Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I have a model 54 carbine in 30-06 with a 51XXX – A serial number. As this is past last number listed, any info would be appreciated.
Online
Victorian Shooter said
I have a model 54 carbine in 30-06 with a 51XXX – A serial number. As this is past last number listed, any info would be appreciated.
It was assembled during the “parts clean-up” production period from 1936 – 1941. Have you checked the 2-digit year number stamped on the bottom of the barrel yet?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
The two digit under the barrel is 33, which I assume means barrel was made in 1933. Any idea what the A following the serial number is?
Thanks JOHN
Victorian Shooter said
The two digit under the barrel is 33, which I assume means barrel was made in 1933. Any idea what the A following the serial number is?
Thanks JOHN
Yes, the barrel was manufactured in 1933. I do not remember off the top of my head what the “A” signifies, but can tell you that it was related to a specific change Winchester incorporated to the bolt or action of the Model 54. Hopefully Lou sees this topic and answers this question for you.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi John-
While I am far from a M54 expert, the factory began applying the “A” suffix to M54 serial numbers in 1929 around S/N 21,000, to denote a design change to the extractor. Since subsequent parts catalogs asked the purchaser of a replacement extractor to denote whether there was an “A” on the receiver, I suppose there must have been some functional difference between the two extractors that made them not interchangeable???
I’m sure David Bichrest could provide a clearer answer… 
BTW… Given the late serial number and ’33 barrel date, I am presuming that your M54 is what they called the “NRA Short Rifle”? This meaning it has a 20″ Winchester Proof Steel barrel with the forged integral front sight ramp and the NRA style stock, similar to the early M70 stock. The CMS barrels started being made in 1932 and can easily be distinguished from the earlier Nickel Steel barrels by the ramp, which on the CMS barrels is an integral ramp that accepts a dovetailed front sight, while the Nickel Steel barrels accepted a pinned front sight blade.
What Winchester called a “Carbine” had a 20″ Nickel Steel barrel paired with an uncheckered stock with finger grooves on the fore end and no sling swivels. The “NRA Short Rifles” are considerably less common than the “Carbines”…
Best, Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks for the info. Mine has finger groove forearm and no sling swivels, guess that makes it a carbine. A Redfield receiver sight and a blank in the boss. Could this be the original sight? If not, what would original sight most likely been?
THANKS AGAIN
JOHN
Victorian Shooter said
Thanks for the info. Mine has finger groove forearm and no sling swivels, guess that makes it a carbine. A Redfield receiver sight and a blank in the boss. Could this be the original sight? If not, what would original sight most likely been?
Lou can tell you more, but esp. on a carbine, the original would probably have been the standard open barrel sight. And if a customer requested a rcvr. sight, Winchester at that time ordinarily mounted a Lyman 48. But no records exist to prove how it left the factory.
Note: Due to the kindness and knowledge of Louis Luttrell, our contributing expert here, I’ve just amended this Post to conform to his understanding which I now share. Essentially, that the “Carbine” was available through 1936 and that apparently marketed in conjunction with the Short Rifle. The single exception apparently in the 30-30 chambering with its unique receiver, which was discontinued in 1930. That, evidentially as “exception proving the rule”. So the corrected vision I now have of the earlier Carbine availability, to ‘assume’ potentially “available” into post-production “component cleanup” era. I have had time this morning to locate and review David Bichrest’s great book specifically on the Model 54 and to which his expertise is also in agreement with Louis’ assessment.
At this juncture, rather than ‘line amendment’ as necessary of my instant Post, I’m simply striking it to create a new Post infra, leaving my photos here intact for reference and adding one or two more there.
Here, a Model 54 Carbine pix: Showing stock & butt plate + early integral front sight. A few photos of the subject rifle would be useful!
Best, Happy New Year and Stay Safe!
John
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi John-
As best I can tell, the M54 carbine (not short rifle) was carried in the catalog as late as 1936. It’s not clear whether they were still being “made” or just kept in the catalog b/c there was unsold inventory, but they were in the catalog along with the NRA Short Rifle until the end. Given the late S/N of your rifle it’s likewise unclear what parts (carbine versus NRA stocks) Winchester might have had lying around to use up on clean-up guns.
It would be interesting to see photos of your rifle. It might be of considerable interest to serious fans of the M54. With the ’33 barrel date I’d expect it to have a Winchester proof steel barrel with integral forged ramp, not the pinned front sight shown in iskra’s post above. You cannot post photos as a guest unless you use a third party hosting site, but if you’d care to share you could e-mail photos to me ([email protected]) and I could post them for you.
As for sights… Speaking of the carbine (not NRA short rifle). Unlike the M54 1st standard and NRA standard/short rifles that could be had with a Lyman 48W receiver sight, the Carbine was not cataloged as available with a receiver sight. Correct barrel sights for the Nickel Steel carbine barrel would be a one standing/one folding leaf Lyman 66W paired with a pinned front sight blade:
However for the integral ramp Winchester Proof Steel barrel (as used on the NRA Short Rifle) the sights were a Win 22G Sporting rear sight and Lyman 31W front sight in the barrel dovetail (like the early M70s):
Since your rifle may be a later production “hybrid” (carbine with CMS barrel) it could go either way. Are there any traces of “elevator tracks” on top of the barrel about 2″ behind the sight dovetail? Those would have been made by the elevator of a Win 22G and provide a clue to the original sights.
Can you identify the Redfield receiver sight currently on the gun? The Redfield 102W and Redfield 100W were certainly contemporary with M54 production (and neither required the stock to be inlet). If you can send a photo I can probably identify it for you.
Hope this helps,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Consuming Crow… By Any Other Name…
I’m back and with some (for me) considerable new information gained! Clued from Louis, confirmed and expanded from David Bichrest’s “Winchester Model 54 Bolt Action Rifle 1925 – 1936”. I’m just going to summarize. The Model 54 Carbine was produced from 1927 to 1936. Such in just the external form pictured in my above photo exemplar and as generally described by member John seeking info. Notably throughout production with very same pattern sights! The “Short Barrel Rifle” (SBR) was produced to order – amazingly – as early as 1927 according to a specimen David depicts with barrel date corroborating. He also describes the SBR as utilizing the same carbine sights but (era) “Standard stock” of the rifle, described to include Schnabel.
Such apparent pattern until the Standard stock itself morphed to the later NRA stock in 1930. From then onward, the SBR also utilizing such standard rifle stock. The CMS barrel perhaps used even earlier on special order basis. In 1934, the SBR became a catalog model, hence to end of production in 1936. I’m left with the inference that the CMS barrel may have arrived and been utilized earlier in the 20″ length. Definitely unclear and subject to further readings in David’s book.
So the net differences between SBR and carbine was that the SBR adapted as barrel sight configuration and stock of the Standard Model rifle morphed. The Carbine Model, plugged right along from ’27 inception to ’36 demise, remaining with the same initial stock and sights configuration throughout. Chamberings in that period paralleled the rifle, particularly the short life of the 30 WCF from 1928-30 and addition of the 250-3000 chambering from 1924 to ’36.
I would suppose that it would be quite possible the component cleanup period from 1936 to ’41, might well include a Carbine too. The only ’tilt’ would seem to be a late model CMS barrel in the early Carbine stock which, to my readings so far, shouldn’t have ever occurred. But also, IF merely such a stock swap, might not it have been a routinely accepted special order?
The last point, not ‘book’ stuff be it Roger Rule or David Bichrest. Real life. The universal of guns decades old often also decades as non-factory original. Morphing to suit owner’s needs. That and of course the intentional “unjust enrichment” driven faking. A single rose doesn’t make a summer!
Just an amended take on one hand. But great ‘learning opportunity’ for me on the other! Below I’ve included some misc photos. First the proper Carbine barrel boss sight from the same rifle as depicted above. Second my spare Model 54 Carbine barrel in 30-Govt-06 with various nomenclature included. (Hopefully I can post without pixel reduction & they can be enlarged as desired.)
Particular thanks to John, the ‘prime mover’ here, to Louis as our Forum resident expert and to David in absentia, for a great book!
I do hope to see some good pix of the mystery rifle.
Happy New Year and Stay Safe!
John
November 5, 2014
Offline
To anyone interested, John (the OP), not John (iskra), sent me the following photos of his late production M54 carbine:
Looks like a very interesting M54 carbine. Any comments?
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I’m no fan of carbines (think even the rifle brl was too light!), but this one appeals to me because it was once owned by a real rifleman who chucked the open sight & took the trouble to mount the Redfield. I’d guess there were very few carbine buyers who weren’t entirely satisfied with the factory sights. And I regard this Redfield as just as legit as a Lyman, since the factory didn’t offer that option on carbines, according to Lou.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Clarence-
Given the very late S/N (post-1936 clean-up production), my impression is that this is a correct and nice M54 carbine. The factory would have stopped making the 20″ and 24″ Nickel Steel barrels circa 1931-32, so IMHO they might very well have used 20″ CMS barrels (if that’s all they had) to get rid of leftover carbine stocks. The NRA style stocks could be used to assemble either Short Rifles or Standard rifles, but the carbine stocks needed a 20″ barrel.
The OP did mention to me that there are traces of “elevator tracks” on the barrel, which suggests the original factory sights were a Lyman 31W front and Win 22G rear. That, I believe, is consistent with the period of production of this rifle, i.e. those sights were used on the ramped CMS barrels, supplanting the pinned front blade and Lyman 66W that was used with the Nickel Steel barrels.
As for receiver sights (looking for help here)… I think that in 1936, if you wanted to put a receiver sight onto your M54 and didn’t want to butcher the stock for a Lyman 48W, your options were pretty much limited to the Redfield 100W, Redfield 102W, and Lyman 57W (not 57WJS). I know the 100W and 102W predated the M70, and the 57W came along just as M70 production was beginning.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
As for receiver sights (looking for help here)… I think that in 1936, if you wanted to put a receiver sight onto your M54 and didn’t want to butcher the stock for a Lyman 48W, your options were pretty much limited to the Redfield 100W, Redfield 102W, and Lyman 57W (not 57WJS). I know the 100W and 102W predated the M70, and the 57W came along just as M70 production was beginning.
As best I can judge from illustrations in the 1932 Stoegers, Marble’s offered a very simple receiver sight for the 54 that mounted without butchery. There was another one called a Perfection, a company unknown to me, that looks like it required no inletting. The Redfields were still listed under the company’s original name, Western Gunsight Co.
Checking my earliest Pacific catalog, I now understand that the “Perfection” was made by Pacific & that “all you need to install it is a screwdriver & your hands. It is not necessary to mar the finish of your stock when attaching this sight.” Looks like a very well made sight in both micrometer & non-micrometer variants, available for several other bolt-actions.
Returned! And about recovered from the whiplash of stepping on my own tail as between my legs and pirouetting around this Thread! Thanks for setting matters straight Louis & others! This has been a very interesting and informative Thread for me and special thanks to VS for bringing the very interesting carbine to this Forum! Wow!
I do believe it’s unusual to see a receiver sight on a carbine. As noted my several carbines are all in 30 WCF (30-30 Win) and seeming even less likely in that chambering. Also, just a personal observation, but from zoning in on Model 54 genre wherever spotted over decades… Receiver sights of any type on the early (pre NRA) models, seemed quite unusual. On later NRA model, I’d say ‘not unusual’. Even more so than Model 70 rifles but such there, some effect to the rise of scope employment. Also recalling the ‘tattoo’ “evidence” left by the residual stock inletting for ‘most all’ receiver sights as removed. Of the receiver sights, the Lyman 48 seeming to dominate the Model 54 field. Frankly, if to have any model impinging on the stock; I’m more pleased when the Lyman 48; to me something of ‘best of breed’.
Interesting too, as collecting Remington Model 30 rifles as well; there the Pacific sights seem to be more common and most also, as aftermarket though both it & Lyman, factory offered. Also, as Winchester, don’t recall noting very much in the way of receiver sights until the NRA stock era. Remington’s first era Model 30 rifles had their own simple version of receiver sight as standard. It a bit like the decades later Springfield 03A3 receriver sight. 
I have only one “over the limits”, Model 54 at SN 50739A, pix above & reflecting stock ‘refinish-light’. It with the Lyman 48 sub model of latter thirties with the distinctive barrel adjusting knobs. Have another such Lyman edition on one of my early Model 70 rifles. Those knobs, particularly ergonomic!
Best & stay safe!
John
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Clarence-
Thank you for the further info on M54 compatible receiver sights. Seems I’ve been asked this question (period receiver sights for a M54 that don’t require inletting) a couple times lately, so it’s good to be able to expand the list of options.
Hi iskra (John)-
Being only a casual observer of M54s, I have no information regarding the relative proportion of 1st standard rifles versus NRA standard rifles with factory installed Lyman 48W receiver sights. The 48W was, I believe, the only cataloged receiver sight option on the M54. They certainly did make 1st standard rifles with that sight. Below is S/N 13268, a 1927 1st standard rifle in 30 GOV’T’06. I bought it a while ago as a Christmas present for my Brother since 1927 was the year our Dad was born:
In the 1st standard rifle era the factory provided a Lyman 6W (two folding leaf) barrel sight on M54s equipped with the Lyman 48W. I always though that was a neat feature. But evidently it was too costly b/c they stopped doing it when the NRA standard rifle and CMS barrels came out, substituting a Lyman 12S dovetail blank on 48W equipped rifles. I have one very nice 30 WCF 1st standard rifle (S/N 37416A) with a Redfield 100W receiver sight and 6W in the barrel. I’ve no idea if that Redfield sight was factory installed (it was an “optional” sight in the parts catalog, as was the 102W), but it’s a well made micrometer adjustable sight that did not require inletting. Much nicer than the rugged but crude Redfield 102W that was meant to be set and left alone.
I also like the Lyman receiver sight you illustrated above on your late M54 NRA standard rifle. I believe that one, with the “thimble shaped” elevation knob, was the Lyman 48WJ. I’m not entirely sure what to call it, b/c even though the application code “48WJ” for the M54/70 does show up in the 1937 Lyman catalog, it’s never pictured. The catalog illustrations go straight from the 48W in 1936 to the 48WJS (with the more familiar “target knobs’) in 1937. I’ve assumed that the 48WJ was a transitional design (ergonomically improved 48W) that was quickly replaced by the 48WJS. As you said, those 48WJ sights (if that’s what they are) also turn up on a fair number of 1936-1938 M70s.
Thanks all for the enlightening discussion!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
I also like the Lyman receiver sight you illustrated above on your late M54 NRA standard rifle. I believe that one, with the “thimble shaped” elevation knob, was the Lyman 48WJ. I’m not entirely sure what to call it, b/c even though the application code “48WJ” for the M54/70 does show up in the 1937 Lyman catalog, it’s never pictured. The catalog illustrations go straight from the 48W in 1936 to the 48WJS (with the more familiar “target knobs’) in 1937. I’ve assumed that the 48WJ was a transitional design (ergonomically improved 48W) that was quickly replaced by the 48WJS. As you said, those 48WJ sights (if that’s what they are) also turn up on a fair number of 1936-1938 M70s.
I have several Springfields with the original small diameter knobs used on all the early 48s, not one of which doesn’t tempt me to get out the vise-grips if I want to readjust them. On one of them I DO have to wrap a leather strip around the knurling & use pliers to change the windage! Soaking the threads in Kroil–no effect. I appreciate that for the movement to be precise & repeatable, all the parts must be closely-fitted, but this is ridiculous. So what was the ergonomic principle behind milling down the tops of the knobs where the knurling was applied? Leaving them full-diameter as on these “thimble shaped” variants was the obvious way they should have been made originally. Hard to believe it took Lyman over 10 yrs to come to that conclusion.
1 Guest(s)
