Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Last weekend was a local gun show and this gun sat on a table at an unbelievably fair price. I couldn’t believe someone didn’t get this before I traded my 1950 Model 70 on it. I can’t wait to get it out and shoot it. It will stay as is with open sights…
Nice find and a fairly scarce rifle!
Enjoy it, and yes, do leave it as original as possible!
That’s a very nice pre-war gun Kirk….
If you can’t convince them, confuse them
What an absolute prize!!! Were it mine, I wouldn’t be shooting it very much!
Congratulations.
iskra
I would love to own it! But………the wood looks refinished into an non Winchester color and the checkering looks re-cut to me. Not to bash the carbine, just for points of interests.
It’s always hard to tell originality from photos, but…
I agree that the stock is re-finished–that is pretty obvious. I’d bet the bottom metal is re-blued. Can’t really tell about the other metal but it too is likely re-done.
The good news is that the rear bridge is not drilled and the rear sight is original.
If the bore is good and no one has jiggered the trigger, sear and safety, it should be a good shooter–provided you don’t mind severe muzzle blast!
So…the “unbelievably fair price” may or may not have been fair. Don’t judge it by what a similar factory original Carbine is worth. Re-finished Model 70s are hard to price once they have lost their collector value.
Wow! A non Winchester color and refinished to boot. It is amazing how much help you can get from the gallery…
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Shrapnel-
I’ve been hesitant to comment on this one b/c as Vic says, it’s often hard to tell from photos. If the ‘color balance’ is off on a digital camera a stock can easily look ‘too blue’ (meaning in this case not ‘red’ enough). I’d say the pores in the grain look somewhat more ‘open’ than is typical (indicating possible stripping/refinishing) and the light reflection off the stock is perhaps a bit more subdued (satin) than one might expect from Winchester’s sprayed on nitrocellulose lacquer. But it’s hard to tell. It’s always best to compare it side-by-side with another one in daylight before drawing conclusions.
FWIW I thought the metal finishes looked OK. There seems to be carry wear on the forward part of the floor plate hinge, and a bit of muzzle wear, which at least argues against any recent tinkering with the finish.
Nice rifle in any event.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Shrapnel-I’ve been hesitant to comment on this one b/c as Vic says, it’s often hard to tell from photos. If the ‘color balance’ is off on a digital camera a stock can easily look ‘too blue’ (meaning in this case not ‘red’ enough). I’d say the pores in the grain look somewhat more ‘open’ than is typical (indicating possible stripping/refinishing) and the light reflection off the stock is perhaps a bit more subdued (satin) than one might expect from Winchester’s sprayed on nitrocellulose lacquer. But it’s hard to tell. It’s always best to compare it side-by-side with another one in daylight before drawing conclusions.
FWIW I thought the metal finishes looked OK. There seems to be carry wear on the forward part of the floor plate hinge, and a bit of muzzle wear, which at least argues against any recent tinkering with the finish.
Nice rifle in any event.
Best,
Lou
The gun isn’t mint, but in excellent condition. How these critics can tell so much is wrong by a few pictures, escapes me. It seems that people need to find fault to elevate their own misgivings. I had one of the most knowledgeable model 70 collectors evaluate the gun before I got it.
I have left left several other sites because of these same critical assessments that are so common today. I am going to keep the rifle and shoot it on occasion, regardless of it’s imperfections…
Here it is with a few other so-called original guns…
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Shrapnel-
I think your new photos make my point about “color balance” in digital cameras. The wood color in the new photos looks fine for all of them, wouldn’t you say? Same rifle, two different ‘backdrops’, and in one set of photos the color looks too ‘blue’ while in the other set it looks like one would expect a M70 stock to be.
IMHO you can’t beat daylight outdoors and a couple of rifles to compare to when trying to decide about ‘original finish’. Just can’t do it reliably from most photos!!! 
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Shrapnel said
Here it is with a few other so-called original guns…
Ha! I love how it looks in there with the 24″ and 26″ (and looks like one 22″) barrels. Such a little shorty. I bet the muzzle blast is fantastic!
25 years ago, a client of mine bought two matching .30-06 carbines at a State of Washington auction. The guns have consecutive serial numbers. They were surplussed by the state from the McNeil Island Correctional Facility, which was upgrading to semi-automatic rifles. These two carbines had originally been purchased from Winchester by the US Government for use at United States Federal Penitentiary on McNeil Island. It was a federal facility from 1875 until it was turned over to the Washington State Department of Corrections in 1981. I have coveted these two rifles for many years. It is obvious they sat in an armory and saw almost no use during their 30+ years at McNeil Island. Seeing your fine example has me contemplating reaching out to my client’s widow to see what has become of these two carbines. I suspect if they go in an estate auction, they will be split up and their interesting provenance lost forever. It would be too bad, except perhaps for the fact then two enthusiasts would be enjoying a carbine in their collection!
Thanks again for sharing photos of your carbine. It looks like a fine addition to your collection!
Justin
Justin,
Thanks for the reply. That second gun from the back is another real rare gun. It is a featherweight 270 and sightless. I got it from a guy that had never shot it and it appears that it had never been shot at all. It has a Winchester recoil pad and looks to be a special order rifle. I thought it may be a Gopher Special, but they didn’t have recoil pads.
Regardless, it is another nice find and again, this one was very reasonably priced…
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Justin-
Neat story… Seems to me you ought to see if you can keep those two carbines together and gather up as much provenance on them as can still be had… U.S. Federal purchases versus State of Washington, etc.
Could be as interesting as the U.S. purchases of M70 ’06 standard rifles in ’42 that never went into WWII combat, but some of which ended up in Viet Nam as ’50s arsenal reworks. Carlos Hathcock used a re-worked pre-war M70 in many of his most extraordinary (meaning personally dangerous and courageous) exploits. The history is way cool and ought to be kept alive…
I’ve no more ‘problems’ with Shrapnel’s M70 carbine than I do with my own type I-1 ’06 carbine. (Less, in fact, since it’s not my gun). The one I’ve got (’36 S/N) is so near perfect that it’s either a super rare original (based on condition) or a really very good refinish…
His looks OK to me in the latest pics and my comments last evening were only an effort to reconcile the ‘naysayer’ comments with the limitations of this medium.
Cheers,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Shrapnel-
That one (sightless FWT) caught my eye as well. .270 WIN you say… Cool… What’s the approx S/N? As you say, with a vent pad it’s too late to be part of the (circa 1959) ‘Gopher’ order, but the factory did any number of S/O sightless M70s later. The one I’ve got is too early to be a Gopher but I think it might be real (for a number of reasons)…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
1 Guest(s)
