Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Frankness is appropriate, and appreciated.
The problem for me is that I bought the rifle from the individual who originally purchased it new (in Alaska) -, and he is both a friend and an old-school gentleman of unimpeachable integrity. He is retired AF LTC Robert G. Moore, an ace from the Korean War, and who once flew solo with the Thunderbirds in the early ’60s. I bought this rifle from him together with his family ’73 Winchester (.44-40 with deluxe wood and heavy barrel), when he was about to move into a smaller home with his daughter – both at a price which was much less than I offered him for the pair, and which made them more-or-less a gift.
I’ve known him for years, and cannot doubt that he told me the facts as he knows them.
Which leaves me to wonder : ‘how did that happen?’.
mhb – Mike
Mike,
The only thing I can guess is your questioning if he could of bought them new? That is real simple. Just check the guns date of manufacture using the Resources tab above and compare that to his age.
I did verify he did fly solo for the Thunderbirds 1962-63.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
November 5, 2014
Offline
Mike
I would certainly not question anyone’s integrity, at least where money is NOT involved.
The >120K serial number of your rifle (1949 S/N application date) would place it among the last of the cloverleaf tang long actions to be used in production – a good 1-2 years after the standard length actions had switched over to oval tang (circa S/N 90K). The 1950 barrel date would suggest that year of assembly.
Perhaps the original stock was damaged early in the rifle’s life, and a replacement was ordered from Winchester without specification as to the tang. I believe that finished replacement stocks could be ordered from parts inventory, and Winchester did not discriminate by Part No. whether a stock was for cloverleaf or oval tang. If the tang was not specified in the order, the “wrong” stock may have been shipped, and whoever did the repair was perhaps more concerned with practicality than aesthetics (????).
Is it possible the “new” gun your friend purchased in Alaska was, in fact, “lightly used” with a replacement stock ordered from Winchester?
BTW… for my curiosity if you don’t mind. Is the 1950 barrel marked “375 H&H MAGNUM” or “375 MAGNUM”? I think 1950 was the year they introduced the “type 3C” one-piece roll marking dies that included the caliber designation, and that was when they added the “H&H” to the “MAGNUM” designation. So it could be either way…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks for the responses!
First; I should apologize for having started a new thread – I intended to respond to iskra in the original one.
I have no doubt that Mr. Moore bought the .375 when he said he did: he became an ace in the Korean War. The 1873 was made in 1891, and was inherited by him from his family. And my only question concerned the apparent mismatch between the cloverleaf tanged action and the oval inletted stock, which might arguably have been factory original due to the date of manufacture.
The .375 barrel is marked ‘.375 Magnum’. The rifle is, without exaggeration, nearly brand-new: there is not a mark or any sign of wear on the metal, and only a couple of really small dings on the wood, which retains all of its original finish – the red rubber recoil pad is still soft.
I had previously looked-up Mr. Moore’s membership in the Thunderbirds (the AF demonstration team). And, FWIW, there is an interesting piece of film (which I have seen) of him and his wingman on one of their sorties north of the Yalu: they bounce a MIG on takeoff from the Chinese field, and Mr. Moore shoots him down; the footage from his wingman’s gun cameras recording the incident.
I cannot help but believe that the rifle is just as it was purchased – but it is certainly unusual, and I would very much like to know if it is one of a group of similar (known correct) mismatched rifles of the same vintage, or possibly a unique factory oddity. Of course, at this late date, I have to acknowledge that the stock MAY have been replaced, though that would have had to occur before Mr. Moore purchased the rifle, and, considering the overall condition of the piece, would also be hard to explain.
mhb – Mike
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Mike-
Really does sound like a neat/interesting rifle. (As iskra said) I’d like to have it myself – I just couldn’t convince myself it was factory original. Please understand I do not doubt LTC Moore (or you) for a second. I’d be proud to know the man!!!
Do not consider WACA members (like me) to be negativist snobs who thrive on ‘putting down’ other people. There is a tremendous amount of genuine and well meaning expertise here. If you are a historian and collect Winchesters you should consider becoming a member.
What iskra said about ‘buy the gun – not the story’ is a lesson many of us have learned first hand (and often at significant personal expense). People of all levels of experience frequent this website, and there are many unscrupulous individuals out there who would misrepresent an item for money. (If you don’t believe me try shopping for an ‘original’ M70 on GunBroker.com). So for many guests the advice ‘caveat emptor’ is just a well meaning ‘head’s up’ – not a personal aspersion.
This is fun, after all!!!
Cheers,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Lou:
No one who has responded to my query thusfar has said anything to hurt my feelings. I knew when I posted originally that the question was, at best, esoteric, and that there might not be a definitive answer, either way. But I posted it here because I considered that it would be one of the best places to tap-into the sort of specific Winchester expertise and experience available.
I do consider myself a minor historian of firearms (at least, a serious student), and have owned a fairly wide selection of Winchester arms over the last 50 years or so. But my primary interest is U.S. military small arms, though I do admit that my very favorite sporting rifle is the Winchester Single Shot. I do own a fair number of Model 70s, but they are among my using rifles, not collector’s items, per-se. I have another .375 (a somewhat worn, very ordinary early-mid ’50s rifle I acquired in Bangkok – together with a .30-06 Super Grade of the same vintage), and that is a shooter, too. I have never (yet) fired the subject rifle, though the temptation is strong. And there is a pretty nice 4-digit pre-war .30-06 lying in pieces on my workbench and in a cigar box (for more than 10 years!), waiting among my ‘someday’ projects.
I have at times over the years known real experts on the Model 70 (Ray Rinehart was a friend and neighbor in my hometown of Arlington, Texas), but, sadly, they are no longer available for consultation…
Truly, I cannot call myself a ‘collector’ in the traditional sense, because I have always been as interested in the mechanical function, design and actual performance of the arms themselves: I do not want anything I cannot shoot, and that includes the earliest-dated item in my ‘accumulation’: a J. Probin officer’s flintlock duelling pistol of the 1780s.
The ‘caveat emptor’ principle is certainly universally applicable across the spectrum in gun collecting, and bears repeating as often as seems necessary.
It is fun (why do it otherwise?), but there are always new questions, odd specimens, apparent conundrums, to keep us scratching our heads and reaching-out to those with specific expertise for help, as well as sharing whatever we have learned, to the improvement of the community knowledge base. And mine is another one… sigh.
Thanks again!
mhb – Mike
O.K. I appreciate the input provided so far – but there is, as yet, no answer to my original question; and I realize there may not be one available.
I am still hoping for some definitive information – positive or negative.
So: is there a current guru on the Model 70 (and acknowledging that those who have responded already may hold that distinction) who may have a definite answer, and, if so, who might that be, and how do I contact that person?
Ever hopeful:
mhb – Mike
winchesterbob:
I appreciate the offer, but, as a guest, it appears that I cannot PM you directly. Could you please pass the info to me via e-mail?
Thanks;
mhb – Mike – [email protected]
mhb said
winchesterbob:
I appreciate the offer, but, as a guest, it appears that I cannot PM you directly. Could you please pass the info to me via e-mail?
Thanks;
mhb – Mike – [email protected]
Mike,
There is an easy way to solve this… register or sign-up as a WACA member.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert:
I would have done so earlier, but, since I had only visited this particular forum, which page does not have an option for registration, I didn’t know how to accomplish it.
I have since visited the home page and followed the procedure there, so am now registered.
Apologies for the confusion.
mhb – Mike
Mike, no disrespect intended to you, your seller or… if it’s possible to ‘dis’ a gun, to yours!
Observing your in-depth knowledge of pre ’64 Win 70 characteristics but unknown whether that an experienced take or just a focused quick study. My ‘seller’ comment not to impugn anyone, just playing off the “original seller” remark, a point which you raised. That a seemingly logical nexus to a seller ‘originality’ representation. Further, without more, logically assuming a casual sale transaction relationship rather than postulating an underlying lifelong friendship.
The ‘gun buying’ admonishment I recited, applicable whether novice or veteran purchaser! One thing to knowledgeably recognize and assess purchase risks. Another entirely to walk blindly into transactions! Now obviously to understand that you knew what you were doing. Yet that fact not necessarily assumable from your purchase scenario as first presented.
As to my substantive conclusions, just no apology possible. If nothing else, Occam’s Razor in application there. Yet more. Such in the belief the Winchester Firm of that era would not likely subject their dealers to putting a product with such as even minor compromise as described on shelves. Save a few bucks on some rifles and possibly compromise the firm’s reputation! Just not a likely ‘risk’ scenario!
Similar doubt the factory would have undertaken such a repair. Were the rifle under warranty claim, likely a new one to be offered if a quality repair couldn’t be achieved. Afterward simply to defer to outside repairs. What percentage persuasive of the factory buying into such a repair scenario? And in all this, the essential predicate assumption that there was no residual supplies of original stocks remaining!
Alternative theories to a simple post factory stock adaptation both unduly convoluted and unlikely. While again concluding ‘never say never’, yet still needing a lot of persuasive evidence nowhere apparent in adopting the ‘factory work’ scenario.
Again…
Just my take
iskra:
No offense taken. I really do appreciate all the responses received.
I don’t have an emotional investment in the issue: just a sharp curiosity, piqued by the nature of the item, itself.
Because this particular rifle is one of the very last of the cloverleaf-tanged types, issued well after the changeover in stocks occurred, I cannot help but wonder about the possibility that it was actually assembled and shipped that way. And that is why I have presented the question where I hoped specific information on the point might be found.
It may be that the question is unanswerable, at this late date, but I have to hope that someone knows….
mhb – Mike
mhb-
Consider this: The gunstore in Alaska damaged the original new stock and replaced it the best they could as quickly as they could. Could have been switched from another rifle in stock, etc. Could have developed a crack in shipping. Oops we order the wrong part from CT to AK has a different meaning in 1940’s and 50’s than today. It could be as simple as that.
I fully accept iskra’s opinion that the mistake is unacceptable to Winchester in that era. In the early 1960’s, in my opinion, that may have been a different story. One thing I have learned from the guy’s on this site is (I am paraphrasing) “if you don’t know the original owner personally and know that the rifle has never been out their possession, then buyer beware”. Sounds like you have that covered with your relationship with the original owner. The weak link in the chain would have to be at the AK gunshop.
It is a shame there was not in-depth interviews with the guy who sat in the booths and assembled these rifles at Winchester.
Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.
FLT:
Thanks for the input: I had actually considered that possibility, but, like others, there is no way to verify or eliminate it.
It is a stretch, and I do not believe that Winchester would normally have made such a mismatch, but the very late date of the rifle makes it at least a faint possibility. And that is why I’ve asked for information from anyone specifically familiar with rifles of the same type and vintage.
Then, too, I’ve personally seen rifles of various makes come right out of the factory box with even odder ‘features’, some of them making the piece physically impossible to fire, whereas this rifle is a cosmetic, not a functional oddity.
I did speak with Randy Shuman, and he stated that he had never seen or heard of another similar mismatch, but would not rule it out, so I’m pretty much still wondering…
Thanks, all!
mhb – Mike
1 Guest(s)
