Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I recently acquired a pre-64 Model 70 Chambered in 244 Rem. Imp. I fire formed a case and it most likely is a 244 Mashburn Improved. The rifle is a standard barreled Winchester factory barrel, with all of the pertinent Winchester barrel markings and proper proof-marks. Under the stock on the bottom of the barrel near the receiver is stamped 243. The problem I have is that the only missing marking is the caliber. There is no factory caliber designation marked on the barrel where it should be. The caliber .244.Rem.Imp. is beautifully engraved in fancy script at the rear of the left side of the barrel behind the dog collar. The barrel has been cut to 21 3/8″ and has the proper Winchester barrel end crowning. It has been suggested by a couple of supposedly knowledgeable people that it was done at the Winchester custom shop. The serial number dates to 1956, 355XXX. The rifle was obtained at a garage sale by an acquaintance of mine in Alaska in the seventies from a guy in Houston Alaska. At the time the rifle had no stock, just a barreled action. He was told that “a famous gun writer was sheep hunting and was involved in a plane crash that destroyed the stock”. The guy in Houston was an acquaintance of the “gun writer”,who had left the broken gun and some other items with the Houston guy, and never retrieved them. My friend unfortunately paid no attention and could not remember the writer’s name. My friend found an old pre-64 stock to use, and had it for many years until I got it. Two interesting questions. Who was the writer, and who made the rifle. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Who knows? Maybe Warren Page who had a thing for 6mm rifles and even developed a wildcat 6mm of his own.
A famous writer at the time like Page could likely get an unchambered M70 barrel from the factory with a 243 bore and have a gunsmith chamber it, cut to length, etc. I seriously doubt that Winchester chambered it.
Thanks for that info. I am not familiar with Warren Page. I googled and found out he was gun editor for Field and Stream from 1947-1973. It’s funny that you said he may have made his own wildcat, because I have been trying to figure out what case it has. It is not 40 degrees in angle but seems more than 30 degrees. It does not really fit anything I can find exactly. The Mashburn is the closest but does not appear exactly a match. Are you saying that influential people could possibly get a factory marked Winchester barrel and tell them to leave the caliber designation off of it? Thanks again.
Page’s wildcat was the 240 Page Super Pooper (funny name!). It had a 28 degree shoulder and an overall length of 2.221 inches. In its final form it was an improved 244 Remington and cases could be fire-formed from 244 brass.
I suspect that if your rifle was Page’s the caliber stamp would have been 240 PSP (or with the full Super Pooper) rather than 244 Imp.
As for the factory supplying barrels, they would not do this for ordinary people but VIPs like Page and Jack O’Connor and Elmer Kieth had special privileges.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Sometime in 1955, before the .243 Winchester was introduced commercially, the factory made up a “tool room” rifle for Warren Page to experiment with that was chambered in “6 M/M .308 case” and so marked. That rifle was in the target configuration with the medium heavy straight taper barrel.
The reason I mention it in this context is that (like your rifle) if carried the normal Model 70 roll markings in the usual place on the left side of the barrel, but was not caliber stamped following the words “Model 70 – “. Instead, the caliber was hand stamped on top of the breech end of the barrel along with the date in (apparently) typical “tool room” fashion. If interested, the barrel is photographed on page 305 (photo 9-40) in Roger Rule’s Model 70 book.
It certainly does not prove that your rifle once belonged to Warren Page, but does illustrate that he had “friends” in the product development department at Winchester and that roll marked barrels lacking the caliber designation stamp could be had (even though by this time the standard production one-piece roll marking dies included both the address/model part and the caliber designation). It’s also the case that the under chamber caliber designation was always placed when the barrel was chambered, i.e. before polishing and before application of the exposed roll marks.
So it’s at least plausible that sometime in ’55 or ’56 (once the .243 Winchester was in production), someone could have grabbed a barrel marked “243 Win” under the chamber (but lacking the exposed roll markings) and either provide it to Mr. Page or had it made up in the Product Services Department (the Custom Shop was not established until 1959) in “.244 Rem. Imp.”
As for “ordinary people” getting barrels, prior to 1955 Winchester would sell replacement barrels, but these would carry the normal markings plus a “mail order proof mark” (oval with a ‘P’) that was intended to indicate that the barrel was not installed by factory workmen.
Interesting story…
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Mr. Luttrell, thank you for the information, it was very informative. I was wondering why the barrel was marked 243 underneath, but not on the barrel. It is strange that everything is properly Winchester marked except the caliber designation. The roll marks are all there except after -Model 70- it is blank. One thing I just noticed is that there are aligned matching Winchester proof marks, one on the barrel and one on the receiver. The one on the barrel is partially hidden under the receiver overlap. Is that part of the process of making this an “improved” version? The caliber is very artfully inscribed on the left side of the barrel just in front of the Barrel proof mark. It appears to be free hand done by a person of great skill. I doubt the Winchester factory would have done it that way. I did not know the Custom gun shop was 1959 and later. I suppose there are no records from the Product Services Department available in that time frame. I could see how someone like Page could have gotten a barrel marked only on the bottom, basically a 243 barrel blank. What confuses me is that the factory roll-marked the barrel and included the Winchester proof marks but left the caliber off. Would they have done that and allowed a non caliber marked barrel to leave the factory without the oval P to designate non factory installed barrel? Still confused, in Missouri.
November 5, 2014
Offline
I wish I were able to really tell you anything useful. It is a puzzle…
Regarding the exposed markings, until sometime around 1950 the markings on the barrel were applied in two operations. The “Manufacturer-Address-Model 70-” part was applied using one roll marking die. The caliber designation was applied in a separate operation. But by the time Winchester started making 6mm barrels in 1955, the exposed markings were applied using a single die that included the full “Manufacturer-Address-Model 70-Caliber”.
So if your rifle were simply a rechambered 243 standard rifle it would have been marked “MODEL 70-243 WIN”. It seems that whoever put the rifle together somehow acquired a barrel roll marked with the older “Manufacturer-Address-Model 70-” that did not include the caliber designation. It would be easier for somebody with factory connections to get their hands on a barrel so-marked.
Regarding the under chamber markings, barrels were marked underneath when they were chambered, but the exposed marking were applied later, after polishing. Since the only 6mm bore Model 70 Winchester was making was the 243 Winchester, and any 243 Winchester barrel could be rechambered to the longer 244 Remington, I would expect that someone went to the parts bin, picked up a recently made ‘243 WIN’ barrel (that not would have any exposed markings) and applied the older “Manufacturer-Address-Model 70-” exposed marking. Again, that would imply the involvement of someone inside the factory at least in acquiring the parts marked as they are.
The proof marks are puzzling, however, since it suggests that the barrel was shortened by a turn of so from the breech end sometime after the rifle was assembled/proofed. If this is a standard contour barrel, does the “goose egg” for the rear sight fit a standard Model 70 stock properly, or is it set to the rear? One can imagine many scenarios how this happened, but I doubt any can be proven. I suppose that someone like Mr. Page could have gotten a 243 Win barrel from the product development department marked as yours is, and sent it to his favorite gunsmith to be chambered (possibly including shortening the breech end by a turn to allow for a more precise job), cut to 21 1/2 inches and re-crowned, and elegantly marked “.244 Rem Imp.”
But I do not believe that there are any existing records would shed light on the mystery…
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I am amazed at your level of knowledge concerning Winchester rifle manufacturing details. If I get what you are saying, it is possible that someone at the factory could have taken a 1955-56 243 chambered barrel, then roll marked the Winchester Logo etc. on the barrel top utilizing an outdated roll marking tool that dated to about 1950, when the roll marking was performed in two parts. I wonder if that was a practice they would perform for anyone upon request? I can easily see that anyone wanting to make a wildcat out of a Winchester barrel/action would ask the Factory to leave off the caliber roll mark so that they could add their own. Just wondering if it was a common practice or only for “special” people. The barrel is standard, with the “dog collar” or “Goose egg” dovetailed for the rear site. This one has no rear site, but has a Stith blank inserted into the slot. Interesting you should ask about the position of the goose egg in relation to its position in the stock. I just looked at it and it appears that someone had to “chisel out” the area behind (rear) where the collar fits into the stock to get the sight collar to fit the stock. They appear to have taken out about 1/8″ or so to make it work. The stock of course is not the original as it was destroyed 50 or so years ago. The current stock is an older steel butted standard pre-64 Model 70 that was obtained 25 or so years ago for the rifle. I never would have noticed if you had not mentioned it. Does this collar setback have any meaning? Still perplexed but greatly enlightened. Thank You.
November 5, 2014
Offline
As many members of this forum can attest, I am just regurgitating information from Roger Rule’s excellent book on the Model 70. My expertise is limited to basic literacy and owning a copy of that book. 
At least my own experience tends to agree with what’s in Rule, so I’m pretty confident that if I quote him accurately I’ll be right about 99% of the time.
The collar setback means that the barrel was shortened from the breech end by at least a turn (which is also why the Winchester barrel proof mark is partially removed). That would argue the barrel was not chambered/inistalled at the factory.
Still doesn’t explain how the owner acquired a Model 70 243 barrel marked as to model, but not caliber. I doubt the factory would have sold an unmarked barrel to you or me back then, in fact from 1951 onwards they required replacement barrels be installed at the factory and did away with the “mail order proof”. (I misremember the date in the post above where I said 1955).
So I’m still leaning toward the “somebody with connections got the barrel” theory that goes along with the gun’s legend as you recounted it initially. If by some chance it was Warren Page, as vicvanb speculated, well Page was a bench rest accuracy nut and it would not be surprising that he would have set the barrel back a turn so the chamber could be cut as precisely as possible.
I doubt you’d be able to learn much from the factory. If it were my gun I think I might take a wild chance and get a copy of Warren Page’s hunting book called “One Man’s Wilderness”, which is full of his personal hunting stories. I would guess that if he were ever involved in a plane crash in Alaska that destroyed his gun he might have written the story down for his readers… Who knows? At worst it would be a good read, and at best you might be able to give vicvanb a big “thumbs up”.
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Pardon if the following matter has been covered and I’ve simply missed it in a momentary reread. In this initial Thread post, is the reference to “a standard barreled Winchester factory barrel”. Based on the discussion I’m assuming the rifle is indeed a standard weight Model 70 as opposed to a “Featherweight”.
Hardly a scientific sampling, but the barrel proof location on my own standard weight .243, c. 1959, indicates that a proof-oval bisection would require more than a single 360′ turn of the barrel. Of my several Featherweight rifles spanning eight production years, all have barrel proofs placed in such manner that bisecting the barrel ‘proof-oval’ would have removed a considerably greater amount of lineal barrel chamber area than simply one 360′ turn.
Were I to hazard a totally inexpert guess, either perhaps more likely than not: A) The notable writer or whomever simply prevailed on Winchester to furnish an entire rifle without the chamnbering marking and later ‘had their way’ with it in a unusual manner where ‘one good turn deserved another’; or B) There were in fact two separate rechambering events as perhaps getting the “Super Pooper” fine tuned; or C) In a more pedestrian accounting, the anomaly barrel was parted-out when Winchester New Haven closed it’s doors and sold off some remaining in-house ‘artifacts’ which might not have been quite ready for prime time.
Here just momentarily applying the window cleaner to my crystal ball!
John
Wow, the information is amazing. Lou, your contention is that the factory probably did not put the gun together as they would not have allowed the barrel proof mark to be partially hidden by the receiver overlap. I took a good look at the proof marks, and the barrel mark is actually almost 50% covered by the receiver. That seems like a lot, does that mean something? Other than the rifles origin enigma, I still do not know what cartridge it is chambered for. When I bought the rifle (for 100.00) three years ago, the guy sold it to me cheap because it was in a caliber he said you could not get ammo for. He thought it would be a tough sell. The little I knew about wildcats was that I thought it was an Ackley Improved, and I did know that you could generally shoot factory ammo from the associated caliber, I.E. 6mm in this case, in a 244 Ackley and fire form the case. I did not realize there were a bunch of 240-244 wildcats. I did not try fire forming a case until a few weeks ago. Believing I had a 244 Ackley Improved, I put a 6mm Rem in it to fire form. What came out does not have a 40 degree shoulder. I started looking up the various cartridges, and the closest I can get to by comparing to a photograph is the 244 Mashburn. Who would have marked a rifle .244 Rem. Imp.? It seems that Page would have marked his PSP or something, and a Mashburn would have been marked Mashburn. Perhaps it was someone who did not want to advertise exactly what it was. Maybe someone out there is familiar with the .244 Rem. Imp. designation and what it might relate to. Maybe it is a wildcat one-off. What 240-244 wildcat chambers would properly fire form a 6mm Remington cartridge?
John, to answer your question, the barrel is a standard weight, not a featherweight, cut actually to 21 3/8″. I am interested in how fully half of the barrel proof mark is hidden under the receiver, that seems excessive. When did the factory close down and liquidate its inventory?
I will try to take photos, especially of the caliber etching. Perhaps someone would recognize the handiwork. Also what is the best way to “authenticate” or definitively identify the “.244 Rem. Imp.” cartridge case to what it actually is? Thanks again all, I greatly appreciate the help. (muddled in Missouri)
Regarding the proof mark, the fact that half of it is under the receiver ring plus the fact that the sight boss is behind it’s original inletting are proof positive that the barrel was turned back. Proof marks obviously were applied to the barrel forward of the receiver after the barrel was installed and proof tested. The only way they could get half under the receiver is if the barrel was turned back, almost certainly more than one turn. A M70 with a barrel proof mark partly under the receiver ring clearly would never have come out of the factory like that. Did I say “clearly” and “never?”
I believe you are correct. The fact that there is no barrel caliber marking most likely indicates what others have said, that the factory supplied “someone” with a .243 factory roll marked barrel, minus the barrel roll mark caliber designation, for them to use for whatever wildcat caliber they wanted to make. The remaining questions are, who would have been able to get Winchester to supply a barrel in that configuration, why was the barrel turned down so much, and what cartridge does it use? Thanks for the input.
1 Guest(s)
