Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
It’s amusing how much this forum can affect my behavior. Now, every time I spot a M71 at a show or in a shop, I’m going to be closely looking at the serial number and thinking about all the points that have been made.
Austinsguns said
mrcvs said
With regards the rifle presented by the OP to critique, if you have looked at enough of these, it’s apparent, in addition to the lack of haloes surrounding the serial number that it has been reblued for the following reasons:
1. The hue of the bluing is slightly different from that typical of the era;
2. The mirror finish and overall quality of the polishing and other finish work exceeds that produced by Winchester and the typical marks produced by Winchester are absent. In other words, too much effort was used to make this one seem original.
Regarding the finish comment… You must not spend much time around high condition 71s. For reasons unknown later in production they were polished finer like the model 61s and model 62s, not course like 94s, 64s and 63s… And yes there is a difference in polish between models. The finer polish was almost mirror like with hardly any striations or grain.
I don’t know…maybe so.
I am always suspicious of a firearm that looks too good…
It is usually the case over time with regards to the production of a firearm, or any manufactured object, for that matter, that cost saving measures are instituted, to increase profits, and the quality suffers as a result, and not the reverse.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Zeb-
Thank you for the clarification. What was troubling me was what I understood to be the claim that Model 71 serial numbers were applied AFTER they were blued. Maybe I misunderstood that too??? 😉
My understanding of the manufacturing process as it applies to receivers (any Model), was that the final milled receiver was sent to the polishing room, where it was polished. The serial number was then applied (and presumably a final polishing undertaken to remove the “craters” caused by the stamping process), after which they were sent out for bluing. Never to return… This seems similar to the barrel marking process, where barrels received three progressively finer rounds of polishing. The barrel roll marks were applied after the second polishing, and the final polish was done mainly to remove the extruded metal displaced by the roll marking die.
Assuming that the serial number application dates for the Model 71 are from “polishing room” records like other Models, it seems that the process would have to be that M71 receivers were polished in the polishing room, then blued, then returned to the polishing room for serial number application. Again, maybe I misunderstood what Bert has said/written. 
But that process (two trips through the polishing room) makes little sense to me, especially given that receivers for other Models were not processed that way.
OTOH I could easily understand that on Model 71 receivers the final (post SNA) polishing was either cursory or omitted entirely, leaving “cratered metal” that turns into “halos” with even modest handling. That’s what the nice photo you posted looks like to me. The depths of the serial number impression as well as the cratered metal surrounding it are blue like the rest of the receiver, i.e. the serial number, albeit a poorly polished one, was applied before the receiver left the polishing room for bluing. What am I missing/misunderstanding???
As for the claim that later production M71 receivers received a better (finer and more thorough) final polish than earlier production, I have no basis for comment. Winchester did make some cosmetic changes to “flagship” Models in the mid-1950s, presumably to distinguish them from the more plebeian product… 
For example engine turning M70 bolt components and returning to rust blue on Super Grades… Maybe there was a (marketing) decision to elevate the finish quality of the Model 71 (to boost sales)???
Just my muddled take…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I’m not sufficiently experienced — haven’t seen enough Model 71 specimens — to have an opinion on finish originality. However, I have had a lot of experience and schooling in the art and science of photography over more than 65 years, to the extent I’ve sometimes made some money at it. That experience includes the art and science of lighting, natural and artificial.
The foregoing enables me to opine photographs purporting to illustrate “condition”, high or otherwise, of polished steel are subject to misinterpretation because of the vastly different resulting images that come from altering the lighting of the subject. Trying to judge the level of reflectivity, the color of a finish, or the existence and nature of underlying tool marks, from a photograph, is hazardous and no reputable courtroom expert marks examiner will do it, unless he or she did the photography and only then to illustrate an opinion. Actual examination will always be of the actual object, albeit at many diameters of magnification.
It was impossible enough before digital photography and manipulation software that can make a week-old corpse dragged from the river look like a movie star on his wedding day.
Given that nobody [except you, Lou] seems to be arguing any putatively original condition Model 71 specimens with serials below about 40, 000 were serialized before bluing, we should be able to [perhaps] conclude that post-finish serial marking was the original method prescribed and practiced in the factory for the Model 71.
There are two ways (that I know of) to conclusively determine whether post-40000 specimens in high condition without evidence of serials rollmarked through the blue, wear an original finish.
First, produce a factory document that evidences a change of process for the Model 71, from that model’s production file, intra-factory correspondence, or some other written evidence tending to show a change.
Alternatively, submit two specimens to a mutually agreed scientific marks examination lab for non-destructive testing to determine (a) the finishing/marking sequence of the OP’s specimen; and (b) the originality of the finish of the OP’s specimen by comparing it to a Comparison specimen.
The OP’s specimen will be one the OP asserts wears a high condition, original finish and also asserts it shows no evidence of its serial being rollmarked through the blue.
The Comparative specimen will be one mutually agreed to be a high condition, original finish specimen showing clear evidence of its serial having been rollmarked though the bluing.
As my German friends say, God is in the details, not least of which is who pays for the lab work and report.
Your friend,
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Online
Here’s a pretty late model 71. Looks like the serial number was applied after being blued on this one as well.
Don
deerhunter said
Here’s a pretty late model 71. Looks like the serial number was applied after being blued on this one as well.Don
Thanks but not a high enough serial number for my wacky thoery. I have a lot in that range in my past photos, all were stamped after bluing.
Austin, do you think the cutoff is 40K and above?
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Austinsguns said
Bert H. said
I borrowed one of Austin’s pictures, edited it a bit (cropped it to make it a bit larger and easier to see), and have put it with one of my photos.
Austin’s picture is S/N 45834, and my picture is S/N 45845 (just 11 digits later). Take note that the periphery of the numerals on 45834 are soft and slightly rounded (specifically on the “5” digit and the “4” digit). This is the evidence that the receiver frame was lightly buffed and then reblued.
On S/N 45845, the hallowing surrounding each digit in the serial number is clearly evident. Based on the condition of S/N 45845, it is clearly evident that it has not been refinished.
Bert, I do not see any more rounding of the letters than your example 45845. In fact, your example is so worn that it can hardly be a comparison. I see raised metal from stamping on both examples with metal deformation, and one with lots of wear on said raised metal. How can you say that when your example was 97-98% condition, it did not look like my example 45834? The reason I posted all of these photos is to show the big picture… A really honest high condition 71 rifle. Had I not shown you the close up of ther serial number, you likely would have said it was original finish. (I know, I cannot speak for anyone). And in hand these look even better. Pictues only go so far. I am waiting to find a minty late rifle with the “common” halo/flaking/burnishing seen on serial numbers stamped after bluing, But I have not come accross one. And thats the trend I have seen and why I brought this up. I could be way off on this!
No, we cannot say anything for certain… I am just giving my opinion. This is a forum.
The picture of s/n 45845 that I posted most certainly can be used as a valid comparison, as it clearly shows the halos. Unless I am misunderstanding what your position is, you are of the stated opinion that s/n 45834 was first stamped, then polished, and then lastly blued, thereby eliminating the halos around each digit of the serial number. My example picture just (11) digits later than your example (and most likely serialized on the exact same day, and possibly within the same hour as 45834), clearly shows the halos resulting from being stamped (serialized) after the receiver was blued. That leads to the conclusion that Winchester did not change their manufacture process sequence at least through serial number 45845 (or in other terms, just 1,409 Model 71s before production ended). Based on my current estimate, s/n 45845 was applied in December 1956.
Regardless of when I would have first seen serial number 45834, I would not have ever “said it was original finish”.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Zebulon said
Austin, do you think the cutoff is 40K and above?
The “cut-off” (if it existed) would have to be > 45845.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
That’s cold. Doesnt mean it’s not true. Sadly, nobody seems to want to sign up for my suggested resolution.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
I’m fascinated by this discussion due to the ramifications with essentially all old Winchesters and they question of ‘originality’.
To be certain, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I have a 71 which I’ve always assumed to be all original, but it is much earlier than the serial number ranges being discussed here, and therefore irrelevant to the current discussion. Now to my point and question:
The OP states in his initial post that several observers, including someone at Turnbull, believes the 71 in question to have been ‘reblued. OP further states that he knows that this is not the case. So– what can you offer as a convincing argument or evidence that this 71 absolutely has not been reblued? That should sway this discussion.
Nevada Paul
Life Member NRA
All this makes me wonder about my 71 too. I bought it at a very decent price advertised as an “older refinish” ….
It’s an older serial number though so I’m sure it IS a refinish, but man, it speaks to the quality job that some can do! It’s not a bright, shiny jet black blue, it has a tinge of original-style colored bluing to it.
It is possible to duplicate wood and metal finishes on late model 71’s. The problem with the restore is duplicating all the machine marks including internal mill and chatter marks. If the gun is still mint the cuts in metal and wood have to be unworn. This can be inspected by some disassembly. A Winchester is a big gun and it would be cost prohibited to duplicate factory cuts. I believe if you have the gun in your hand a trained eye can tell if it’s original. The problem is if the gun has been used to a point where it shows wear. A time capsule gun should not be a problem telling originality, but a well used gun would be.
If you can get a mint original gun in your hands take the time to study it. A big gun show is worth the cost of admission. Pictures only show you what the seller wants you to see and can be played with. T/R
We will have to agree to disagree for now. I still see a trend and will continue to document.
I have not thoroughly read all of the replies but did anyone mention the plausibility that maybe these guns were finished, stamped and then somehow damaged? Requiring disassembly and subsequent polishing and re-bluing at the factory? Maybe a new employee came on board after 40,000 and had butter fingers?
I ask this because I posses a 9410 that my late father bought new. He waited for the shop to call him when his order was in and was given the choice of three to pick from. He picked the one he liked the most. Called me when he got home to check it out. It wasn’t until years later that I noticed the subtle but obvious difference in the finish between the forend and the butt stock. I can assure you this gun had never seen another owner besides Winchester. If you were to be offered this for sale there is no way you would pay for an original 9410.
Ryan
78CJ said
I have not thoroughly read all of the replies but did anyone mention the plausibility that maybe these guns were finished, stamped and then somehow damaged? Requiring disassembly and subsequent polishing and re-bluing at the factory? Maybe a new employee came on board after 40,000 and had butter fingers?I ask this because I posses a 9410 that my late father bought new. He waited for the shop to call him when his order was in and was given the choice of three to pick from. He picked the one he liked the most. Called me when he got home to check it out. It wasn’t until years later that I noticed the subtle but obvious difference in the finish between the forend and the butt stock. I can assure you this gun had never seen another owner besides Winchester. If you were to be offered this for sale there is no way you would pay for an original 9410.
Ryan
Ryan,
In answer to your first question, No, it is extremely unlikely that all of the post 40,000 serial numbered Model 71s were “somehow damaged” and subsequently disassembles and refinished.
It is an apples vs. oranges comparison between a 1950s production Winchester Model 71 and a U.S. Repeating Arms company manufactured Model 9410 (in the years 2001 – 2006).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert,
I don’t believe it is apples and oranges. It’s an example of a company that obviously wasn’t going to scrap an entire firearm because of a correctable flaw.
Do you believe that 1950’s Winchester would have tossed entire receivers if there had been an easily correctable flaw? I am not saying “all” of the post 40,000 receivers were damaged, you yourself posted a clear example of one that did not.
Ryan
78CJ said
Bert,I don’t believe it is apples and oranges. It’s an example of a company that obviously wasn’t going to scrap an entire firearm because of a correctable flaw.
Do you believe that 1950’s Winchester would have tossed entire receivers if there had been an easily correctable flaw? I am not saying “all” of the post 40,000 receivers were damaged, you yourself posted a clear example of one that did not.
Ryan
Ryan,
I guess I wasn’t clear enough in my first reply to you so I will restate it… it is extremely doubtful that Winchester employees manufactured and then somehow damaged the receiver frames on any Model 71 rifles, and more specifically, on just the late production specimens. If any flaws or mistakes had occurred, they would have been detected during the multiple inspections prior to the serial number being applied (the last step in the process).
In answer to your second question, No, I do not believe that Winchester would have scrapped any parts with a correctable flaw. That stated, it is my belief that by the time that Winchester had reached serial number 40,000+, all machining & production processes and steps had been well established and free of any issues. Winchester’s employees were highly skilled and well trained. That does not mean that a rare error did not occur, but the incident rate of such errors was undoubtedly extremely low. The OP of this topic string is opining that most of the late production Model 71 rifles are the same as the one he specifically posted photos of.
Last comment. It certainly is an “apples & oranges” comparison between the Model 71 and a Model 9410.
Do you understand that there is a 50-year difference in the production period between to the two models, and that the Model 9410 was not manufactured by Winchester or by the same people who manufactured & assembled the Model 71?
Further, in the early/mid 1950s, modern CNC machining did not yet exist. When the Model 9410 was manufactured (in the years 2001 – 2006) CNC machining was standard. In the 1950s, serial numbers were stamped (impressed) into the steel. In the years 2001+, the serial numbers were machined into the steel. The entire production process for the U.S.R.A.Co. manufactured Model 9410 was vastly different than it was for the original Winchester Model 71.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert,
Let me start by saying, whether or not this possibility could be authenticated no matter what I could not buy any of the guns Austin presented in their current form. Simply because they clearly exhibit polishing after the SN was applied and that is always a red flag of a refinish.
That said, I am obviously aware of the manufacturing changes that occurred from the 50’s to the 2000’s and while I realize you are curt in your response it seems a little pointed. You are clearly missing the point I am trying to make in that manufacturers are going to try and salvage whatever time and resources in getting their product to market. The fact that you dismiss Austins theory of what, 5 or 6, out of hand without even considering it is in my opinion short sighted in that none of us have any idea what was taking place in the factory at that time.
Ryan
1 Guest(s)
