Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Does Roger Rule mention on in his book? I can’t say I have heard of one in a .348 before. I recall at least one .405, which would also be very cool. I like the idea but some here won’t be surprised when I say I think I’ll hold out for a M70 in .33 WCF. By the way, on this .348, some sort of factory documentation would sure be nice. If I were to have the opportunity to examine this one in person, I’d love to run a magazine of dummy cartridges through it.
steve004 said
By the way, on this .348, some sort of factory documentation would sure be nice.
Factory documentation…the models for which it’s unavailable are the “land of opportunity” for pro fakers.
clarence said
steve004 said
By the way, on this .348, some sort of factory documentation would sure be nice.Factory documentation…the models for which it’s unavailable are the “land of opportunity” for pro fakers.
I should have given more thought in choosing my words. Legitimate factory documentation would be nice 😉
Hi Steve-
I’m gonna’ go out on a limb here… Someplace people ought not to go… This is PERSONAL OPINION, not offered with “proof” (whether I have it or not), and not intended to be libelous… So take it as you will… No need to sue me as I have no names to name…
There are some “manufacturers” of fake rare M70s (I’m sure this is true of many collectable Winchester Models). Many WACA members would agree to that (at least “off the record”)… I believe (purely subjective) that when it comes to M70s I can recognize the “work” of two different such shops. I do not know who they are/were, but many of the products of one such were offered via RIA a few years ago. Tragic b/c it (deservedly) hurt RIA’s reputation at the time and these guns are still circulating through the secondary market…
Regarding the subject gun… The consignor, George Baumer, lent his name to it and several other rare/uncatalogued M54/70 rifles in this Morphy auction. Kudos to George for letting himself be named!!! I have not seen/handled any of the current Morphy guns, but have had the opportunity to see/handle several other “super rare” M54/70 rifles attributed to George Baumer/Bob Fleisher (the latter being Greg Weiand’s former partner in Perry County Firearms).
The Baumer/Fleisher guns are (IMHO) NOT the product of either of the two “shops” I believe (subjectively) that I can recognize. The ramps look correct (to me). The roll markings (IMHO) are made either with factory dies or VERY good copies. The caliber stamps are (generally) relatively crude hand stamps, which may/may not have been the way the factory would have done it at the time. I’m talking about a lot of different chamberings here, not just the Morphy guns… When it comes to guns that were chambered in other models, e.g. 348 WIN., there are plenty of comparators, e.g. 348 WIN chambered M71s being made at the same time… So a prospective bidder who does his/her homework has a basis for comparison and can make up his/her own mind.
I will neither endorse, not condemn, these guns. They are either legit, or at least a “cut above” some of the work of the fake shops that use either a computer controlled pantograph or a laser to make the barrel marks. But are they “real’??? I am not in a position to know…
At the end of the day I’d be scared to put serious money into these offerings. But I maybe wrong… If George (or Bob) hangs out here maybe he’ll chime in??? I’d love to know the “back story”on these guns…
To each his/her own… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I’m highly sceptical of it but don’t have solid proof in either direction. It’s a neat combination, but admittedly it draws my interest mostly due to its chambering. I’m a sucker for 71s so anything chambered in 348 WCF catches my attention.
Despite my wishful thinking that this one is a real deal – barring some solid shred of proof, I’ll watch the hammer fall without raising my hand.
The question I would have, would be the problem of using a rimmed cartridge in the Model 70 action. Any thoughts? RDB
I’m unfamiliar with the differences in the actions of model 70s vs 54s, but quite a few model 54s were chambered in rimmed cartridges like 30-30. Then there’s the model 43 as well.
Don
deerhunter said
I’m unfamiliar with the differences in the actions of model 70s vs 54s, but quite a few model 54s were chambered in rimmed cartridges like 30-30. Then there’s the model 43 as well.Don
You cannot compare the Model 43 to the M54 or M70… it is a completely different action, and it was designed strictly for rimmed cartridges (218 Bee, 25-20 WCF, 32 WCF, and 22 Hornet). The Model 43 is basically a Model 69/75 redesigned to shoot center fire versus rim fire cartridges.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Online
The 12th photo of the auction shows the proof marks. I don’t like the proof mark on the barrel, whatsoever. It looks hand cut to me and doesn’t match the receiver proof mark. Which doesn’t add up to me.
It is not impossible that the gun may have been produced as listed, but I would have doubts. Therefore it would be a pass for me.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
rogertherelic said
The question I would have, would be the problem of using a rimmed cartridge in the Model 70 action. Any thoughts? RDB
Roger,
When using rimmed cartridges in a bolt action magazine well you stack your cartridges with the rim in front of the rim on the cartridge underneath it. That prevents the underlying cartridge from being drug forward until the nose of the bullet hits the magazine box and the top cartridge either jumping the rim on the underlying cartridge or hanging on the rim causing failure to feed. I do it all the time with a custom Mauser action chambered in 220 Swift (semi rimmed) Simple and effective…..
Erin
Bert H. said
You cannot compare the Model 43 to the M54 or M70… it is a completely different action, and it was designed strictly for rimmed cartridges (218 Bee, 25-20 WCF, 32 WCF, and 22 Hornet). The Model 43 is basically a Model 69/75 redesigned to shoot center fire versus rim fire cartridges.
Thanks Bert. I’ve never owned or inspected a model 43 up close. Learn something new all the time on this site.
Don
deerhunter said
Thanks Bert. I’ve never owned or inspected a model 43 up close. Learn something new all the time on this site.
Don
Don,
Well then, it is past due that you rectify that shortcoming… after all, it is only $$$$. I suggest starting with a 22 Hornet, and make sure that it is one of the later rifles that is factory D&T for mounting a scope.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Despite the various reservations I’ve been reading, I’m going to assert my confidence that this rifle would kill a deer. If money didn’t mean anything to me, I’d consider it for a deer rifle. Setting aside originality issues, I think it has the cool factor going.
Ironically, the lack of documentation might add to the legitimacy of the rifle. I say this because what faker worth his salt wouldn’t have produced some documentation to go with it? 
I love a mystery! 🙂 For me, beginning with “probabilities”, which seem pretty remote. Provenances… None, but then factory provenances generally ‘aren’t’ anyway. So otherwise, something which connects the rifle with perhaps an original owner; here not.
Also, shouldn’t there have been mention of such a rare gun in all the years before now? Archeologists do have wonderful artifacts literally pop up from digs. Here, this gun has presumptively been in someone’s hands. Were it mine, I’d have been touting it. Of course Model 70 Sn “1”, also seems have just popped up some few years ago. Or perhaps I’m just not paying attention. So the ‘out of the ether’ would seem a legitimacy concern.
When it comes to an unusual chambering stamp, analysis a mixed proposition. Certainly a central matter to be scrutinized! On the one hand, it just doesn’t look to me like my several other Model 70 rifles, particularly of ’42 vintage and in .270 & 30-06. A matter of seeming ‘freshness’ of the 348 stamp. The other side of the proposition; Hello! It was unique then. Presumably not a matter of production line stamping as manufactured. So perhaps cutting some slack required. The, net, remaining to me ???
I did wonder about the lack of thousandth designation period preceding “348”, whether should be “.348”, but just a quick survey of some of my ordinary prewar Model 70 rifles, led to some chamberings employing the ‘period’ and others not. Another net, inconclusive! My own sole early Model 71, without photo file documentation and asking for comment whether the chambering demarcation employed a thousandth period there.
A couple more matters. Presuming the entire barrel not after-market fabrication, which would seem a stretch entirely too far… obliterating original chambering marks and re-stamping presumed… Perhaps some sort of spindle and dial indicator to determine barrel concentricity (without disassembly) in the chamber stamp area. Even a micrometer measurement at several points around the relevant circumference? Of course, I do believe proof positive of whether re-stamped, could be achieved with non-destructive scientific methodology. Forensic labs can restore “indicia” of the best of altered serial numbers. A notation, but moving well beyond practicality here.
A ‘rubber meets the road’ equation mentioned above and practical. Cycling with dummy rounds! At least practical in terms of necessary materials & effort, but not so presumably in context of an auction in progress. I would wonder what components other than properly chambered barrel, to be necessary to insure proper ‘feeding & digestion’ of the rimmed 348 round in the Model 70 action. Moreover, the compatibility of existing chamberings to contribute compatible components. Way over my head here… Perhaps more knowledgeable folks in this Forum to comment.
Also mentioned above and often extremely relevant as “extrinsic indicia”, falling within spectrum of “seller’s reputation & integral credibility”. That would seem to me to go a long way under the circumstances of best available substitute to bidder ‘hands-on’ inspection. “Competent & Trustworthy” reputation.
Another dimension here where the Internet has changed the world! Online auctions. Conjuring some several decades ago as about the height of my eclectic gun collecting acquisitions. Best available library, and leaching off all the experienced collectors I could encounter for their experience & insights! Such, typically at gun shows. Many kind folks as themselves “collectors” rather than simply “sellers”. Garnering some of my best, practical information. My interests, such as Winchester, Smith & Wesson, Colts, Oberndorf Mausers… I believe to a person, all those collectors of old would have then postulated the ridiculous idea of such Internet auctions as we see commonly today. Not for me. Never a hunter, the personal ‘stalk’, as plying gun shops & gun show aisles. ‘Kill’, as bearing home happy new gun acquisitions! I’m sure age related and too many happy memories, but Internet gun buying rather like artificial insemination! Clinical at best and taking all the fun out of the result.
I don’t expect any breakthrough authenticity revelation one way or another. I’d be surprised if that Model 70 doesn’t command a high auction price as seeming ‘the stats’ nowadays. Also, just as I’ve here commanded a high price for anyone laboring through my blog! 🙂
Just a very old man’s take! Best & Stay Safe! John
No one mentioned the fact that it has the semi-rare 20″ Carbine barrel also. The 20″ models always command a premium to boot. None of the model 70’s that I have, have perfectly matching PROOF’ marks. I attributed this to the metal hardness difference between the barrel and receiver. RDB
I’d agree that they shouldn’t or wouldn’t be perfectly matching marks. But something just seems off to me about the proofs.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
rogertherelic said
No one mentioned the fact that it has the semi-rare 20″ Carbine barrel also. The 20″ models always command a premium to boot. None of the model 70’s that I have, have perfectly matching PROOF’ marks. I attributed this to the metal hardness difference between the barrel and receiver. RDB
Roger,
To the best of my knowledge, the Model 70 barrels and receivers were both made using Proof Steel (chrome-moly) with the exception of the relatively small number of Model 70s made with a Stainless Steel barrel. The hardness of the barrels and the receivers should be the same.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
