that Schwing, himself, was confused on some points that concern the 62 to 62A, and quite possibly much more than we might think.
James
Ok…so could this be one of those that was serialized in 1936 and not put together until 1939 or so? That could justify the 17 grove forend piece and the 62A stamping on the barrel or am I reaching here? The barrel says …..62A on it. The receiver and the bottom tang just have the serial # on them…no "A". Thanks for the help, Peter
It would be wise to assume that it is not factory original.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
IMHO it’s a factory original 62A with a 1936 receiver assembled around 1939-40. It has the coil main spring of a 62A albeit an earlier receiver. 3 pin bolt. Condition is very near if not mint. Not a refinish or restoration. Parts cleanup might fit the description. Schwing says the 62 receivers were sometimes not assembled for 2-3 years. Puzzled me for a while but now it all makes sense.
You got an awesome pre-war 62A for an awesome price. Glad you figured out the bolt locking issue; a simple fix. Agree it was likely someone didn’t want a kid to be able to fire it so they jammed a piece of wood in the bolt opening. Congrats! I’ll give you what you paid for it +++ if you ever want to sell it!!!
ohlode said
IMHO it’s a factory original 62A with a 1936 receiver assembled around 1939-40. It has the coil main spring of a 62A albeit an earlier receiver. 3 pin bolt. Condition is very near if not mint. Not a refinish or restoration. Parts cleanup might fit the description. Schwing says the 62 receivers were sometimes not assembled for 2-3 years. Puzzled me for a while but now it all makes sense.
You got an awesome pre-war 62A for an awesome price. Glad you figured out the bolt locking issue; a simple fix. Agree it was likely someone didn’t want a kid to be able to fire it so they jammed a piece of wood in the bolt opening. Congrats! I’ll give you what you paid for it +++ if you ever want to sell it!!!
It does make sense.
James
If it were not for mentors like you helping me with this, I would not be a collector. My thanks and appreciation for you time and help with this. It is nice to have people who know and are willing to help. I owe you big time Ohlode. Thanks also to James for the encouragement. Best, Peter
Bert H. said
The problem as I see it, is that the rifle Peter is looking at is a May 1936 vintage gun (as per the serial number). Accordingly, it should not be a Model "62A".Bert
Hi Bert, I have a Winchester rifle model 62A serial number 111900 .-
You can tell me date of manufacture?
Thank you
Holla Jose Luis,
Your rifle was manufactured during October of 1940.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
After 30 years of seeing so many variations in receiver v. barrel, stock, main spring and other parts assembled within the 62 series, I think it might be more accurate to say the rifle was assembled or completed on a particular month/date. I think this is especially true when you come across an obviously mint or near mint rifle that falls within the frequent transition/improvement periods. The 62 and 62A certainly fit that category. They’ve always been my favorite slide action Winchester. Not barrel heavy like the 90’s and not almost toy-like as in the case of the 1906. Just the perfect mix or evolution of the two?
(btw; I pursue primarily 90’s and will also jump on a 1906 at every opportunity!)
As I’ve mentioned to Peter, the likely prize of my 62 series collection is my 1934 Model 62 with steel butt plate, flat muzzle, Winchester logo on the tang, cigar forend, Lyman tang w/1" disk aperture, S,L,LR, etc., etc.. Not perfect but a solid 85- 90% with an evenly browning receiver & mint bore. Pure grief for the local whistle pigs.
Would love to find a near mint/mint first year rifle… Maybe someday.
ohlode said
flat muzzle
Kindly expand on the "flat muzzle" feature if you would please. Are the flat face muzzles unique to 62’s only. When was this feature phased out / incorporated
Thank you kindly in advance for your response
Winchester made all "rifle" barrels with a flat (uncrowned) muzzle through at least the early part of the year 1938. After that time, the muzzles were crowned. "Flat" muzzles were the standard on all of Winchesher’s many different models, including the 62.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
twobit said
Holla Jose Luis,Your rifle was manufactured during October of 1940.
Michael
Thanks Michael
"From the beginning of production in 1932 until 1935, Winchester cut its Model 62 barrel muzzles straight without crown. Crowned muzzles were used from 1935 until the end of production in 1959". (Schwing, Volume II, page 152.)
Bert H.”]Winchester made all "rifle" barrels with a flat (uncrowned) muzzle through at least the early part of the year 1938. After that time, the muzzles were crowned. "Flat" muzzles were the standard on all of Winchesher’s many different models, including the 62.
Bert
ohlode said
"From the beginning of production in 1932 until 1935, Winchester cut its Model 62 barrel muzzles straight without crown. Crowned muzzles were used from 1935 until the end of production in 1959". (Schwing, Volume II, page 152.)
My thanks to all for the clarification.
This muzzle view is from my Model 62 with serial 390XX. I believe it to be fully original. Note the lathe tooling marks are visable
I was under the impression this example was produced circa 1936 which conflicts with the information from above. What year would this serial number indicate ?
If you would please, do you have any information concerning the bead material utilized in the from sight of these early model 62,s as my example appears to have a silver bead where I was anticipating a brass or gold bead
Thanks again to all for their generious input of expert information.
Now If I could only tie this stock back to the 5-Spot
Floatshoe,
Your Model 62 was manufactured in October of 1936. The information quoted from Ned Schwing’s reference book is not 100% accurate in regards to when Winchester began using crowned barrels on the Model 62.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I think the lesson here is that the book I quoted and various expert opinions are usually based on the best information available to them. However, you’ll find they are not always absolute. My Model 62, serial 4807x, a 98% original rifle dates (by Schwing’s chart) to January, 1937. It has a crowned muzzle…
When you evaluate an individual rifle you can read the available literature, listen to the various experts and factor in your personal experience along with applying common sense. In the end, what you have is still an opinion.
For me this has been really educational. Just when I think I’ve seen every 62 variation, another one pops up like pday’s that doesn’t exactly fit. Thanks for all the input.
1 Guest(s)
