Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I need some advice and I hope this is the correct forum to get it from. I have a pre 64 model 70 300 Win Magnum that does not have a proof mark on the barrel or the receiver. I have had it a few years and am reluctant to fire it. Do you think it would be safe to use?
Thanks for any advice,
Jerry
Hi Jerry. I’m going to treat your question as actually two. First question of ‘originality’. Does the rifle appear original in all respects? Is barrel nomenclature present and comporting to 300 Win chambering? Is the receiver serial number indicative of 1963 production? Is the barrel length original with original sights in place? Does the rifle and/or barrel appear refinished? Does the barrel appear to fit properly, inletting without gaps, into the stock? Is the rifle bolt serial numbered to match the receiver? If feeling competent, perhaps to remove striker mechanism from bolt and determine whether 300 Mag rounds cycle properly through rifle.
I’ve just had a quick look at my specimen file pix. Photo angles not perfect, but at least barrel proof perceptible in traditional ‘breach top’ positioning & receiver ring too, if seeing correctly, offset left. One possibility, if Winchester provided a replacement barrel to be fitted elsewhere beyond factory. Resulting lack of factory barrel proofs. Because the chambering adds particular value to the “pre 64” genre due to limited production period, conceivable the barrel genuine Winchester but “aftermarket”, purchase as replacement component. Of course, barrel discussion not providing explanation if receiver also without proofing mark.
IF the gun appears all original, I defer to the experts here to continue discussion on point of ‘no proof markings’.
Second question. A lot of tech chat above, yet your question broader, asking whether the rifle is safe to fire. May I suggest that you take it to a qualified gunsmith to determine that situation inclusive of visual examination, headspacing check & ‘proof firing’ if determined appropriate. I doubt that anything beyond a qualified “hands on” evaluation to fairly or competently answer your question of “safe to use”.
Best of luck and I’ll be watching with you for expert opinions.
John
Hi Jerry-
The answer to the most important question, i.e. “safe to shoot”, is best determined by a competent gunsmith who can check headspace and make sure there are no mechanical flaws that might render the rifle unsafe. On rare occasion, M70 receivers will crack between the face of the receiver and the forward most D&T hole on the receiver ring, possibly as a result of over tightening a replacement barrel (???). Clearly you wouldn’t want to fire such a gun until the receiver is replaced. If the barrel was replaced, even with an original, the headspace may also not be correct. Again, unsafe… If you’re not comfortable doing the inspection and checking headspace yourself, then PLEASE take it to a gunsmith. I suspect the cost of such an inspection will be less than the cost of buying your own headspace gauges, and FAR less than the cost of medical bills if something’s not right!!!
As for the absence of proof marks… It is highly doubtful that the rifle (even in 1963) left the factory that way. MAYBE not impossible, but I’d seriously doubt it. From about ’62-’63 the factory got really sloppy about WHERE the proofs were stamped, such that they are often badly misaligned, with one, or even both, stamped near the top of the barrel. But they SHOULD be there. Winchester stopped sending out mail order replacement barrels in the early 1950’s, and even those barrels had a “mail order proof” (Oval “P”) stamped on them. They weren’t unmarked…
Without seeing the rifle, one scenario is simply that it has been refinished and the proof marks polished out (sometimes they’re fairly shallow). Another possibility is that it was rebarreled with a factory NOS barrel acquired after Olin Corporation sold out and it’s parts inventory was dispersed. In that case one would still expect the receiver to be proofed, however.
So… There’s something “not right” and you are wise not to fire the rifle until it’s checked out by a gunsmith.
If you have questions about “authenticity/originality” that go beyond safety, John (iskra) already raised many of the relevant questions. If you could post a few photos of the rifle it would probably be enough for someone here to give you an idea. Note that as a “Guest” you cannot post photos directly on this site. You have to use a third-party photo hosting service and post the link here. Alternatively, you could e-mail photos to me ([email protected]) and I could post them for you. I also have some photos of a correct one on my computer at home that I can post here if they’d help…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I don’t know about Model 70’s but once in awhile .22 rifles did accidentally leave the factory without proof marks. I own an original Model 56 that is not proof marked at all and I also have some 60’s era documentation from Winchester where rifles were returned to them because of lack of proof marks so it did happen on rare occasions. As Lou mentioned, the more likely scenario is a refinish which obliterated the marks but you also can’t rule out a hiccup in the QA process.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Thanks for the replies and good advice. I will take it to a gunsmith before I shoot it.
The serial number on the receiver is 553887 and has an incomplete double stamped .458 that only shows a clear .4 followed by a faint 58 stamped on the lug, this is on top of a faint stamped .458. The engine turned bolt does not show any signs of etching for a serial number. The barrel appears original. There are not any under barrel markings except for the center alignment mark.
Jerry
Some photos from Jerry for comment…
Any help appreciated!!!
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Why would “.458” be stamped unless it was originally chambered for that cartridge? Plenty of reasons why someone later decided he didn’t need an elephant rifle, & had it rebarreled into what it now is.
Judging from the photos the receiver does not look refinished to me. Regardless if the barrel was changed the receiver should still have a proof mark.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
A few more photos from Jerry. The second of his Westerner-Alaskans in the pics has correct for period proofs:
Hi Clarence-
My understanding is that “458” was stamped on the recoil lug of ALL M70 short magnum receivers regardless of the barrel that was ultimately installed. It just indicated a short magnum receiver. So in-and-of-itself that stamp only indicates that the receiver is correct for a(ny) short magnum, so is not likely to have be a modified standard receiver.
Cheers, 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
clarence said
Why would “.458” be stamped unless it was originally chambered for that cartridge? Plenty of reasons why someone later decided he didn’t need an elephant rifle, & had it rebarreled into what it now is.
All the pre 64 short magnum rifles including the 264 Win Mag, 300 Win Mag, and 338 Win Mag, and 458 Win Mag had the “458” stamped on bottom of recoil lug. I would assume it was a carry over since the 458 was the 1st short magnum cartridge that went into production, and they all used the same basic receiver.
Steve
Last set of photos from Jerry with the unproofed gun next to another of his Westerner-Alaskans…
For those of you “sleuths” who want to weigh in, Jerry told me got this rifle off Amoskeag auction a while ago. The link is:
https://www.proxibid.com/asp/LotDetail.asp?ahid=9943&aid=92960&lid=23899005#topleft
I’ve got my own theories, but I’d also like to know what all ya’ll think… Apart from encouraging Jerry to pony up the modest fee to join WACA so he can continue to contribute our fun/research!!!
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks Jerry and Louis for accommodating the pix and the interesting Thread! And now perhaps my Jerry Lewis quality take! 🙂
Pix, most appearing of regularity, adding more and more to the conundrum. Only an apparent difference in barrel length between specimens? Is that correct?
***
My ‘take’, falling back on Occam’s Razor. More likely than not…
1. Rifle proofed or not. Less likely physical act of “proofing” and subsequent omission of relevant markings. Most likely never proofed.
2. Fact of rifle leaving factory with barrel & receiver as now viewed and unmarked, greater than marked and later altered to remove. Finish appears factory. (Such to me, perhaps experts to disagree) and considerably difficult to duplicate after marking removal. Further question of such alteration arising… Why? Believe most probable, departed factory unmarked.
3. Assuming the above propositions true, probability assumptions. That it left as barrel and receiver joined or alternatively, separated. (Duh… but relevant to ponder.)
4. If the components left factory unjoined, perhaps greatest likelihood, “lunchbox” rifle, before or after production ceased and quite possibly considerably after when production line no longer mobile. Removed as separate components – unauthorized. Later joined in buildout. Or…
5. Perhaps officially sanctioned factory departure for destination and or circumstance where complete rifle would not as such be lawful or importable. (Eg. “Firearm classification or parts classification.)
6. Perhaps informal ‘gift’ to factory official/other insider. Perhaps more than one extant.
An important point, that any likely ‘extra-procedural’ factory departure, well before GCA ’68 and presumably simply internal matter rather than any violation of US laws other than perhaps lunchbox context theft.
I believe this rifle, a unique specimen. One not probable of intent to create collector deceit. Residual questions of headspace/other hazards indicative of extra-factory assembly, particularly mismatch such as receiver rails incorrect for 300 Win Mag round = feeding problems.
If all ‘good to go’, it seems to me a $1600 bargain value.
Just my wordy, sleuthy take. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Hi John and Jerry-
I think you’re on the right track… Here’s my take:
1. ‘458’ marked receiver is a correct short magnum action. ‘458’ was the stamp applied to all short magnum receivers and is not related to which short magnum barrel was ultimately installed. Barrel is stated in Amoskeag catalog as 24″ and the roll markings look correct to me, so I think it’s a legit .300 WIN MAGNUM barrel installed on a legit short magnum receiver. The absence of a barrel date or caliber designation under the barrel is correct for a late manufacture (post-55) barrel.
2. Metal finishes look correct to me, as best one can tell from the photos. Especially on the photo of the recoil lug, what one can see of the barrel polish looks OK. So, my guess is original finish on original barrel and action.
3. One KEY point that can’t be answered. Proofs marks AND bolt serial number were applied at the same time (after test firing). So… If the barrel/receiver were not proof marked but the bolt had been correctly numbered to the gun, it would suggest a (rare) factory oversight. In the case of the subject rifle, the bolt is described as not numbered. This would indicate that the rifle never went through proof firing. However, the jeweling presently on the bolt was not regular factory practice on Westerner-Alaskans and might have been done later, obscuring a serial number. Late bolt serial numbers are often big, sloppy, shallow and misplaced, such that they could be obscured pretty easily. So it would only help with the sleuthing if the bolt WAS visibly numbered.
4. The stock has nothing to do with a 1963 Westerner-Alaskan. In Jerry’s comparison photos, one can tell that one of his 300 WIN MAGNUMs has the correct machine-cut, small panel, checkering that dominated after about ’60. The subject rifle has late ’50’s hand cut checkering. In ’63 there’s no way (IMHO) that hand checkered stock was installed on a production-line rifle. Add to that, the recoil pad on the subject rifle (while marked ‘WINCHESTER’) is unlike what the factory was using on M70s with factory pads in 1963.
So… Putting this all together. I agree… The rifle (barreled action) is made up of original/original finish parts that most likely were never assembled into a complete gun and proofed. Contemporary ‘lunchbox’ gun was my first guess, but later liberation of barrel and action (together or separately) is also a good explanation. Either way, the barrel/action left the factory without being proofed and without a stock attached. The jeweling seems to be 1/4″ diameter which is Winchester correct (I think) so could have been done before the parts wandered off or added later.
Given the high probability that the rifle was never proofed, I’ll repeat my suggestion that it be checked over before firing.
Just my take… (to borrow John’s phrase). Divergent opinions VERY welcome (by me anyway)… Interesting gun for sleuthing…
Best, Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
November 7, 2015
Offline
Could the barrel, action and bolt have been sold as separate components to a custom rifle builder? If so that would explain the absence of proof marks and the serial number on the bolt.
Mike
Hi Mike-
Anything’s possible, but insofar as I understand the Winchester Product Services Department policies from the early ’50’s until post-’63, the answer’s probably not (???)…
As of the early 1950’s, Winchester stopped selling replacement barrels, requiring instead that rifles be sent back to the factory for rebarreling. The threat of “defective product” lawsuits was apparently already rearing it’s head even then… So the “oval ‘P'” stamped mail order proof barrels went away… Along those lines I doubt Winchester would sell a stripped receiver through regular channels. Even back to 1936, when barrels were available by mail order, I don’t think that receivers could be ordered by mail.
Maybe I’m wrong, of course… And I’m sure that an FOO “Friend of Olin” could get anything they wanted at any time. But it would have taken factory connections (???).
Please correct me if I’m wrong… I have a M70 with pretty solid connections to John Kusmit that in some ways is similar to this story. It’s a factory M70 (probably left the factory as a standard grade) that was most likely sent to John for embellishment as a private commission. But it has some parts in it that most likely “walked away” in someone’s lunchbox… Kind of why I like the “lunchbox special” theory here. Mine’s a different story though…
All the Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Just my own hangup on unduly focusing on this conundrum. To add the possibility that these components came together from Winchester’s programmed small supply of extra parts some years after production end in ’63. I could see the firm sitting on such until the 1968 Gun Control Act caused a tilt with any existing pre-64 receivers already serial numbered and not meeting the GCA standards required.
Lore that Winchester was a bit late coming to the new & improved serialization party; officially as I understand due to a number of already serialized components unable to be timely built out prior to the GCA effective date. Thus sometime during the sixty eight year, the new plan taking effect. I have a, per sn, clearly ’68 production Model 88 Carbine with old serialization scheme.
This situation simply illustrative of one reason suddenly serialized receivers on hand, needed to be re-serialed (Unikley), scrapped (Unlikely) or moved out of parts inventory. I think quite possible, notwithstanding prior Winchester policy, to quietly so something with such components leftover. No compatible production line, no innocuous proofing procedure, quietly such out the door. Perhaps friends & employees or as noted “lunch special, blue plate; take out!”
Noting my takes getting wilder here… Just couldn’t resist!
John
1 Guest(s)
