Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
MODEL 70 in 348 WCF ?
March 25, 2021
9:48 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 532
Member Since:
January 27, 1992
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is a couple of examples of what I have to offer for comparison. Serial #37288, S.G. Carbine, 30 GOV’T ‘O6 and Serial #30349 Std. .220 SWIFT. The Swift does have an extra hole in the Bridge for the scope mount, but is in remarkable condition.  RDB

M70-PROOF-001.JPGImage EnlargerM70-PROOF-002.JPGImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
March 25, 2021
10:08 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1777
Member Since:
May 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Roger,

Yours seem to match up pretty nicely. 

I just don’t know the same could be said for these.

Marks.jpgImage Enlarger

Sincerely,

Maverick

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
March 25, 2021
10:27 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 532
Member Since:
January 27, 1992
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I see your point.  My computer skills can’t compare o yours.  I wasn’t aware of the magnification abilities available.  I defer to your expertise.  Embarassed  RDB

March 25, 2021
10:40 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2367
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’ve enjoyed the additional comments, observations, opinions and photos that have been posted.  I’m going to stick to my guns:  I think this rifle would be a very fine deer rifle (pending dummy shell through the action test).  However, that barrel proof is wonky Confused

March 25, 2021
10:58 pm
Avatar
Winchester, VA
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 700
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Maverick-

Nice digital forensics…  One does not expect receiver/barrel proofs, applied at the same time by the same workman, to involve different dies…  Possible, I suppose… Don’t know how many tools were on the average bench during proof firing.  But another thing to be chalked up to a “story”…

As I said last night, I’m not going to vote on this one beyond saying that for my money (scarce as such money is) I’m cautious these days… I was just going to add something about rimmed cartridges in M54/70 actions.

The M54 was cataloged in 30 WCF for a pretty long time.  These receivers (not just the internals) were different. No clip slot on the bridge, specially shaped feed rails, and a machined feed ramp.  Also, the barrel had a flat breech and corresponding bolt face to allow the rimmed cartridge to headspace correctly.  These M54s aren’t “rare, and when combined with the right magazine box and bolt stop extension, the design worked just fine!!!

M70s are a different story…  I’ve seen some chambered for rimmed cartridges.  Real or not is the question, but I think some of these guns are real (just my opinion).  No differences in the receiver bridge/rails/ramp.  Barrels have the flat breech and comparing side-by-side match the M54 30 WCG barrels are identical down to the circumferential milling marks. 

But such M70s are RARE and always suspect…  So Caveat Emptor…

Even a legit example could be a hard resale b/c most people (like me) are skeptics…  OTOH at the right price, it would make a great shooter…

Just my take… Laugh

Lou 

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

March 25, 2021
11:15 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 337
Member Since:
February 18, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It’s dangerous when, as today, I have time on my hands. Blog victimization… as an art! 

Below is my closest Sn Model 70 to the subject carbine. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to establish anything more excepting perhaps one matter I hadn’t mentioned.  The fronts sight pix of the subject rifle. Not appearing to me as “forged integral”.  Not the best photo for sure, but sufficient to ‘raise doubts’. Otherwise, in respect of my near Sn model 70, as checking off the comparison boxes; concluding indeed “similar.  As to barrel nomenclature and ‘vicissitudes…’, the gathering of eagles, experts here (of which I’m clearly not); the pool of experience & resulting judgments, significantly outweighing any single comparison exemplar. 

Seller reputation, as referenced, something upon which I wish to highly depend OR not as negative hit!  Where a man with experience in evaluating the rifle AND the “offeror”… I’d expect him/her inquiring concerning the rifles background and certainly that of the seller.  Where offeror simply ‘moving the merchandise’, neither ability nor interest in adding his own credibility… That a powerful negative to me. 

This offering ‘against all odds’ and ‘thin air’ credibility offering beyond photos…!  Shakey!

I have four Model 54 30 WCF Winchesters. Several carbines and one rifle.  As referenced above, rimmed chamberings notably different design/engineering/components. Significantly, sufficient for Winchester to dedicate an entirely unique receiver & other components!  

Bert, concerning chrome moly steel, not only slightly ‘nuanced’ formulation differences within the general category. Also differing heat treatments as prescribed for the toughness, hardness, wearing characteristic distinctions desired.  My impression that while perhaps even under exactly same genre & sub genre CM formula, differing application characteristics dictating differing heat treatment between barrel/receiver/bolt.  (Just my non-engineering disclaimer take.)  

I do value my membership here and opportunity to participate where the experts play!

🙂 🙂 🙂 

Again…

Best & Stay Safe!

John

R422-3U.jpgImage EnlargerR422-18U.jpgImage EnlargerR422-11U.jpgImage EnlargerR422-20.jpgImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
March 26, 2021
1:42 am
Avatar
Bristol, SD
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1
Member Since:
January 7, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Iskra’s attachment R422-11u showing the 270 WCF barrel marking is most interesting.

The period before 270 and after the “F” look square. The period after the “W” is round and there is not a period after the “C”.

The question of how many tools were on a workman’s bench is an excellent one.

My belief is that Winchester’s goal was to manufacture tools and sell them at a profit. Rifles and shotguns made up the majority of these tools. The markings are informational. These rifles sold for $60-70. These were not collector rifles.  The hand stampings are man made and subject to all of the variations we humans do even in repetitive work. When one thinks of how many rifles Winchester made every day, did they care if the hand stamps and proof marks were perfect?

Were any shotguns ever hand stamped? The shotguns were mostly 12, 16 ,20 and 410 and each with its own barrel size they could easily be roll marked in the assembly line. Look at all the calibers for the model 54 and 70 that had the same size barrel. The caliber designation was crucial. You can look at a row of Model 12’s and if there is only one 12 gauge you know what is is without even picking it up. When you look at a row of model 70’s with one being a 270, can you pick it out? Again the hand stamped caliber is just informational but absolutely necessary.

My opinion is that these subtle differences add proof to the honesty of the firearm. 

March 26, 2021
2:12 am
Avatar
Northern edge of the D/FW Metromess
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3286
Member Since:
November 7, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Maverick said
Roger,

Yours seem to match up pretty nicely. 

I just don’t know the same could be said for these.

Marks.jpgImage Enlarger

Sincerely,

Maverick  

That’s rather troubling, to say the least.

 

Mike

Life Member TSRA, Endowment Member NRA
BBHC Member, TGCA Member
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove
Some of my favorite recipes start out with a handful of depleted counterbalance devices.-TXGunNut
Presbyopia be damned, I'm going to shoot this thing! -TXGunNut
March 26, 2021
3:03 am
Avatar
Winchester, VA
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 700
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Jerry-

The point Maverick is raising is a legitimate one.   Proofs marks were hand stamped onto both the receiver and barrel of a fully finished Winchester firearm after testing with a proof load, i.e. at the same time, by the same workman, at the same bench.  In general, that person would have a hand held proof die in one hand and a hammer in the other.  Whack, whack, done… 

“Doubled” proofs from hammer bounce, inconsistent alignment…  All par for the course.  But when the dies marking the receiver and barrel were clearly not made with the same die, it should raise a question mark.  Sure it can be “explained” but it requires an explanation…  That is a “turn off” for many folks, especially when dealing with a pricey one-off gun…

Regarding the punctuation in the 270 WCF marking on iskra’s rifle…  Unlike the proofs, caliber stamps were applied before the barrels were final polished and blued.  As it happens, the purpose of that last polish was to remove the “cratering” created by the stamping process, so barrel markings are not “rough”, while proof marks (applied to a fully finished gun) are. 

“270 WCF” was used as the caliber designation on M54/70 rifles with the type I and 3A barrel stamps.  The Model/Address part of the barrel marking (same for all calibers) was applied with a roll marking die, but the caliber stamp (different for each caliber as you pointed out) was a hand stamp.  Those dies were often finished (cleaned up) by factory engravers, if they had idle time, before they were hardened and put to work in the barrel shop.

So on style 1 and 3A markings, alignment between the Model/Address roll mark and the caliber designation stamp is typically variable.  Moreover, the punctuation of individual dies was all over the place, especially on 270 WCF and 30 GOV’T’06.  For example, I’ve seen “270 W.C.F.”, “.270 W.C.F.”, “.270 W.C F.”, and about every other combination you can think of in style 1 and/or 3A stamps.  Usually the “periods” are pretty square but sometimes more rounded.  Whether some of these were the result of die wear, e.g. sharp points (periods) being broken off or worn on the edges, or differences in the dies themselves, the differences exist and are not cause for alarm IMHO…

Just my take… Wink

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

March 26, 2021
12:45 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2367
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Lou – that was some particularly informative and detailed information.  Thank you.

March 26, 2021
12:53 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2367
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

By the way, on that M54 .405 they are also offering, that sure wasn’t the same proofing stamp that was used on both the barrel and the receiver.

Same for the M54 .38-55.

March 26, 2021
12:58 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2367
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

steve004 said
By the way, on that M54 .405 they are also offering, that sure wasn’t the same proofing stamp that was used on both the barrel and the receiver.

Same for the M54 .38-55.  

Same for the M70 .405.

March 29, 2021
11:27 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 285
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
March 29, 2021
1:08 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1777
Member Since:
May 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

steve004 said

Same for the M70 .405.  

I noticed that as well.

Maverick

March 29, 2021
2:22 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1020
Member Since:
June 4, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

 Markings on Winchesters placed there at manufacture by the factory should match other original guns if the same die is used. Comparing markings with others of the same model and serial number range is part of the buying process on minty guns. Books such as Jim Gordan’s 1873 and others help, access to other guns of the same model and s/n range help, and the Forum helps. If someone can identify a gun by the firing pin marks on a primer we should be able to tell if the die markings match other guns.

 Maybe keeping and sharing pictures of die strikes is in order? Maybe that’s what has been done here? T/R

March 29, 2021
3:53 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2367
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

CJS57 said
Louis Luttrell is absolutely correct in his analysis. The goal of looking for “matching” proof marks is to determine if the same die stamp tool was used for making both barrel and receiver proofs. This proving the barrel and receiver were proofed at the same time or not. The proofs on the subject rifle are so far different in basic configuration that it is clear they were not done with the same tool.  So the subject rifle is very suspect. 

     Look at the junction were the stem of the P meets the center peak of the W. On one proof they meet all together at one point. On the other proof the W Peak is lower down and not meeting together. So they were made with different dies. Forensic analysis tells the tale.   

I noticed that as well.  Even more concerning is that seems to be the case on many of these oddball caliber M54’s and M70’s offered from this auction/collection….

March 29, 2021
5:44 pm
Avatar
NY
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3153
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louis Luttrell said

  The Model/Address part of the barrel marking (same for all calibers) was applied with a roll marking die, but the caliber stamp (different for each caliber as you pointed out) was a hand stamp.

Lou,  Was the caliber stamping, if you know, done freehand, or was a jig used to align the die on the brl before it was struck?

March 29, 2021
10:35 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1777
Member Since:
May 23, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

clarence said

Louis Luttrell said
  The Model/Address part of the barrel marking (same for all calibers) was applied with a roll marking die, but the caliber stamp (different for each caliber as you pointed out) was a hand stamp.

Lou,  Was the caliber stamping, if you know, done freehand, or was a jig used to align the die on the brl before it was struck?  

It is my opinion that at least on the later models, especially post-trade mark and 2-digit coded models (after they dropped the 19 pre-fix), the caliber marking was not a hand stamp and was an interchangeable and integral part of a master roll die. Therefore, any caliber stamping you find that is misaligned or appears to be hand stamped is assuredly a faked caliber mark. This is at the very least concerning the later production model guns. Or any production gun that would have its caliber marking adjacent to a “-Wichester-” “Trade Mark” side barrel type address. 

Sincerely,

Maverick

March 29, 2021
11:09 pm
Avatar
Winchester, VA
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 700
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi Clarence-

For the Type 1, 2 and 3A barrel markings on the M70 (using Roger Rule’s nomenclature), the Winchester Name and Barrel Address parts were done with roll marking dies.  These were the same regardless of chambering.  The caliber stamp was a hand struck die, applied after the barrel had been chambered (at which time the under chamber stamps were applied) and polished twice, but before the final polishing and bluing.

They may have used some sort of jig to help align caliber stamp the before whacking it with a hammer, but given the observed degree of misalignment between the roll mark and caliber stamp, it looks like they may have been struck “free hand”.  This is based on common calibers, like 30-06, where fakery is unnecessary/unlikely.  Either way, variable spacing between the end hyphen of the roll die and the separate caliber stamp, differences in depth of impression between the two, etc. are par for the course.  No worries…  Have to look elsewhere for evidence of refinishing/rechambering.

Most of the caliber hand stamp dies incorporated the caliber stamp, e.g. “.270 W.C.F.”, in a single die.  This would tend to apply even if the caliber was not “standard” for a M70, as long as it was chambered in something else the factory was making at the time.  So it’s valid to compare the “348 WIN.” stamp on the subject gun with that on contemporary Model 71 Winchesters.

OTOH…  Occasionally with one-off chamberings, the caliber stamp may have been applied using individual number stamps, or even individual numbers plus a single “W.C.F.” stamp.  I’ve seen any/all of the above.  These MIGHT be legit, you just have to decide.  It’s YOUR money…

Finally, for completeness sake, the style 3B marking used separate ROLL MARK dies for address and caliber.  Whatever Roger says, to date I’ve only seen “30 GOV’T’06 –” and “300 SAVAGE –“ in style 3B.  They’re distinguished by the hyphen after the caliber.  The alignment between the barrel address stamp and caliber stamp is variable (they were separate steps, after all).  Finally, the standard Style 3C (adopted after the number of available calibers was reduced), Featherweight, Short Magnum, and Short Magnum variant with the ® symbol replacing the words “Trade Mark’ (on 300 WIN. MAGNUM barrels only) were one-piece dies incorporating Winchester/Address/Caliber) in a single die.  These, which began circa 1950 for style 3C, are more consistent gun-to-gun than the earlier stamps.

Hope this helps… Laugh

Lou

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

March 30, 2021
12:28 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 11780
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

OK, let me add this… Winchester did not begin using the “348  WIN.” caliber marking on the Model 71 until 1954, and for several months into the year 1954, there was an intermix of “348 W.C.F.” and “348 WIN.” marked barrels.  The highest (latest) S/N I have confirmed thus far with the Type-2 “W.C.F.” marking was 43737. The first (lowest) S/N with the Type-3 “WIN.” marking was 43032.

It is my opinion that both the Type-2 and Type-3 Model 71 caliber stamps were part of one continuous roll marking stamp.

Type-2-36600-WACA-Article.jpgImage EnlargerType-3-45789-WACA-Article.jpgImage Enlarger

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Forum Timezone: UTC 0

Most Users Ever Online: 628

Currently Online: steff, tsillik, Manuel, .32WCF
56 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 9067

Posts: 78111


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1219

Members: 10568

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 4901

TXGunNut: 3286

clarence: 3153

Chuck: 2730

twobit: 2697

steve004: 2367

Maverick: 1777

Big Larry: 1629

JWA: 1605

RickC: 1340