Think it's real?|Winchester Rifles|Forum|Winchester Collector

Don,

I suppose my question is, What about it makes you believe that it is not real?

Or to add further, What signs point this out plainly?

I wholeheartedly agree. The fake caliber stamp and the entire rifle has been refinished are give aways.

Winchester would have never made a caliber marking so clumsy. The separation would have been well defined by them.

I suppose the next question being. What was likely the original caliber?

Do you think that they would have re-bored a 25-25 or 30 W.C.F. to be the 32-40? Or simply used a 32 W.S. barrel and only modified the chamber and caliber stamp?

Says he’s a private seller too, I wonder what his deal is.

TXGunNut said
I couldn’t get past the butt stock, fits nicely enough but Winchester never cut a blank with grain like that, woodworker will need to correct me but it may be quarter sawn or something like that. That and the knot near the receiver. Nope. I don’t think Winchester made a stock that looks like that one. I agree about the caliber stamp. Attractive gun at first glance but grows horns and fangs in short order.

 

 

Mike

  

Not Winchester wood and not quarter sawn.  If you look at the top of the stock the wood has very straight and tight lines.  That is what quarter sawn wood would look like.  Except some of quarter sawn wood will have rays going across the grain. The more rays the pricier the wood.  Quarter wawn wood is more stable than the other cuts.  Normal wood is flat sawn and will sometimes get the tight lines on the edges of the plank but is full of what we call cathedral patterns.  The cuts that have a big portion of the tight lines are called rift sawn.   The wood on this stock is flat sawn and most likely not walnut.  If it is walnut it is a very poor piece.

You guy’s bring up a lot of good points, and the very first thing that I noticed, was the poor fit of the wood to metal fit at the top tang. Which made me re read Mikes post on the butt stock, not being correct, or original.

When Bert brings up the fact that the Lister has had other listings which weren’t correct, I think that says a lot! 

Anthony

I’ll accept what everybody else is saying about this M64. The only contribution I can make is to report I bought a standard grade early postwar Model.64 30 WCF several years ago, which had Super Grade swivels and bases. The forward base was integral with the nose cap, as we see on the Deer Rifle and the 71 Special. It was not priced as if it had a “Special Order Feature.”  When I bought my Deer Rifle I sold it. 

I have no idea how rare the existence of SG swivel bases on standard grade M64 and 71 rifles is but Ive seen several examples over the years. I assumed these were ordered that way because it would be awkward to have it done afterward.

I have to correct my previous statement. After observing a couple of lever guns in the serial number range as the one being discussed I believe the front sight ramp is correct.    RRM

Rat Rod Mac said
I have to correct my previous statement. After observing a couple of lever guns in the serial number range as the one being discussed I believe the front sight ramp is correct.    RRM

  

Mac,  there was a time when I almost burned my eyes out researching Winchester sight hoods while going down some rabbit hole or other.  Unless my creaky memory has failed, the correct sight hood for a Model 64 is  #3277 rather than the more common #3278 seen on the Model 70 or the #3276 seen on the Model 94 carbine. I believe it is JWA who has published a chart with measurements for some. I know I used it when checking details on my newly acquired Model 64. 

Bill

Anthony said
Bill,

A great follow up, once again.

I don’t remember JWA, posting that chart or information, as I know he stays pretty busy as most do, but I would love to see it posted, or re posted here, as another great reference!

 

Anthony

  

Tony,  I’ll see if I can find it. I think there is a link to it. This was back in 2023.