Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
clarence said
Bert H. said 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.
But this is not a Model 70.
True, but it is a late production Model 54, and Winchester most likely used the same finishing process for the late production (parts clean-up) Model 54s as they did on the Model 70s.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
So under Bert’s hypothesis, if this late production 54 rcvr was Du-lite solution blued, the rcvr should not be that faded compared to the barrel?
Steven Gabrielli said
So under Bert’s hypothesis, if this late production 54 rcvr was Du-lite solution blued, the rcvr should not be that faded compared to the barrel?
Steve,
The Du-lite bluing was a much softer color than the older machine bluing. Take a look at the early Model 70s for an example.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Online
Steven Gabrielli said
So under Bert’s hypothesis, if this late production 54 rcvr was Du-lite solution blued, the rcvr should not be that faded compared to the barrel?
IF it was Dulite blued, it must have been exposed to a sand-storm to have lost so much of its original finish.
Ok got it thx. I forgot the serial number was blurred out for some reason, so I really don’t even know when this 54 was made.
Ha, funny confidence. But yes, barrel and action both date to 27. The Bolt is also matched to action.
Wyatt said
Ha, funny confidence. But yes, barrel and action both date to 27. The Bolt is also matched to action.
My mistake… for some reason I was thought it was a mid 1930s rifle. My Model 54 rifle (.30 GOV’T 06) is also a 1927 production rifle, and the bluing on it looks nearly identical to your rifle. That stated, it does not look the same as the machine blued lever-action rifles that were manufactured in the mid to late 1920s.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Are there any other known examples of 35 Whelen under barrel and caliber stamps on a factory Winchester barrel?
Tedk said
Are there any other known examples of 35 Whelen under barrel and caliber stamps on a factory Winchester barrel?
TedK
yes, in the Rule book there is a 35 Whelen, # 35,117A (1931), Yearout Rifle that’s stamped 9mm underneath. However, I believe the 9mm was released in 28. Which makes me believe a barrel prior to that wouldn’t have bore the 9mm marking.
Other examples in the 54 book were later short rifles but had no mention of under barrel markings. I’ve added a picture of the earliest 35 whelen mentioned in the 54 book. Again though, no mention of under barrel markings sadly.
Wyatt
I was reviewing Loyd Thomsen’s April 2009, “The Forgotten 54” article in the Spring, 2009 WACA magazine. Sadly, he doesn’t make mention of the .35 Whelen. Interestingly, Loyd is a collector who owned a good number of M54’s, including special order rifles in .219 Zipper, .25-20, .25-35, .32 Special, .38-55 and others. He also references .300 Savage, .303 British and .30-40 Krag.
I suspect the .35 Whelen, or any of the cartridges I listed above, were never mentioned in any Winchester literature or catalog as available in the Model 54.
By the way, the .25-20 is the most intriguing to me. Mainly because of the extent to which the action would need to be modified. It must have been one important customer for Winchester to agree to that order!
The Bichrest book on page 136 list Carbine 7344 as .35 Whelen special order barrel dated 1925. We could use the sn of the carbine of the OP for the record.
Hi All-
I had to take a quick “walking tour” around the gun room before posting a response. I’ll try posting a photo of M54 1st standard rifle S/N 37315A. This one, circa 1931, is later than Wyatt’s rifle. It’s a 30 WCF in very high condition with what I believe to be original finishes.
I think that the similarities with Wyatt’s rifle will come across. One curious point is that the M54 receivers were bead blasted (hence the “dull” finish) while early M70s were not.
As for bluing methods… It is my understanding (and something that gave me another reason for walking around the room this afternoon comparing serial numbers and finishes) that pre-war M54 and M70 BARRELS were acid rust blued. The RECEIVERS differ in appearance b/c the M54 receivers were bead blasted and the (early) M70 receivers were polished. As for the bluing technique involved, I think that prior to 1939 M54/70 parts (that were not barrels) were machine blued (carbonum or bone charcoal). It would look quite different on a bead blasted receiver than a polished one. The charcoal blue is a big reason why the bottom metal on both M54s and early M70s is usually “brown”. The finish just didn’t hold up well on the bottom metal steel alloy used in either.
I believe that the change to hot salt immersion blue for M70 parts (other than barrels), occurred around S/N 20,500 (1939). This is when/why the factory went back to bead blasting M70 receivers (customer complaints about glare may have been another)…
Hope this helps…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
I believe that the change to hot salt immersion blue for M70 parts (other than barrels), occurred around S/N 20,500 (1939). This is when/why the factory went back to bead blasting M70 receivers (customer complaints about glare may have been another)…
Lou, I have a ’39 (24408) that appears to me to have a polished rcvr., though by no means polished to a “glare.” Strong blue & very little diff in appearance from the rust-blued brl. If it was bead-blasted, it bears no resemblance to your 54 above.
Hi Clarence-
I’ve no doubt you are correct (and so is your rifle)… 
These changeover dates are “approximate”… Winchester never specifically advertised such “minor” changes so they’re largely based on “observation”… In putting together my reply above I didn’t even consult the survey, just quoted Rule’s book… Unless the survey is off-base, the big changeover in receiver finishes (according to the survey) was in the 23,000-24,000 range… Not to say Roger is wrong exactly… He makes a point of saying that the dates/serial numbers he gives are the earliest that a new feature appeared…
It’s also true that sometimes a very “light hand” seems to have been used when bead blasting. I have one, S/N 50821, that to my eye looks polished (and not reblued)… Maybe the guy on the assembly line was in a hurry to get to lunch that day??? 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
It’s also true that sometimes a very “light hand” seems to have been used when bead blasting. I have one, S/N 50821, that to my eye looks polished (and not reblued)… Maybe the guy on the assembly line was in a hurry to get to lunch that day???
If so, I’m glad of it! Don’t fancy that heavily “blasted” surface.
Hi Clarence-
Aesthetically, I agree…
My favorite M70s are the type I-1 through I-3 receivers with polished charcoal blue. Despite having been applied by a very different method, the blue on those receivers looks very much like the “soft” blue on the (rust blued) barrels.
It’s one reason why my relatively modest M70 collection is disproportionately is composed of pre-war guns. You know… The ones you don’t like b/c the bridge was not factory D&T for a scope mount…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said It’s one reason why my relatively modest M70 collection is disproportionately is composed of pre-war guns. You know… The ones you don’t like b/c the bridge was not factory D&T for a scope mount…
The pre-wars are virtually the ONLY ones I care for; I don’t hold the short-sighted stupidity of Win execs against them.
1 Guest(s)
