Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Opinions on my Model 54
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
November 1, 2023 - 9:47 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.IMG_0549.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0550.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0551.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0552.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0553.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0554.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0555.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0556.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0557.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0558.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0561.jpegImage Enlarger

I do have a Sheard #10 also marked Marbles .036 high. Should I install it?

Comments please! THX

Steve G.

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 487
Member Since:
August 27, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
November 1, 2023 - 10:24 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Sling swivels are not original and it looks like the stock has been shortened.

Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
November 1, 2023 - 10:46 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Length of pull is 13 inches, was the model 54 14 inches, I’m not sure?

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6154
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
November 1, 2023 - 11:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

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.”

Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
November 1, 2023 - 11:43 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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?

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 487
Member Since:
August 27, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
November 2, 2023 - 12:17 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

That steel butt plate is correct for your gun.

LOP for a M70 Standard Rifle is 13 1/2”. 

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6154
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
November 2, 2023 - 12:21 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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?

Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
November 2, 2023 - 12:24 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 487
Member Since:
August 27, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
November 2, 2023 - 12:25 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

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

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6154
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
November 2, 2023 - 12:47 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Steven Gabrielli said
That was one reason I felt the rifle was basically stock.

  

Well, it’s very close, if that BP is correct. 

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 960
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
November 2, 2023 - 9:44 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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.

M54-35585A-Butt-Stock.jpgImage Enlarger

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

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
November 3, 2023 - 12:59 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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 GIMG_0563.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0564.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0565.jpegImage EnlargerIMG_0566.jpegImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6154
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
November 3, 2023 - 2:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

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! 

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 960
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
November 3, 2023 - 2:18 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi Steven-

Blame Winchester for the sight confusion… Wink 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.

Lyman-6W-1.jpgImage EnlargerLyman-6W-2.jpgImage Enlarger

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.

Lyman-66W.jpgImage Enlarger

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.

M54-LOP.jpegImage EnlargerM54-Butt-Plate.jpegImage Enlarger

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.

Unknown-2.jpegImage Enlarger

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

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 487
Member Since:
August 27, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
November 3, 2023 - 2:19 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I’d look for a new stock, they show up on eBay pretty regularly

Are there any holes in the bridge?

Avatar
Winchester, VA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 960
Member Since:
November 5, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
November 3, 2023 - 2:28 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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… Confused

WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters

WACA-Signauture-3.jpg

Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
November 3, 2023 - 3:10 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Tedk said
I’d look for a new stock, they show up on eBay pretty regularly

Are there any holes in the bridge?

  

No holes in rear of receiver.

Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
November 3, 2023 - 3:10 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Louis Luttrell said
Hi Steven-

Blame Winchester for the sight confusion… Wink 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.

Lyman-6W-1.jpgImage EnlargerLyman-6W-2.jpgImage Enlarger

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.

Lyman-66W.jpgImage Enlarger

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.

M54-LOP.jpegImage EnlargerM54-Butt-Plate.jpegImage Enlarger

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.

Unknown-2.jpegImage Enlarger

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.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6154
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
November 3, 2023 - 3:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

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. 

Avatar
LI NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
August 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
November 3, 2023 - 4:19 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I agree, I have no plans to alter anything, other then the front sight which was ridiculous.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: tx4445, Blueliner, James Hayes, Randycrockett, Jeremy P, 5StarShooter
Guest(s) 144
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6154
TXGunNut: 4876
Chuck: 4520
1873man: 4261
steve004: 4098
Big Larry: 2296
twobit: 2284
TR: 1691
mrcvs: 1657
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12515
Posts: 108634

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1729
Members: 8723
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation