Bill Jokela said
twobit
I have one model 61 with an X suffix. It is serial number 201072X. I sent this number to you 5 or 6 years ago along with others. It is the only 61 with an X suffix that I have ever seen.
Regards Bill Jokela
  

Hello Bill,

Thanks so much.  I did not have it in my data!  Can't tell you why.  Now it's the only one that I have seen.

Michael

I have one model 61 with an X suffix. It is serial number 201072X. I sent this number to you 5 or 6 years ago along with others. It is the only 61 with an X suffix that I have ever seen.

Regards Bill Jokela

Michael

This is from an older (January 2025) version of the M70 survey, but I think it shows that duplicates were more common at some times than others.  Also shown are the three "D" serial numbers I had at the time and the "G" prefix serial numbers.  The latter represent pre-64 M70 receivers that were replaced after 1968, by which time Winchester was required to add a hand stamped "G" prefix.

Tedk said
Very informative thread…
  

That's for sure!

Chasing any info.

Thanks

John

[Image Can Not Be Found]

Buck94 said

patdaddy said
So…why were there duplicate serial numbers to begin with? Did they stamp the number, then say “whoops” and grab the “X” stamp? I mean, it seems to me they wouldn’t have duplicated the number on purpose.
  

Yes, It was a factory fix for a production accident. Winchester stamped serial numbers sequentially as guns came off the line, and occasionally two guns ended up with the same number — a skipped or reused number in the ledger, or a stamp applied twice.
When they caught it, they stamped an X after the number on the second gun so the two wouldn’t float around with identical serials. Rumour has it there is even a known single XX out there which is even crazier to understand how that accident occurred  😀
  

No rumor... Model 94 serial number 2138903XX exists.  It wasn't an "accident" per se, but was a machinery (mechanical) malfunction issue.

Bert

patdaddy said
So…why were there duplicate serial numbers to begin with? Did they stamp the number, then say “whoops” and grab the “X” stamp? I mean, it seems to me they wouldn’t have duplicated the number on purpose.
  

Early production duplicates were the result of human error.  The person operating the manually operated number index die either forgot or got distracted and did not rotate to the next sequential number.  In the post-WW II years, the indexing of the number digits was automated, but the machinery sometimes malfunctioned when it was in need of maintenance (oiling or adjustment).

This is an example... in the year 1955 there was an apparent mechanical issue with the serial number machinery in the 2134800 - 2139000 range, and it was really bad in the 2138000 - 2138977 range.

Keep in mind, the list above is only what I have found thus far.  I suspect that there are a lot more duplicates that I have yet to find and document.

Bert

patdaddy said
So…why were there duplicate serial numbers to begin with? Did they stamp the number, then say “whoops” and grab the “X” stamp? I mean, it seems to me they wouldn’t have duplicated the number on purpose.
  

Yes, It was a factory fix for a production accident. Winchester stamped serial numbers sequentially as guns came off the line, and occasionally two guns ended up with the same number — a skipped or reused number in the ledger, or a stamp applied twice.
When they caught it, they stamped an X after the number on the second gun so the two wouldn’t float around with identical serials. Rumour has it there is even a known single XX out there which is even crazier to understand how that accident occurred  😀

helidriver72 said
https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/1211495800
 
whats the deal with this one?
looks like additional stamps on the bolt and lever?
  

Nothing out of the ordinary on the stamps, for a U.S. Government Contract Carbine/Musket Model 95.

The forearm is a replacement. The carbine is missing its original forearm, upper hand guard, and forearm band. The front sight blade appears to be a replacement. The rear sight elevator is a replacement and likely the sight leaf as well. The buttstock appears refinished and was likely done when the replacement forearm was put on.

I do wonder if it started out as a musket and someone replaced the barrel and forearm. If it was a carbine from the factory, I would have expected it to have a sling ring and/or signs of a sling ring having been present on the receiver at some point. I don't see much to indicate it ever had a sling ring. As otherwise it appears the rest of it is in its original finish.

Sincerely,

Maverick

twobit said

Yes, much better.  I got a new computer and need to update to a better editing program. 
  

I just used the Photos App on my Mac.  There are certainly MUCH more capable editing software out there.
  

I used to use Adobe Photoshop Elements.  I need to buy a new version. 

Mike

whats the deal with this one?

looks like additional stamps on the bolt and lever?

Chuck said

twobit said

Chuck said
Tried to lighten it.
  

This looks a little better.  Nice rifle.
  

Yes, much better.  I got a new computer and need to update to a better editing program. 
  

I just used the Photos App on my Mac.  There are certainly MUCH more capable editing software out there.