Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Trying to find more information about a rifle I recently picked up. A model 54 carbine chambered in 35-whelen. Under barrel is marked M.N.S 35W Triangle and 27. Any help or information where to look for more details would be appreciated.
Are there caliber markings on top of the barrel? Standard Winchester barrel address?
The factory chambering of the .35 Whelen in the Winchester M54 rifle is mentioned here. They note it was the first time a factory rifle was chambered in a wildcat cartridge:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-timeless-winchester-model-54/
In reading David’s book on 54 he states the 35 calibre barrels were from 9/mm stock ,carbines first introduction was 1927,9mm added in 1928 Tom
Yes caliber marking (35 WHELEN) is present on the barrel as well. Barrel has all standard Winchester proofs and roll marks. All stock, barrel, and sight measurements match up to factory specs mentioned in the Model 54 book. Im wondering the discrepancy in marking could be the 9MM wasn’t released till the following year in the 54.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Wyatt-
Quite a find, had no idea the 54 was chambered for this cartridge. Thank you, Steve, for the cite. I recently sold one of two hunting rifles chambered for that cartridge. Nothing in Texas needs that much killing, I’ll keep my old re-chambered Winchester 670 just in case I’m wrong. OTOH a Model 54 in 35 Whelen reminds me of a saying some like-minded Texans coined; “One can’t have too many hog guns”.
I hope you’ll join WACA, Wyatt. I think you’ll fit right in.
Mike
Online
TXGunNut said
Wyatt-Quite a find, had no idea the 54 was chambered for this cartridge. Thank you, Steve, for the cite. I recently sold one of two hunting rifles chambered for that cartridge. Nothing in Texas needs that much killing, I’ll keep my old re-chambered Winchester 670 just in case I’m wrong. OTOH a Model 54 in 35 Whelen reminds me of a saying some like-minded Texans coined; “One can’t have too many hog guns”.
I hope you’ll join WACA, Wyatt. I think you’ll fit right in.
Mike
I have a custom rifle built on a Model 98 Mauser action in .35 Whelen Improved. It is a very fine cartridge.
happy to upload images, any instructions on how to do so would be greatly appreciated!
Wyatt said
happy to upload images, any instructions on how to do so would be greatly appreciated!
Wyatt,
Only full (paid) WACA members can directly upload pictures to our website. As a “Guest” member on the WACA website, you must first upload your pictures to a photo hosting website, and then post the URL to the internet location where you have them stored. We do this to help prevent the Spammers of the world from posting filth and junk pictures on our servers. I can readily block or delete any illicit internet links that the Spammers/Scammers try to post.
Bert – Admin
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Wyatt said
happy to upload images, any instructions on how to do so would be greatly appreciated!
Wyatt,
Only full (paid) WACA members can directly upload pictures to our website. As a “Guest” member on the WACA website, you must first upload your pictures to a photo hosting website, and then post the URL to the internet location where you have them stored. We do this to help prevent the Spammers of the world from posting filth and junk pictures on our servers. I can readily block or delete any illicit internet links that the Spammers/Scammers try to post.
Bert – Admin
Hi Bert, thank you for the help/info! Happy to join the WACA. Wyatt
Wyatt, some former owner had the good sense to add the Lyman #48 rcvr sight. 48s were a factory option, but this particular one is a later variation of the one that was available at the time this 54 was built. Surprising that original rear sight, a folding 2-leaf sight that folded down flat against the brl, was removed, as it wouldn’t have obstructed sight-line from the 48. I particularly like the early 54s with grooved fore-end.
Why such a disparity between the receiver bluing and the barrel? Educate me please.
Steven Gabrielli said
Why such a disparity between the receiver bluing and the barrel? Educate me please.
Often it’s because brl is rust-blued while rcvr is machine-blued (charcoal-blued), a process not nearly as durable as rust-bluing. Same diff in finish VERY common on 52s produced in ’20s & ’30s. On this particular gun, the disparity is more pronounced than is usually seen. Could that mean it’s been rebarreled? Like to hear Lou’s opinion.
Ah thanks Clarence my fellow NYer. I’d like to hear from Lou also. It raised a flag on my end, but hey I’m still learning.
Steven Gabrielli said
Ah thanks Clarence my fellow NYer. I’d like to hear from Lou also. It raised a flag on my end, but hey I’m still learning.
Not Lou, but I will offer this…
Clarence is correct line in his of thought concerning why the bluing looks different on the receiver versus the barrel, but not on the exact bluing type. However, it is my belief that the Model 70 receiver frames were Du-Lite solution blued from day one of production, and if not from day one, it was very shortly thereafter. The Model 52 receiver frames manufactured in the 1920s and early to mid 1930s were indeed “machine” blued.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
