Winchester Collector - Forum: Winchester Rifles

Louis Luttrell on 1955 Model 70 30-06 Standard Low Comb

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 21:51:31 +0000

Hi TW56-

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

TW56 on 1955 Model 70 30-06 Standard Low Comb

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 20:51:05 +0000

I had aways looked at pre-64 Model 70's while in college in the 1970's. I finally traded into one a few years ago.

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?

View post on imgur.com

kevindpm61 on 94 deluxe on GB

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 17:50:13 +0000

The butt plate fit caught my eye right away.

Bert H. on Model 1895 Sling Swivels

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 17:36:07 +0000

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

george@georgeamlott.com on 94 deluxe on GB

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 17:29:48 +0000

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.

twobit on 94 deluxe on GB

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 16:10:28 +0000

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

King Medallion on 94 deluxe on GB

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:01:02 +0000

The wood to metal fit isn't very good, looks like to me. Replacement wood I'd bet. Still a beauty.

Henry Mero on 94 deluxe on GB

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 13:52:38 +0000

Going by the pictures it looks as though the stocks,especially the butt stock, are replacements, at the very least "refinished". However , nowhere did I read the seller describing them as original to the gun or original finish. Just My take on it,and I'm not good at interpriting pictures.

helidriver72 on Model 1895 Sling Swivels

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 13:42:56 +0000

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.

helidriver72 on 94 deluxe on GB

Mon, 05 Oct 2026 13:37:04 +0000

https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/1209538792

stocks look refinished and checkering recut to me but I wanted your guys opinion?

Green River Gus on Model 1895 Sling Swivels

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 22:29:44 +0000

Thanks Bert!

Bert H. on Model 1895 Sling Swivels

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 21:28:12 +0000

Gus,

The sling eyes are definitely aftermarket additions.

Bert

Bryan Austin on The Doc Pardee Club, still looking for....

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 20:06:11 +0000

steve004 said

Bryan Austin said

steve004 said
I see the Remington-Keene is on the above list?


That is correct. If you have one, or have an original conversion to 44-40 (for whatever reason)....it is a custom. I have no idea why...but it is what it is...according to Lyman's 49th. I have never seen evidence of one.


Interesting. I do have a Remington-Keene, and as to chambering, it is simply (factory) marked ".433". I wouldn't doubt some of my various .44-40's have a bore diameter that mics to .433, however my Keene is in fact a .43 Spanish. I have never heard of one in .44-40. Given the other chamberings in the Keene were .45-70 and .40-65, I have difficulty picturing how one could be converted to .44-40. But if there is one, I'd love to see it.

That would be my thinking as well. If I had to convert one, I think there are better choices than the 44-40.

Green River Gus on Model 1895 Sling Swivels

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 19:20:11 +0000

Bert,

I misread the factory letter. It wasn't returned to the factory for the buttplate conversion. It was done before it left the factory. See attached photo.

Thanks,

Gus

Green River Gus on Model 1895 Sling Swivels

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 19:12:05 +0000

Bert,

The measurement from the crescent butt plate to the center of the sling eye is 6-3/8". There are marks stamped into the underside of the barrel (see photos). Underneath the flat v-type carrier spring is stamped a small heart, a small triangle, the letters NS (nickel steel?), the number "3", and a capital letter "H".

Thanks,

Gus