Hi Old-Win-

You are certainly right that there is more than one way to detect whether a “Winchester” barrel is factory or not. 

The rifling is an important one, as many manufacturers of reproduction barrels start from commercial barrel blanks that were rifled using different processes than Winchester used before 1964.  Likewise, people creating barrels in oddball chamberings by reboring/rifling an original barrel, e.g. 358 WIN Featherweight from 308 WIN Featherweight, 308 WIN or 358 WIN Standard from 243 WIN Standard, 35 WHELEN from 30 GOV’T’06, etc. tend to rifle their rebored barrels using non-factory processes.  The number of lands/grooves and rates of twist used by Winchester are known from existing documents and are usually correct on reproduction barrels, but the borescope is your friend for comparing cut versus button rifling, tool marks, etc.

Front ramps (when present) are also important to examine.  Making a 20″ Carbine barrel from a 24″ or 26″ Standard barrel, e.g. Carbines in 220 SWIFT or 300 MAGNUM, requires “moving” what was an integral front sight ramp.  Not easily done to perfection as the weld seam tends to show flaws under high magnification.  Sometimes the stippling on top of an integral (or later silver brazed) ramp is a poor imitation of factory work.

There has been enough discussion of proof marks to not be worth belaboring.  Barrel and receiver proofs were applied at the same time by the same worker at the same bench after proof testing a finished rifle.  In general they should match.  Non-matching proofs, while not necessarily an indication of a fake barrel, at least suggest a barrel swap.

Still, I find that the roll marks are often the quickest/easiest way to raise doubts about the authenticity of a barrel on a Model 70.  IIRC, during the prewar period the roll dies and caliber stamps (which were separate on the M70 before 1950) were made in-house and usually cleaned up by hand by factory engravers.  Hence there is some variability, but still aspects that are common to all genuine dies, like square corners on at least some of the letters/dashes, die wear notwithstanding. OTOH… Some makers of reproduction barrels mark their barrels using what looks like laser engraving or rotating bit pantograph.  These techniques cannot make square corners.  Everything is rounded.  For example…

In 1950, Winchester adopted the “one-piece” dies that included caliber along with the barrel address.  These dies were commercially outsourced, e.g. made by Nobel and Westbrook or Industrial, and are generally quite consistent.  Moreover, the caliber stamp made by these dies should be perfectly aligned with the rest of the marking since it was on the rim of the same disc.  If the caliber stamp was applied separately (even if made to look like it was integral), then questions arise in my mind at least.

And yes… Winchester “should” have made one-piece Standard (not Featherweight) dies in 308 WIN because they specifically cataloged Target Models and National Match rifles in 308 WIN for a brief time in the early 1950s as available on special order.  Maybe not some of the others, e.g. 300 WIN MAGNUM Featherweights (of which a couple genuine ones exist), but it bears looking at…

I’m not saying that making a reproduction Winchester barrel is criminal.  Look at Mark Douglas’ video posted yesterday in which he examines a repro barrel made by Winchesterbarrels.com.  The unscrupulous act occurs when one of these non-factory barrels is used to build a “rare uncataloged” rifle that is represented for sale as genuine.

Just my take…

Lou

EDIT/ADDENDUM:  I have chosen to delete two images of barrel roll stamps from this post that I consider “questionable” because I obtained them (screen shots) from the internet.  They were not important in making my point in any event.  The other images shown above were either photographs that I took of a rifle that was in my presence at the time, or photographs taken by Pre64win.com and shared with me of a couple of rifles (subjects of this thread) that were in their possession at the time the photos were taken.  Cheers…

Zebulon said

One element of proof is “intent”, which can be proven by circumstantial evidence: WHY did you make the reproduction barrel? Have you made reproduction barrels before? What did you do with them? Where are they now? Have any been resold as components of a putatively “rare” rifle?  How many reproduction barrels have you made? In what calibers? Did you mark them? How did you mark them?  

Hi Zeb-

I’m pretty sure that if I were ever in court (civil OR criminal) I’d rather have you on my defense team than on the prosecution’s side!!!   It will never happen, of course, b/c I do not build/sell/misrepresent fake “rare” guns…

But “legally speaking”… My sense is that “intent” is the key issue in either (civil or criminal) circumstance, even if the evidentiary standard is different.  For example (I’d appreciate you comment here), Winchesterbarrels.com makes new barrels for old guns and marks them sort’a like the original barrels.  But they never claim their product is anything but a replica.  Pre64win.com also produces new replacement barrels for pre-64 M70s (even matching original barrel contour if that’s what the customer wants), but their thing is kind’a cool… They laser mark their barrels with something that looks like the Winchester stamp but instead of saying “Made in New Haven” their barrels say something like “Made in Woodinville, WA. Pre64win.com”.  From 10-feet away they might look like Winchester barrels, but (if you can read) there’s ZERO confusion…  

So… If a company like Winchesterbarrels.com makes/sells replica Winchester barrels (that they themselves do not represent as original), and somebody else buys barrels from them and uses them to create “fakes” that this second party represents as “original” and subsequently defrauds one or more customers, does that mean that Winchesterbarrels.com has potential legal exposure based on whether or not they “knew” that the buyer was engaged in fraud???  With a different evidentiary standard based on civil versus criminal court???  Meaning that, in effect, the barrel maker has legal responsibility to “vet” their clients, lest they expose themselves as accomplices to fraud???

Just curious…

Lou

P.S. One other question… When I did my “fake” post above, only some of the pics I posted were taken by me of guns in my presence at the time.  The others were obtained from various sources on the internet… I deliberately did NOT identify the source of my images so as not to cast aspersions on other parties…  But… Am I legally “at-risk” if someone who “owns” those photos (albeit photos posted on the web and downloadable) decides that I’ve libeled them by posting copies of their “proprietary” images and cost them lost money/auction bids?  Perhaps I should delete the photos I did not take myself???

P.P.S.  You can send you bill to me via WACA PM…   Happy to pay for good legal advice!!!

Hi Zeb-

I know what you mean… My license(s) to practice are on “inactive” status, no annual fees, no CME requirements, etc.   Can’t write Rx or offer “advice” except under the most informal of terms…

I just thought that you raised some interesting points regarding potential culpability in connection with fraud…  It’s said that, even if they do not post, many “fakers” haunt this website trying to learn how to “improve their product”.  That’s often the reason given here by members not wanting to divulge what the fakers are doing wrong… Two edged sword IMHO… FWIW… I didn’t divulge anything either beyond what anyone but a blind person can see…

If the “parts suppliers”, whether they’re in the fake trade themselves or not, have potential liability, they’d better pray to God that they don’t defraud the wrong person (someone with deep pockets and serious “attitude issues”).  Isn’t that kind of what happened to Larry Wilson???  Got entangled with the wrong rich guy???  I’m sure that the Martha Stewart Suite in the Federal Penitentiary is pretty posh, but still…  

Cheers,

Lou

An old Arab curse:  “May you have a lawsuit and may you be in the right!” 

The danger in bringing a libel suit: (1)  It publicizes the accusation and amplifies any harmful effect. (2) Truth is a complete defense to a claim of libel. When you file a lawsuit claiming damages for libel, you invite the defendant to prove the “libelous” allegation is true. Oops. That happens more often than you might think.  In my first year torts class, we read a case of libel in which, after hearing the evidence of the witnesses and the arguments of counsel, the jury retired, considered the matter and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, having found that the plaintiff really WAS a son-of-a-bitch as the defendant had published. 

Steve-

I too have seen M54 Carbines and 1st Standard rifles in many of those chamberings, including (God Help Us!!!) a Carbine in 405 WCF… That one actually fires without blowing up, but OUCH!!! Not saying they were/are all factory work but IIRC the barrel markings looked pretty good (unlike the “fakes” we’ve been discussing here).  I didn’t pay enough attention to really try and “dissect” them…

Putting together a “tribute” set like you describe would not be too much of a technical challenge, at least for the 30-30 family of cartridges, since Winchester manufactured a M54 action specifically for the 30 WCF.  No clip slot, different action rails to facilitate feeding the tapered/rimmed cartridges, bolt adapted to work with a flat breech barrel, etc.  

Probably start the set by getting genuine rifles in 30 WCF and go from there… I suspect that if you found a less than perfect 30 WCF M54 Carbine (to keep cost down and not destroy a nice original), it would only take a new barrel and maybe a little tweaking to get it to feed, and you could get the others working!!! 😀  It would be a fun project.

Lou

Zebulon said
Good morning, Steve.  Yes, that would certainly be an interesting project – and a stately task.  Anything that adds to or clarifies our rather specialized history is a step forward for all of us.  Even for Lou, a Model 70 guru of truly heightened awareness!

  

I personally wouldn’t take on a project like this.  The M54 in .30 WCF would be a fine basis for such a project, but I wouldn’t want to mess up a M54.  But it can be tempting when someone else has already done the work  and all you have to do is write a check.  The problem has always been the size of the check.  All of these were priced as though they were factory made guns.  Many were sold through large auction houses.  

An interesting dilemma is that some probably were factory made carbines and some were likely faked.  But which were which?  I probably couldn’t tell but likely Lou and others here could.  The dilemma I’m thinking of has an interesting ethical aspect.  Had I purchased these rifles, I could have done so on the assumption they are all original.  None were represented as clones or fakes.  Could I have passed them along with the same understanding?  Remember, I’m not the expert some are here.  They’ve been sold to me in, “good faith” as not faked guns, I would have no information or knowledge to know that wasn’t true.  The scenario would be I’ve acquired a group of five carbines and know there is a probability some in that group are faked and some aren’t, but I don’t know which is which. 

Does this not come down to a buyer beware situation?  I would be withholding nothing and passing along to a potential buyer everything I knew.  I could say, “here’s the catalog and receipt from RIA – I wrote them a check for $20,000 for this carbine as I chose to believe the accuracy of their description – you need to formulate your own opinion – there is no factory documentation to prove this rifle came this way from the factory – ‘experts’ will likely having varying opinions on its authenticity – CAVEAT EMPTOR.”  

Do the pre 64 Model 70’s come set up for scope mounts or do you have to modify the rifle?  Never owned one and really have not looked at them.  If I were to buy one I’d have to shoot it and I would need a scope.

Chuck-

The “pre-war” (type I) M70s, from roughly S/N 1 to about 60,500 (1936-1946), were not factory D&T on the bridge (only the receiver ring and the left side rear (for a receiver sight).  There are some no-drill scope mount options, e.g. by Stith and Bausch & Lomb, but the do limit your scope options.

The “transition” (type II) rifles, from roughly S/N 60,500 to about 88,000 (1946-1948), were factory D&T on the bridge (if a standard length action – the H&H receviers were still not drilled).  These rifles are popular with shooters b/c they still have the older cloverleaf tang, retain somewhat higher quality than later guns, and amenable to top mounted scopes.  They’re also nice because of the caliber selection that was offered, things like 22 HORNET, 257 ROBERTS, etc… 

The latter “oval tang” (type III) rifles, from roughly 88,000 to 581,471 (1948-1963) were factory D&T for receiver mounted scopes, the exception again being the H&H receivers, which weren’t regularly drilled until about 1950 (undrilled 300 and 375 (H&H) MAGNUMs can be encountered as late as the 160,000 serial number range).

Hope this helps,

Lou

Chuck said    What is the difference or advantage with the Type II and the early Type III? 

Hi Chuck-

Not much IMHO… The early post-war Type II rifles are commonly considered to be a bit better quality, but we’re still not talking 19th Century had fitted work.  Naturally, as the 1950s-1960s progressed there were cost-cutting measures that were increasingly put into place that cause the collecting community to lean toward earlier production.  Even the introduction of the type III oval tang was more a move to reduce the need for careful hand fitting of the tang inletting than it was to decrease the risk of stock splitting (although oval tangs are probably an advantage with the later short magnums).  More “clamping surface” between receiver and stock… 

The type III (oval tang) guns, compared to earlier guns, offer the following options not available before: 1) Ease of installing top mounted scopes (also true of the type II transition guns), 2) optional Monte Carlo stocks (from 1952 onwards); and, 3) “new” chamberings including 243 WIN, 308 WIN, 358 WIN, 458 WIN MAGNUM, 338 WIN MAGNUM, 264 WIN MAGNUM, and 300 WIN MAGNUM (from 1955 to 1963 depending on caliber)… 

The later in production you go, you have to deal with: 1) Composition “plastic” butt plates, 2) Narrow panel “machine cut” checkering, and 3) a general decline in fit/finish/wood quality.

Unless you want a specific late chambering, e.g. 243 WIN, I would consider a Type II versus a Type III (up to maybe 1949-1950) to be about the same… 

Just my take…

Lou