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 70 Featherweight 358 barrel roll stamp info
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 239
Member Since:
September 21, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
December 14, 2018 - 11:51 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

On another forum there is an ongoing discussion regarding the “358” barrel stamp on the Pre-64 Model 70 358 WIN. rifles. Specifically whether or not some (or any) of the rifles currently up for sale on the web are authentic. The concern is focused on the position of the “5” in “358” being lower than the “3” and “8”.

Some speculate that this may be a 308 barrel stamp that has been modified. 

I have an early, low comb 358 FW that I’m certain is original. It has what I now call the “low 5” barrel stamp, as many other 358 rifles seem to have.

Another observation is that the center of the top flat of my “5” seems to be mushroomed out a but where it was struck. This is also found in other examples of the 358 FW I’ve seen. 

Im interested to hear from or see pictures of any 358 owners out there who would be willing to check their guns. 

 

Are all 358 FW’s struck this way?

http://i.imgur.com/eUzAwhW.jpgImage Enlarger

http://i.imgur.com/tvfEAHK.jpgImage Enlarger

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 118
Member Since:
October 11, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
December 14, 2018 - 1:23 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I have never owned a 358 FW for this reason.

The ones I have looked at the roll stamp never looked “right”.

The two M88 in .358 that I have owned, the stamping was perfectly aligned….

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 239
Member Since:
September 21, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
December 14, 2018 - 2:11 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Gregory said
I have never owned a 358 FW for this reason.

The ones I have looked at the roll stamp never looked “right”.

The two M88 in .358 that I have owned, the stamping was perfectly aligned….  

Gregory, that actually answers a question I had forgot to ask, but wondered about when considering the 358 FW’s. 

I questioned if Winchester would have used the same caliber roll stamp for both the 70 and the 88. 

Thank you for that bit of info!

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 400
Member Since:
November 8, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
December 14, 2018 - 3:01 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I’ve had 3 FW 358’s.  I looked each one over VERY closely when I got it and I don’t recall seeing this misalignment.  I have seen a lot of 358’s that have it and I have always steered clear of them because of it.   It looks like I may have been mistaken in my thinking.  Could be the guys making fakes make the caliber marking look better than the originals  🙂

I don’t have any 358’s now so I can’t check them now.   

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 239
Member Since:
September 21, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
December 14, 2018 - 3:13 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I’ve spoken with a gentleman that says he bought his 358 FW brand new and his stamp is misaligned identically to mine, including the top of the “5” being mushroomed a bit. 

His was also an early low comb variation, as are all the others I’ve been able to clearly compare and match as having the “low 5”.

Im interested to hear from people with the Monte Carlo/raised comb/later variation to see if their stamp is aligned or misaligned. 

Ive seen a couple later Monte Carlo variations with perfectly aligned stamps, but ALWAYS on near mint condition examples… which always makes me question authenticity in the first place. 

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 977
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
December 14, 2018 - 4:24 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Hi Everyone-

I personally cannot answer this question with certainty.  I too have seen 358 WIN caliber designation stamps with a ‘misaligned 5’ as well as ones with a perfectly aligned ‘5’.  If the former were one-of-a-kind, I’d have to conclude it was a rebored and remarked 308 WIN barrel even if traces of the original ‘0’ were not detectable.  But having seen several of the funny looking ones I have to guess either that a roll die like that was used by the factory OR somebody mass produced fake 358 WIN FWT barrels, got everything else right, and then did a sloppy job with the stamp.

For comparison, here’s one (screenshot of a photo provided by Tedk) with the perfect ‘358’.  I have one M70 FWT 358 WIN and as I recall (it’s in a safe in another State) it looks like this one:

M70-358-stamp.pngImage Enlarger

To make matters more confusing, here’s a photo of a M88 358 WIN from GI/Perry County.  Note that while the ‘5’ is perfectly aligned, the die uses a different ‘3’:

M88-358-stamp.JPGImage Enlarger

Two points to make that I think are valid.  First is that by 1955, Winchester was using one-piece roll marking dies that incorporated the caliber designation into the same die as the Model/Barrel Address.  So the M88 would have its own marking dies, and evidently at least some of those used a different ‘3’.  Maybe (???) there was some variation in the dies used to mark the 2000 or so M70 FWT barrels such that both variations are correct (???).  In any event, since it was a roll marking die, I’d expect the numerals to be of consistent depth in a factory ‘358 WIN’ stamp.  It is interesting that in the ‘misaligned ‘5’ stamp (as I recall of others as well) the bottom of the ‘5’ is aligned with the bottom of the ‘3’ and ‘8’, it’s just that the ‘5’ is not quite as tall.  That would be possible using a roll marking die…  Confused

Second is that the M70 358 WIN was only ever catalogued with the low comb stock.  If you find one with a MC stock it was either replaced or ordered that way.  But it was not bought from inventory.

One other point.  The MC stock style was approved in ’51 and cataloged beginning in ’52 for both regular and FWT rifles, including the earliest FWTs (when 308 WIN as the only chambering).  From the point that the offerings were expanded in ’55, the 308 WIN, 270 WIN and 30-06 SPRG were cataloged with both LC and MC, the 243 MC was only offered with the MC stock, and the 358 WIN was only listed with the LC stock.  The LC stocks were dropped from the catalog by about 1959, with the (plastic butt plate) MC stocks only made until 1963.

If anyone has the definitive answer to this, I’d love to read it!!!Laugh

Best,

Lou

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: Rick Hill, antler1, deerhunter, Darrin Smith, Steven Gabrielli, Pwog
Guest(s) 277
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6388
TXGunNut: 5057
Chuck: 4601
1873man: 4323
steve004: 4261
Big Larry: 2353
twobit: 2306
mrcvs: 1727
TR: 1725
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12787
Posts: 111397

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1769
Members: 8872
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation