Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Model 54 Interest
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4160
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
21
June 19, 2020 - 2:50 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I’ve never collected M54’s but anything vintage Winchester, I’m interested.  I recall I once had a M54 carbine in .30-06.  It was in 99% condition and all original.  I traded it toward a lever rifle. If you’re going to have safe queens, they should be a model you collect. However in hindsight, I wish it was still in the safe.

I realize the many positives of the .30-06 but to me is falls in the common/boring category.  Were I to pursue a M54, it would likely be .22 Hornet, .220 Swift or .250-3000.  A 9×57 would certainly catch my attention.  I did have a M54 once in .257 Roberts.  It was in very high original condition with one excruciating exception – the barrel was cut to 20 inches.  It was quite accurate however. 

I’m glad you are enjoying your rifle Cool

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6280
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
22
June 19, 2020 - 3:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

TXGunNut said IMHO the Model 54 does not need a scope but most modern shooters do. Let them buy modern rifles. I feel the Model 54 and many of the Winchester rimfire target rifles challenge us to become better shooters. A telescopic sight may allow us to wring the most accuracy out of a rifle but good iron sights wring the most out of the shooter and help us experience what it meant to be a “shooter” 80 or 100 years ago. 

Mike,  Read the major shooting publications of 80-100 yrs ago, even back to the 1880’s in fact, & you’ll see they’re filled with discussions on the latest scopes.  Now it’s true, Joe Gutshooter wasn’t reading those publications, & probably didn’t have the money to buy a scope, which equaled the cost of a fine rifle, or the skill to use one properly, but the best hunters & riflemen were.  Townsend Whelen acquired one of the first Winchester scopes off the production line in 1909, & had been using a Sidel before that.  Ned Crossman & Stuart White imported the best German scopes in the ’20s.  They were considered almost essential by varmint hunters like Charles Landis & Allyn Tedmon.   

If the buyer of a 54 was only hunting within reasonable iron sight range, say not over 200 yds for someone lacking exceptional vision, why wouldn’t a Model ’86 or ’95 have done the job just as well?  In other words, what’s the advantage of having a rifle with long-range capabilities if your sights don’t allow you to take advantage of it? 

I was taking about hunting, the purpose for which the majority of rifles were sold.  Target shooting, or merely rifle practice, is obviously different entirely.  Since I gave up hunting for physical reasons about 10 yrs ago, I have never, or very seldom, looked through a scope, but I’m still shooting almost every day of good weather. I’m shooting for practice, fun, to improve my ability, & for that limited purpose metallic sights are best. 

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
23
June 19, 2020 - 4:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

I don’t go shooting but once in a blue moon, but popping a bull offhand from the 500 when the range officer was not looking, or trying to clean the target in the prone at the 1000 yard line with the old M-1 Garand’s iron sights was fun, nowadays the sights are too fuzzy and I can’t even get strapped into anything that resembles a comfortable prone position!  I like rifles with scopes…always have.

James

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6280
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
24
June 19, 2020 - 5:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

jwm94 said
I can’t even get strapped into anything that resembles a comfortable prone position!  I like rifles with scopes…always have.

James  

Because of joint problems, I can’t even get into a sitting or kneeling position & get back up without someone to help me.  So I’ve been shooting offhand only for the last several yrs–something I rarely used to do, but have now gotten better at it than I ever thought possible.  (Not better enough to hit anything at 500 yds smaller than a double-door refrigerator!)

But like I said, hunting & target shooting aren’t comparable; “wounding” a steel target doesn’t matter.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4160
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
25
June 19, 2020 - 6:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

clarence said

TXGunNut said IMHO the Model 54 does not need a scope but most modern shooters do. Let them buy modern rifles. I feel the Model 54 and many of the Winchester rimfire target rifles challenge us to become better shooters. A telescopic sight may allow us to wring the most accuracy out of a rifle but good iron sights wring the most out of the shooter and help us experience what it meant to be a “shooter” 80 or 100 years ago. 

Mike,  Read the major shooting publications of 80-100 yrs ago, even back to the 1880’s in fact, & you’ll see they’re filled with discussions on the latest scopes.  Now it’s true, Joe Gutshooter wasn’t reading those publications, & probably didn’t have the money to buy a scope, which equaled the cost of a fine rifle, or the skill to use one properly, but the best hunters & riflemen were.  Townsend Whelen acquired one of the first Winchester scopes off the production line in 1909, & had been using a Sidel before that.  Ned Crossman & Stuart White imported the best German scopes in the ’20s.  They were considered almost essential by varmint hunters like Charles Landis & Allyn Tedmon.   

If the buyer of a 54 was only hunting within reasonable iron sight range, say not over 200 yds for someone lacking exceptional vision, why wouldn’t a Model ’86 or ’95 have done the job just as well?  In other words, what’s the advantage of having a rifle with long-range capabilities if your sights don’t allow you to take advantage of it? 

I was taking about hunting, the purpose for which the majority of rifles were sold.  Target shooting, or merely rifle practice, is obviously different entirely.  Since I gave up hunting for physical reasons about 10 yrs ago, I have never, or very seldom, looked through a scope, but I’m still shooting almost every day of good weather. I’m shooting for practice, fun, to improve my ability, & for that limited purpose metallic sights are best.   

Clarence –

I very much enjoyed reading your thoughts on the matter.  My orientation to metallic sights and target shooting is in a different genre of rifle. Ross rifles were used extensively in match competition – all with iron sights.  They were quite the precision machines:

G5rxHbq.jpgImage Enlarger

wX5MvOb.jpgImage Enlarger

pVhGShh.jpgImage Enlarger

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1118
Member Since:
May 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
26
June 19, 2020 - 9:31 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

clarence said

Because of joint problems, I can’t even get into a sitting or kneeling position & get back up without someone to help me.  So I’ve been shooting offhand only for the last several yrs–something I rarely used to do, but have now gotten better at it than I ever thought possible.  (Not better enough to hit anything at 500 yds smaller than a double-door refrigerator!)

But like I said, hunting & target shooting aren’t comparable; “wounding” a steel target doesn’t matter.  

Laugh Good one, Clarence.  And right on about wounding a steel target!

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
27
June 19, 2020 - 10:17 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi rwsem-

Nice looking rifle… Laugh  Any original unaltered M54 with a decent amount of finish is hard to find.  Yours looks nice enough to show off, but not so “perfect” that you’d feel bad about putting it to the test.  Anymore, I’ve only got two M54 1st standard rifles, a .30 GOV’T’06 and a .30 W.C.F., and each is so near perfect that I’m only willing to enthrone them, i.e. “Queen of the Safe Kingdom”…  Wink  Took a long time to find those two, but like Clarence and Jeff I’m a sucker for that Schnabel fore end…

A bit of FYI for anyone who might care (and doesn’t already know)…  On the 1st standard rifle with regular sights, the most commonly encountered barrel sight is a Lyman 66W, which has one fixed and one folding leaf:

Lyman-66W-Model-54.jpgImage EnlargerLyman-66W-Model-54-2.jpgImage Enlarger

On the 1st standard rifles with a factory receiver sight, the barrel sight was the Lyman 6W with two folding leaves.  This looks like the sight on your rifle.  The photo below is of an early 375 MAGNUM M70 but the sight is the same:

SN-14458-Barrel.jpgImage Enlarger

I do have a question for the assembled experts regarding the receiver sight on your rifle… That sight is IMHO a Lyman 48WJS (full block with 60-point slide), that was first introduced in 1937 (ten years too late for your rifle).  The receiver sight for the M54 was the 48W, which is the only variant in Lyman catalog #23 (1935).  This one required the stock inletting, but additionally was a “long slide” sight that required the additional “T” inletting (this is a 1927 rifle like yours – S/N 13268):

Lyman-48W-Model-54.jpgImage Enlarger

Your rifle is inlet for a receiver sight, but not for a “long slide” receiver sight that would look like this (again, this is a pic of a M70 with long slide 48WJ, but the goal is to show the inletting):

Long-Slide-48W-intellting-Model-70.jpgImage Enlarger

So my question for the experts is whether the Lyman 48W was ever made with a short slide (that did not require the additional inletting for the long elevation screw)?  Your gun seems to have the right barrel sight to accompany a factory receiver sight, but not the right inletting for a 48W long slide.  I’ve yet to encounter a 48W that lacked the long slide and I can’t find such a beast mentioned in the Lyman catalog…  

Enough trivia…  It’s only interesting to OCD types like me anyway…

Congrats,

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
January 7, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
28
June 20, 2020 - 12:01 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Appears to be a 48 W.  Pardon the lint…  I’ll know better when I tear it down. The rear sight is two folding leaves.

IMG_3685.JPGImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....

WACA #10293

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
29
June 20, 2020 - 12:30 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi rwsem-

Thank you for the reply…. That helps…  Do the assembly numbers inside the base and slide match?  I’ll bet they do…  

The model marking on these early full block Lyman 48 series sights for M54/70 Winchesters are all over the place.  The base was the same on the 48W, 48WJ, and 48WJS.  Only the threads on the separate sliding cylindrical slide lock was different.  Some of the bases are marked “W” only on the interior surface where it cannot be seen w/o removing the sight, some are marked “W” or “WJS” on the right side like yours, and some aren’t marked at all…  I’ve yet to find one marked “WJ”, which is one reason the “WJ” tough to define (never mentioned in the Lyman catalogs of the era).

All the best, Laugh

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
January 7, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
30
June 20, 2020 - 1:16 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Not so fast my friend…  I just had to go upstairs and separate steel and wood. It is in fact a WJS receiver sight.  So, maybe a PO installed a WJS but then was savvy enough to replace the rear sight with a 6W?  I dunno…  The stock is not relieved with “T” inletting and the relief cut appears to be consistent with the rest of the inletting.  Are we certain the WJS appeared in ’37?  I don’t have any reference material for this discussion…

Lyman-48-WJS.JPGImage Enlargerinletting.JPGImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....

WACA #10293

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 972
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
31
June 20, 2020 - 1:52 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi rwsem-

Thanks!!! I’m really just asking a question to which I do not know the answer.  Confused

I’ve got the Lyman catalogs for every year from 1935 through 1947.  They are STUNNINGLY unhelpful in this regard b/c they go straight from the 48W in the 1935-36 catalogs to the 48WJS in the 1937 catalog.  No mention of a 48WJ (even though I think that many of us know what that is/was) and no mention of different slide lengths in either the 48W or 48WJ.

The rough chronology is:

48W-M54.pngImage Enlarger

Lyman-48-series-for-M70.jpegImage Enlarger

First photo is the 48W (long slide).  Sorry but I gave away the only loose one of those I had so it’s not in the next photo.  Thereafter (from left to right)…  48WJ (long slide), 48WJ (short ‘cut off’ slide), 48WJS (first appears in the Lyman 1937 catalog), early ‘half block’ 48WJS ( introduced 1947 with the external return spring), and late ‘half block’ 48WJS (with internal coil return spring that – like ‘Stayset’ knobs – came along after the receiver sight option for M70s was dropped so likely never factory on any M54/70).

While I know the 48WJ had a long slide (‘T’ inletting’) and short slide version, I DO NOT know whether the 48W came in both flavors.  Hence my question… I’d really like to know… Laugh Anybody have a 48W with cut off (75-point) slide ad matching assembly numbers?

If it helps (but sadly it won’t) I can scan the relevant catalog pages and post them here…

I really do like your rifle!!!  The only one like it I had (1927 with a 48W receiver sight) was one I gave to my Brother for Christmas a while ago (since1927 is the year our Dad was born).  It was missing the barrel sight when I got it but IMHO should have had a two folding leaf Lyman 6W like yours does:

SN-13268-1.jpgImage Enlarger

Best,

Lou

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 298
Member Since:
January 7, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
32
June 20, 2020 - 8:09 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

So, adding to the intrigue…  I tore the rifle down for a deep clean.  On the inside of the sight are the numbers o 27.  At first I thought that might correspond to the catalog number but that would be 1940.  Still a possibility.  But perhaps it’s a year date- which would be correct for the rifle DOM.  However, if it’s a catalog number, then maybe a PO had the stock inletted for a receiver sight and replaced the leaf sight. If that was done in 1940, it would explain why the wood looks to be aged the same as the rest of the inletting; 80 years of aging and oil/ grime would blend the new cut in with the rest. Anyway, I hope to get it all cleaned up and put some rounds down range soon.  

IMG_3699.JPGImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....

WACA #10293

Avatar
Location: 32000' +
Moderator
Moderator
Forum Posts: 2110
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
33
June 20, 2020 - 8:47 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The “27” is a Lyman assembly number and does not correspond to a date or catalog number.  The slides were hand-fitted to the bases and to make sure they remained a matched set they were marked with a 1 or 2 digit assembly number on both components.

If both your slide and base are marked with the same number that is a good thing.

Best Regards,

WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire

http://rimfirepublications.com/  

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: tx4445, Burt Humphrey, Chuck, deerhunter, Tedk, Blueliner, Jeremy P, Paul K
Guest(s) 49
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6280
TXGunNut: 4969
Chuck: 4571
1873man: 4281
steve004: 4160
Big Larry: 2323
twobit: 2291
TR: 1710
mrcvs: 1706
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12648
Posts: 109978

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1745
Members: 8791
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation