Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
So I think I got a good deal on this 54, early production s/n 7756, I believe it to be original with the exception of the front sight blade and maybe the cheek piece. Rear sight appears to be the 66w.
Is the receiver sight the Lyman 48w? I know it’s a Lyman but I havent found a model number on it yet.
I do have a Sheard #10 also marked Marbles .036 high. Should I install it?
Comments please! THX
Steve G.
Sling swivels are not original and it looks like the stock has been shortened.
Those add-on cheek pieces (several kinds) are usually seen only on scoped rifles. The 48W is right, but would have had a Lyman gold-bead, I think; the Marbles is a common replacement, so if you like it, no reason not to use it. Worst alteration is non-original BP. Thing I like best about early 54s is schnobble fore-end. Can’t understand why sawing that off & replacing it with a piece of black plastic was considered an “improvement.”
Thanks. So the base plate must have been added after the stock was shortened? I am not sure what the length of pull originally was?
That steel butt plate is correct for your gun.
LOP for a M70 Standard Rifle is 13 1/2”.
Tedk said
That steel butt plate is correct for your gun.LOP for a M70 Standard Rifle is 13 1/2”.
You mean 54 didn’t use same plate as 70?
I’ve seen that steel plate on other 54s, so I was confused. There does not seem to be much consensus on all the custom factory order possibilities. That was one reason I felt the rifle was basically stock.
clarence said
Tedk said
That steel butt plate is correct for your gun.
LOP for a M70 Standard Rifle is 13 1/2”.
You mean 54 didn’t use same plate as 70?
Not on the M54 First Standard Rifle, the M54 NRA Rifle featured the same plate as the M70
Steven Gabrielli said
That was one reason I felt the rifle was basically stock.
Well, it’s very close, if that BP is correct.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Steve-
A few observations (that might be accurate)…
Your rifle appears to be mostly correct, with two issues. On the M54 1st standard rifle equipped with a Lyman 48W receiver sight (which yours appears to have), the barrel rear sight was a Lyman 6W (two folding leaf). I think that’s what you have… The 66W had one standing and one folding leaf and was supplied on rifles that lacked a receiver sight. So unless I’ve mis-identified the rear barrel sight, those sights are correct for a M54 1st standard with factory Lyman 48W.
The issues…
The front sight is a home-made disaster (as you’ve pointed out). The factory pinned blade sight was a Lyman 26W, although the Marbles 895C was a cataloged option. The Marbles’ Sheard you show was (probably) not in the catalog but would be a fine/period replacement if it shoots to the right place…
The big issue with the gun is the stock… The LOP should be 13 1/2″ as Tedk said. The butt plate is correct for the 1st standard stock, whereas the later “NRA style” M54 stock used the same plate as the early M70. BUT… Your stock appears to have a “grafted-in” cheekpiece. It “should” look like this.
Also the M54 1st standard stocks had sling swivel “eyes” as also shown above. The later NRA-style stock used the same fixed swivels as the M70. I cannot tell whether the swivels on your gun have been replaced or if someone just grafted something together using the original “eyes” and loops of wire.
Hope this helps,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks Lou, and everyone else who took time to reply.
Correct Lou, the rear sight has the two folding leaves, so I guess it’s the 6W. I saw on some other posts on this sight where it’s referred to as the 66W, so I reckon confusion abounds. But 6 W seems to be the consensus.
As for the leather cheek piece, I had read that that was a factory option at one point, IDK anything for sure.
See two additional photos of the sling swivels, they do not appear to be factory, they swivel too. But the period military sling is nice and has been on the rifle for many decades.
As far as the length of pull, this crazy two stage trigger sits in two different spots, LOP appears to be 13 inches locked and loaded, but the trigger jumps forward when the bolt is open, to just shy of 13.5 inches, see attached, IDK about that either.
Not sure why Someone would remove a 1/2 inch if they did.
Let me know what you guys think.
I did remove the homemade front sight and install the Sheard 10.
I picked this 54 up for 440$ so either way I feel it was a steal.
Thanks.
Steve G
Steven Gabrielli said
See two additional photos of the sling swivels, they do not appear to be factory, they swivel too. But the period military sling is nice and has been on the rifle for many decades.
Appears from my interpretation of the only sling described in the 1925 catalog that the swivels intended for it were the old fish-hook style. (Which work as well, or better, as any QD swivel.) The sling itself would probably have been the one with the patent roller-buckle, but isn’t illustrated in this cat.
I agree cutting 1/2″ off the stock makes no sense at all.
Great buy!
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Steven-
Blame Winchester for the sight confusion… 
Both the 6W and 66W were used on the M54, depending on whether there was a factory Lyman 48W. This is the 6W (two-folding leaf) that was supplied with the receiver sight on 1st Standard rifles. When they changed to the NRA style stock on the M54 (and later the M70) Winchester got cheap and started putting a blank (Lyman 12S) in the barrel dovetail.
The 66W has one standing and one folding leaf. It was used on M54 1st Standard rifles without receiver sights. When the change to the NRA stock occurred, the sight was changed to the Win 22G “Sporting” rear sight.
As for the LOP, for comparison I took the same photo with another relatively early M54 (S/N 13264) 30 GOV’T’06 1st Standard rifle with Lyman 48W. Your butt plate is original.
Looking at your swivel photos, I think you have toe original swivel eyes into which someone has inserted fixed metal loops. The 1st Standard rifles originally had swivel “eyes” that were intended to be used with the old style hook-type swivel, as in the next photo. If you look at yours, I think they’re like these except for the added loops.
The leather cheek pad was probably not put on at the factory, but it’s surely contemporary to the gun. If it were my gun I’d leave it alone.
All in all a nice Model 54!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I’d look for a new stock, they show up on eBay pretty regularly
Are there any holes in the bridge?
November 5, 2014
Offline
BTW… Those two sights; Lyman 6W and Lyman 48W would bring nearly as much as you paid for the entire rifle.
The 48W sights were typically not stamped with an application coded where you can see it. Just a small “W” in any event. Usually, it’s either on the back side of the base block (against the receiver) or inside the slide dovetail. Sometimes it appears they weren’t stamped at all… 
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Tedk said
I’d look for a new stock, they show up on eBay pretty regularlyAre there any holes in the bridge?
No holes in rear of receiver.
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Steven-Blame Winchester for the sight confusion…
The 66W has one standing and one folding leaf. It was used on M54 1st Standard rifles without receiver sights. When the change to the NRA stock occurred, the sight was changed to the Win 22G “Sporting” rear sight.
As for the LOP, for comparison I took the same photo with another relatively early M54 (S/N 13264) 30 GOV’T’06 1st Standard rifle with Lyman 48W. Your butt plate is original.
Looking at your swivel photos, I think you have toe original swivel eyes into which someone has inserted fixed metal loops. The 1st Standard rifles originally had swivel “eyes” that were intended to be used with the old style hook-type swivel, as in the next photo. If you look at yours, I think they’re like these except for the added loops.
The leather cheek pad was probably not put on at the factory, but it’s surely contemporary to the gun. If it were my gun I’d leave it alone.
All in all a nice Model 54!!!
Lou
Thanks for the photos Lou.
Louis Luttrell said
The leather cheek pad was probably not put on at the factory, but it’s surely contemporary to the gun. If it were my gun I’d leave it alone.
I would, too, esp. if the appearance can be improved with shoe polish. Could be scraped off, but then the stock would have to be refinished–more trouble than it’s worth.
1 Guest(s)
