Mike

I suspect what you discovered in those early catalogs were misprints or typo's.  I believe it should have been "45-500" versus "45-100".  Further, I believe that almost all Hotchkiss Repeaters were chambered for the 45-70 Government cartridge with the exception of a small number made for the 43 Spanish cartridge.  I highly recommend contacting Jim Curlovic.

Bert

The Winchester Catalogs from 1879 to April 1884 show the barrel to be 32" and the caliber to be 45-100.  But the same catalogs list the 45-100 cartridge as a Sharp.

The September 1882 Catalog shows the same 32" barrel but now lists the caliber as 45.  It shows a cartridge that says U.S. Govt. 45. After this date all the Catalogs say 45.

The January 1884 Catalog shows the barrel length to be 28".   This coincides with the change from the 1st and 2nd Models to the 3rd Model of 1883. 

The other thing that shows up is the listing of a 40-65 cartridge. This is the only time this caliber was listed for the Hotchkiss. 

No one has ever seen a Winchester box that calls out for the Hotchkiss.  The same thing goes for a 45-100 or 40-65 cartridge.  There is 40-65 ammo for the 1886.  The Military produced their own ammo, but I have never seen a box that says for the Hotchkiss.

I have never seen an early musket to know what the barrel address may be or if the caliber is stamped on the barrel.

The bolt action Hotchkiss was ahead of it's time and didn't sell well.  The Military testing in 1878 approved the Musket but very few were bought by the Military for the Army and Navy.  The Chinese bought a bunch and the French a small amount. 

Did Winchester ever make 40-100 ammo for the Hotchkiss?  Same for the 40-65?

The issue of M70 sights is messy...  The factory rarely specified the sights they used or called out changes in their catalogs, especially when they were using "outsourced" sights from Lyman, Redfield or Marbles.  For example, Winchester product catalogs only describe the Super Grade front sight as a "Redfield full gold bead".  They do not specify height.  The notion that only the Redfield 255 (0.360" tall) was used on M70s comes from Rule's book (and possibly from a typo in one of the parts catalogs)...  Loooong story...

The reality (based on the survey) is that Super Grade front sights were the same height as the contemporary Standard rifle front sights, which makes sense because the butt stock dimensions/barrel contour/rear sight of the Super Grade was the same as a Standard rifle.  So from 1936-1952 the Super Grade front sight was 0.310" tall (Redfield 254), same height as the Lyman 31W/Winchester 103C sights used on Standard rifles.  The change to the Redfield 255 occurred with the advent of the MC stock in 1952, when the rear sight was changed to a Marbles 69 folding.  The same thing happened on Standard rifles about the same time.  MC stocked Standard rifles got the Marbles 69 paired with a 0.360" tall Winchester 103E (replacing the 0.310" tall 103C).  LC stocked Standard rifles got the "low" 22K (pictured above) paired with the 103E, although the change was a little slower (I think) b/c the only reason to change the sights on a LC stock M70 was so they could use the same front sight (103E) on everything (standard and Featherweight barrels) regardless of stock type.

The issue I will encounter is that this information differs from what's stated in Roger Rule's book...  Many M70 experts will therefore question my "unsupported claim" or at least my basic literacy skills...

Make of it what you will...

Lou

There's definitely a lot to know and learn about the M-70, and Louis and a few others sure have helped us out here. Louis is a walking Encyclopedia, to say the least! IMHO!  I wish I had his memory!

Ben,

I'm in agreement with you, as I also have learned some more from him. Every time he posts something, I have to re fresh my notes and memory bank, in the most pleasurable way! 

Thanks Dr. Lou!

Tony

As an apostate who loves his 1950 Super Grade, may I suggest a Lyman 12S in the rear dovetail solves all problems, particularly for users of Buehler-style scope mounts who do not regard them as QC devices. 

Mike

It looks like a nice honest gun to me...  Congrats!

The issue of correct sights on a 1955 vintage low comb M70 may generate some (unnecessary) controversy, based on the fact that Roger Rules didn't make clear what he meant by "22K".  There were TWO different height 22K sporting type rear sights used, one for standard barrels, the other for Featherweights.  Neither is the double scallop pre-war 22K that kept getting pictured in Winchester parts catalogs into the late 1940s, despite being discontinued around the time F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote "The Great Gatsby".  Don't blame ME or Roger, we didn't name them!!!

This pic may explain it best.  From left to right are the 22G, "low 22K" (used on standard barrels) and "high 22K" (used in Featherweights):

The ONLY difference between the 22G and the low 22K was the shape of the sheet metal slide.  The shallow "V" of the low 22K gave a slightly higher line of sight, which Winchester wanted so they could use the same taller from sight (103E instead of 103C) on all barrels regardless of stock style.  Confused yet???  It's confusing... But I do have copies of the 22G and low 22K blueprints that clearly state that the "base" (the whole sight except the slide) was the same on both.

The chronology of standard barrel contour rear sights and low comb stocks, as best I can tell, was that the 22G was used through 1953 paired with a 103C front sight (0.310" tall).  The low 22K was used from 1954-ish through 1957-ish paired with a 103E front sight (0.360" tall).  The tall 22K (which is pictured in Rule's book) was used on low comb Featherweights from 1954-1957.

As for the Monte Carlo stocks, they all used the 103E front sight (beginning in 1952).  Initially the rear sight was a Marbles 69 (which also came in two heights, a lower one used on standard barrels and a taller one used on Featherweight barrels).  This was replaced by the Lyman 16B (on standard barrels) and 16A (on Featherweight barrels) beginning in 1954. 

So if your rifle was a 1955 with Monte Carlo stock, the Lyman 16B would be most appropriate.  As a low comb, the low height 22K would be the right one.

Just my take...

Lou

It has some slight blue wear on the barrel where I suspect a 22K spring sight may have resided. Did my 1955 30-06 low comb come originally with a 22K for a rear sight? I believe it currently has a Lyman 16B installed but it also came with a Marbles 69 in a bag with a bad screw. The screw has been sourced and the Marbles is functional again.

In its current state is it worthy of having a 22K reinstalled if it originally came with one? I have a set of 4 screw Redfield high rings I could put the Leupold 2-7X scope in. Would Redfield high rings clear the 22K or would I need to go to something like a Lyman Alaskan scope?

Would a folding sight have been the Marbles or the Lyman 16B if it came with a folding sight? I want to avoid fixing something that may be correct? 

https://imgur.com/nzqp7Za

https://i.imgur.com/nzqp7Za.jpeg?1

https://i.imgur.com/Die26mi.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/ANcaV8g.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/gXTB7KI.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/H4MJBjv.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/lVmK1Qp.jpeg

https://imgur.com/eAQ5MWE

https://i.imgur.com/eAQ5MWE.jpeg?1

https://i.imgur.com/FEvYAZ0.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/7XuCnah.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/d84TEpN.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/FQjIBY3.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/3lxTmWX.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/OkxPxZx.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/PPmDWkN.jpeg

helidriver72 said

Bert H. said
Gus,
The sling eyes are definitely aftermarket additions.
Bert
  

Just curious what indicates that to you? I’m not disagreeing I’m just trying to learn.
  

Two things;

(1) the physical position of the rear sling eye is not correct.  Fortunately, very few people were/are aware that Winchester positioned the rear sling eye very precisely

(2) the fact that there is no mention of the sling eyes in the factory letter.

Bert

twobit said
My money says non original wood.  The wood finish is TOO perfect compared to the wear on the receiver.  Someplace there HAD to be a bump or scratch put in the wood.  The butt plate fit is terrible. 
Michael
  

as well as the lower tang.............absolutely beautiful wood though.

Michael