Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
Coming from this seller, it should be no surprise. Look at photo #48 and you can clearly see non-matching proof marks on the barrel vs. the receiver. The pistol grip cap is also installed upside down. On such a “mint condition” gun, why the buggered up screws on the butt plate and grip cap? Top it off with a fake box and all the other crap. Serial number is 1362211. It would be interesting to see if Bert has this one in his survey as a different caliber, etc.
Offline
Interesting how the seller notes pre-war so many times in the description of the gun. He obviously considers that an important selling point. Several years ago I asked Bert what constituted a pre-war 64 and he told me it was all the guns made thru serial # 1343183 (8/23/42) which is when Winchester suspended production to support the war. Accordingly, this 64 is not pre-war and is misrepresented.
Don,
I saw this rifle several years ago, and it was a 219 Zipper then, and it definitely did not have the box and other faked items. As with everything else that he sells, Buyer BEWARE!
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
What are the opinions as to whether that barrel was mounted to that receiver when the rifle was originally shipped from the factory?
steve004 said
What are the opinions as to whether that barrel was mounted to that receiver when the rifle was originally shipped from the factory?
It’s my opinion that the barrel has been swapped from another rifle. Looking at original configured Winchesters, the proof marks on the barrel vs. the receiver should be forensically matching. Meaning that they were both applied after the barrel was mounted to the receiver and proof marked with the same stamp after test firing. The subject rifle’s proof marks do not match at all. The stocks have been messed with too–couldn’t even install the pistol grip cap right side up.
Don
Don – I am in agreement with your opinion. One odd aspect – to go to all that effort to put that rifle together, plus fabricate the box etc., – and you can’t come up with a pair of non-buggered screws for the buttplate?
steve004 said
What are the opinions as to whether that barrel was mounted to that receiver when the rifle was originally shipped from the factory?
Steve,
The odds are in favor it being an original barrel on that receiver.
To explain my thoughts, in the immediate Post WW II production period, Winchester manufactured a very substantial number of 219 Zipper Model 64 rifles (most of them found in the 1360000 – 1408600 serial number range). Currently, I have surveyed a total of (221) Model 64 219 Zipper rifles, and of that number, (80) of them were found in the mentioned serial number range (1946 production). In total, I have surveyed (101) Post WW II production Model 64 rifles in 219 Zipper, with the bulk of them in the years 1946-48.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
steve004 said
Don – I am in agreement with your opinion. One odd aspect – to go to all that effort to put that rifle together, plus fabricate the box etc., – and you can’t come up with a pair of non-buggered screws for the buttplate?
From the most recent other posts regarding this seller and the boxed model 61’s SDOG has for sale on GB, it’s my impression that he is buying “high-condition” guns (from Guns International and others) and putting them in fake boxes along with all the other fake crap and peddling them off on GB as “original” to unsuspecting buyers. Doubling (or more) his money just by adding fake boxes and reproduction paperwork.
Bert H. said
Steve,
The odds are in favor it being an original barrel on that receiver.
To explain my thoughts, in the immediate Post WW II production period, Winchester manufactured a very substantial number of 219 Zipper Model 64 rifles (most of them found in the 1360000 – 1408600 serial number range). Currently, I have surveyed a total of (221) Model 64 219 Zipper rifles, and of that number, (80) of them were found in the mentioned serial number range (1946 production). In total, I have surveyed (101) Post WW II production Model 64 rifles in 219 Zipper, with the bulk of them in the years 1946-48.
Bert
Bert –
Thank you for your thoughts. You know a lot more about these than I do. Of those you surveyed, it would be neat to see close-up photos of the proof marks. Is this odd stamped proof mark typical of what you’ve seen? I don’t doubt that the barrel is correct for this serial number range. Still, I would speculate that the majority of rifles in this range were not in the Zipper chambering.
deerhunter said
steve004 said
Don – I am in agreement with your opinion. One odd aspect – to go to all that effort to put that rifle together, plus fabricate the box etc., – and you can’t come up with a pair of non-buggered screws for the buttplate?From the most recent other posts regarding this seller and the boxed model 61’s SDOG has for sale on GB, it’s my impression that he is buying “high-condition” guns (from Guns International and others) and putting them in fake boxes along with all the other fake crap and peddling them off on GB as “original” to unsuspecting buyers. Doubling (or more) his money just by adding fake boxes and reproduction paperwork.
Don – I think everything you are saying is true. So, perhaps the rifle (by itself) is right. However, I have also noticed this seller has offered a lot of rifles where there is much more wrong than just the boxes and paperwork.
steve004 said
Bert –
Thank you for your thoughts. You know a lot more about these than I do. Of those you surveyed, it would be neat to see close-up photos of the proof marks. Is this odd stamped proof mark typical of what you’ve seen? I don’t doubt that the barrel is correct for this serial number range. Still, I would speculate that the majority of rifles in this range were not in the Zipper chambering.
Steve,
For just the year 1946, the research survey has revealed the following caliber breakdown;
1. 30 WCF = 98 (42.6%)
2. 32 WS = 43 (18.7%)
3. 25-35 WCF = 9 (3.9%)
4. 219 Zipper = 80 (37.8%)
The 219 Zipper production was only smaller than the 30 WCF, and not by a much.
In regards to the proof mark stamps found on the barrel and frame ring, it is important to keep in mind that each and every one of them was individually hand stamped. Misstrikes happened, albeit not on real a frequent basis. One should not discount all Winchesters as “fakes” because the proof marks appear to be different. Yes, it is a good reason to more closely examine the entire gun, and in light of that particular seller’s propensity for being outright dishonest, it is wise to question everything. However, that barrel was on that receiver frame long before SDOG bought it and added the box and junk to it. I am not saying that he isn’t above that level of treachery, but it is outside of his usual MO.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
