Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
[email protected] said
Did Winchester,upon request, install scope blocks on pre war rifles
It would help if you mentioned which specific model are you inquiring about?
Short answer is Yes, Winchester drilled & tapped specific rifles for mounting a scope, and when they did, they provided the scope blocks and mounts.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Saw pre war sg in 220 swift. Looked good. Wondering if blocks could be factory installed. New to forum. Trying to figure out how to navigate.
[email protected] said
What make scopes were available from Winchester ?Thanks
That depends on what time frame you specify. From 1909 – 1928 Winchester manufactured their own telescopes (the A5, B3, B4, and B5). If you are asking about a factory scope on a Model 70, Winchester did not provide the scopes. Instead, it was up to the individual customer to purchase and install the physical scope he/she desired. For the Model 70, many people chose a Weaver scope.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
[email protected] said
What make scopes were available from Winchester ?Thanks
“Once upon a time long ago” Winchester mfgd. their own scopes, but that ended long before SGs were conceived. What survived from that earlier time were the blocks or bases–the dimensions & hole spacings of the original Winchester blocks became standard for other scope makers, even though the Stevens Co. invented scope blocks (different size & spacings) & detachable mountings many yrs before Winchester.
So the blocks Winchester would have supplied for a SG were merely “standard,” not specific to any particular make of scope.
Bert H. said
For the Model 70, many people chose a Weaver scope.
Maybe many did, but they were the cost-conscious ones; at the time of the 70s inception, the best US-made hunting scopes were Noskes & Lyman Alaskans. (Excluding the very expensive German scopes.) But for a 70 with blocks for a target-type scope, Fecker, Lyman, Unertl, & several smaller makers would have been among the options; no one particular make predominated.
November 5, 2014
Online
Hi ptrossler-
I will assume that you are looking at a pre-war Model 70 (or Model 54) Super Grade 220 SWIFT that has a 26″ standard barrel contour. If I’m wrong about the barrel please let me know.
The standard sight mounting provisions on the pre-war M70 consisted of a 3/8″ dovetail in the rear sight boss of the barrel, two 6-48 D&T holes on the top of receiver ring, and two 6-48 D&T holes on the left side of the receiver below the bridge (intended for mounting a receiver sight like the Lyman 48WJS). No factory D&T holes were provided on the top of the bridge (for a top mounted scope base like the Redfield JR), the top of the barrel (for a Lyman or Unertl telescopic sight block), or left side of the receiver (for a G&H or similar side mount). Any D&T holes in those locations were almost invariably non-factory.
To mount a target type telescope, e.g. the Lyman, Unertl, Fecker, Litschert, etc. the approach was to use a cross dovetail block (Lyman/Unertl BK works) in the barrel dovetail and another block (Lyman/Unertl U works) on top of the receiver ring. It would look like this (on a M54):
Commonly used domestic top mounted telescopes of the pre-war era included (as Clarence says) the Lyman Alaskan, Noske, and Weaver G330. Several manufacturers (notably Stith and B&L) made scope mounts that utilized the barrel dovetail and/or the holes on the receiver ring top and left side rear of receiver, permitting a scope to be mounted without adding D&T holes to the bridge. A typical Stith installation of a Weaver G330 on a pre-war M70:
In the pre-war period, the factory catalogs did briefly offer to furnish and install the G&H side mount with Lyman Alaskan (by name), but soon changed to just a general statement that telescopic sights and mounts could be furnished (prices on request). So… It is POSSIBLE that a D&T hole in the bridge (typically just one hole spaced for the Redfield JR base) or a G&H side mount could have been factory supplied. HOWEVER the vast majority of such applications were done outside the factory and it is generally impossible to document that extra D&T holes in barrel or receiver were factory work. It is often possible to prove that such holes aren’t factory work, but the opposite is problematic.
Therefore, from the collector’s perspective it is best to assume that any deviations from standard are aftermarket modifications, and the value of the gun should be adjusted accordingly. Conversely, from the shooters perspective such modifications might be viewed as improvements. I know my friend Clarence will agree with that… 
Hope this helps…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
Conversely, from the shooters perspective such modifications might be viewed as improvements. I know my friend Clarence will agree with that…
Amen to that–correcting this factory blunder was the most intelligent option, if you were a serious rifleman expecting the most from your “rifleman’s rifle.”
1 Guest(s)
