Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Hi members, I’m trying to figure out what the actual year my pre-64 model 70, 300 H&H is. I’m hoping some of you experts who have been collecting model 70s for a while can help me. This is what I have. First off this is my grandfather’s rifle. I was fortunate to get it from my cousin’s wife and her sons after my cousin passed away back in May. I’m going to reference Roger Rule’s book for the parts of my rifle.
The serial number is 193962, which has it being a 1951 barrel and action. The front ramp looks to be a #2 sweated-on, 2 3/8 long (page 160) of Rule’s book. That seems to match what’s on the barrel. The front sight is a 103C with a silver bead, (page 163) that matches for the year.
Here’s where I scratch my head, the rear sight is a Lyman 16B, the book shows that my 1951 rifle should have a marble 69 or possibly the ramp style sight. According to Rule’s book, the Lyman 16B wasn’t offered until 1954-55. The earliest I can find that rear sight showing on the rifle of my type, is the chart on page 223. From looking at the sight, it looks as if it came from the factory that way. I don’t think my cousin would have had it put on later while he own the rifle. Actually, he never really used it. An second, although, I didn’t know my grandfather well, I was 8 when he died, I don’t think he was a gun enthusiast. A well built gun from the factory like the model 70 would have suited him just fine.
Also, the rifle has the monte carlo stock, or high comb. This style stock wasn’t offered with the standard grade until 1952. I could see this; the barrel and action could have been a carry over. Although the serial number puts the barrel and action near the middle if the serial numbers for that year.
The rifle is also topped off with a 4x J. Unertl scope with redfield base and I think redfield rings. I’m wanting to send some pictures with this post, but I not sure if I can figure it out. I don’t see a link type button. I appreciate any help I can get.
I did reach out to the Cody Firearms Records Office, hoping to get some info along with the nice factory letter, however, Angela responded back saying unfortunately, there are no records for either the year of my rifle or none for any pre-64 model 70s. Bummer.
Can’t figure out how to add photo’s.
Thanks again.
Guests have to use an outside service to post pictures or send them to a member for posting. Sorry, I don’t know how to do this.
Hi Phoneman! My disclaimer ‘not to be the expert in this forum. That said, in this Thread, some experience re “stats”. My generalization, while you may have accomplished a credible ‘forensic’ analysis… The analogy. Large droppings on the parlor carpet. Chemical analysis engaged… As ignoring ‘elephant in the corner’! 🙂
‘Stats’, you have a variety of “inconsistencies” in your opinion here. Perhaps suggesting some conundrum, but such the most logical conclusions. Two alternates to pose. Such, with preface, you with a rifle “out of specs” with its presumed contemporary Winchester offerings.
Fact one… About seventy years for ‘things to change’! Alterations/substitutions, etc. A rifle with components incongruous to what is purported to come from the factory… The ‘fact’ of such, ‘Occam’s Razor’: “The simplest answer is most likely correct.” Seventy years of time over which someone to make the changes. Most Model 70 of ‘pre’ vintage, more likely than not. One strong element of “collectible” the minority of such models which are original!
Fact two, for serial number to features era disparity, speaking particularly of a year or even bit more; just seeming not that great an actual disparity. Not one “unreasonable”. For any number of causes, a serialed action might have been ignored/set aside/etc. The result of which was slight ‘timing’ difference. Immaterial to factory as well as almost surely unknowing purchaser! While the “action date” may be presumptively the rifle completion date, yet reasonable possibility of some time variation. To me the parameters you suggest for metal, sighting variations not that great.
In the Model 70, happily a certain quality facilitating a ‘mix & match result. Damaged stock? Not necessarily even back to factory. Factory direct to owner, screwdriver installation! Furnishing ‘stock available’ which would fit.
Really many different possibilities. The fact you consider “probabilities” in context of ‘not likely happenings’; the ‘Razor’ test, more suggesting ‘did’ happen as aftermarket!
Just my take and now to await the experts!
Best & Keep Safe!d!
John
iskra said
Hi Phoneman! My disclaimer ‘not to be the expert in this forum. That said, in this Thread, some experience re “stats”. My generalization, while you may have accomplished a credible ‘forensic’ analysis… The analogy. Large droppings on the parlor carpet. Chemical analysis engaged… As ignoring ‘elephant in the corner’! 🙂
‘Stats’, you have a variety of “inconsistencies” in your opinion here. Perhaps suggesting some conundrum, but such the most logical conclusions. Two alternates to pose. Such, with preface, you with a rifle “out of specs” with its presumed contemporary Winchester offerings.
Fact one… About seventy years for ‘things to change’! Alterations/substitutions, etc. A rifle with components incongruous to what is purported to come from the factory… The ‘fact’ of such, ‘Occam’s Razor’: “The simplest answer is most likely correct.” Seventy years of time over which someone to make the changes. Most Model 70 of ‘pre’ vintage, more likely than not. One strong element of “collectible” the minority of such models which are original!
Fact two, for serial number to features era disparity, speaking particularly of a year or even bit more; just seeming not that great an actual disparity. Not one “unreasonable”. For any number of causes, a serialed action might have been ignored/set aside/etc. The result of which was slight ‘timing’ difference. Immaterial to factory as well as almost surely unknowing purchaser! While the “action date” may be presumptively the rifle completion date, yet reasonable possibility of some time variation. To me the parameters you suggest for metal, sighting variations not that great.
In the Model 70, happily a certain quality facilitating a ‘mix & match result. Damaged stock? Not necessarily even back to factory. Factory direct to owner, screwdriver installation! Furnishing ‘stock available’ which would fit.
Really many different possibilities. The fact you consider “probabilities” in context of ‘not likely happenings’; the ‘Razor’ test, more suggesting ‘did’ happen as aftermarket!Just my take and now to await the experts!
Best & Keep Safe!d!
John
Don’t let John scare you off. We all have a bit of trouble reading his posts. Your gun was made in 1951 and you need to wait for someone that will help you with the Model 70’s and can explain how to post pictures.
Guns did not always leave the factory with all of their components in a perfect chronological order. Very likely that your H&H receiver was serialized in Dec. ‘51 and was not assembled to leave the factory until 1954 when the HC stock and front and rear sights you noted were being used.
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
Tedk said
Guns did not always leave the factory with all of their components in a perfect chronological order. Very likely that your H&H receiver was serialized in Dec. ‘51 and was not assembled to leave the factory until 1954 when the HC stock and front and rear sights you noted were being used.
The probable explanation; & sometimes the chronological discrepancy was much greater than this.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Phoneman-
A few points to consider:
First, the S/N dating to 1951 reflects the year that the receiver was serialized, not necessarily, as Ted says, the year the rifle was assembled. That said, Winchester approved the design for the MC stocks (standard and Super Grade) in 1951. While first CATALOGED in 1952, the factory began making MC stocked rifles in 1951 to have inventory on hand to sell when the new offering came out in 1952. So your rifle could easily have a 1951 S/N and have been assembled in 1951 or 1952.
Second, are you sure the barrel ramp is a soldered on #3? I would normally expect to see a #2 ramp on a M70 standard rifle with a S/N below maybe 220,000. The soldered on ramps came into use on both FWTS and standard rifles beginning in 1952. While all FWT barrels have those ramps, many standard M70s made even into 1953 (depending on caliber) still had the integral forged #2 ramp due to the number of older barrels/barrel blanks in inventory with forged ramps.
Note that both the #2 and #3 have the same stippled pattern on the top surface. Besides the integral ramp being longer, the easiest way to tell them apart is that the integral ramp had the shallow groves on the sides in addition to the slots that held the sight ramp. The #3 (and all subsequent soldered on ramps) had flat sides into which the slots were cut. A check of the barrel date might help. If the barrel date is, say 53 or 54, then it was made with a soldered ramp and the rifle was assembled well after the receiver was serialized. If the barrel date is 51, I’d’ve expected an integral #2 ramp, and if 52 the ramp might go either way.
Third, you are right that on a MC comb standard rifle made in 1952-53, the rear sight would most likely be the Marbles 69. Note that the Marbles sights came in two heights, a low one for standard rifles (with barrel boss) and a taller one for FWT. Just like the 1954 and later Lyman 16B/16A, except that the low and high Marbles sights were not distinguished from one another in the parts catalog. You had to tell the factory what rifle it was for to get the correct part. The easiest way to distinguish the low Marbles 69 from the similar height Lyman 16B is that the former has only one set screw to secure the sliding insert (Lyman has two) and the insert has a white diamond (instead of Lyman’s triangle). However I’ve seen a good number of 1953 dated M70s with the Lyman 16B, which I’ve presumed also reflects the use of 1953 dated receivers to assemble rifles in 1954 (after the Marbles to Lyman change).
Lastly, the Win 103C front sight ALSO came in two heights. From 1941 until the MC stocks were adopted around 1952, the 103C was 0.310″ tall (bottom of dovetail to top of sight). From then on, a Win 103C of 0.360″ height was used (on both standard rifle and FWT barrels). So the most likely original sight combination on a rifle assembled in 1952 would have been the low Marbles 69 with a 0.360″ tall Win 103C. For one assembled in 1954, it would be a Lyman 16B and 0.360″ tall Win 103C.
Hope this is helpful… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thank you all for the feedback. Chuck, I’m supposed to be a member. I think I paid $50.00 for a membership. Thank you TedK for the information. I was wondering if that may have been the way the rifles were assembled. And thank you John for your response, Although I found it hard to follow.
Thank you Lou for all that information. I wanted to send some pictures of the rifle, but couldn’t figure it out. I think Chuck responded saying I had to be a member to send pictures. I’m supposedly a member, so I thought. I did pay a membership fee. And in doing so, They sent me a copy of the Spring 2020 issue of the Winchester Collectors magazine and a calendar.
Anyway, to answer your questions, Comparing to the picture in the book, the sides of the front ramp are square with the slot cut in for the hood. And it measured the 2 3/8 length. So That’s why I thought it was a #2. The front sight matches the bottom sight in the picture on page 163
The rear sight matches the picture of the Lyman 16B with the triangle and two small screws Page, 165
I know the barrel has a date stamped on it too, however, I really don’t want to try and take it out of the stock. The screws look like they have never been messed with. The screw slots are clean.
So you’re thinking 1951-52. That’s good to know, you were a lot of help. I just hate that there’s no records on these rifles at the Cody Firearms Record Office.
Thank you Lou.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Phoneman-
Just to clarify for me… We seem to be using #2 (integral) and #3 (soldered) sort of differently. I think you’re saying your Granddad’s gun has a #3. Here’s the difference:
This is a #2 on a 375 Magnum. Different barrel contour but the S/N (194078) is close to yours:
This is a #3 on a 220 SWIFT. Same barrel contour and length as your 300 H&H MAGNUM (S/N 268122):
The barrel date on your gun might help, but I understand your reluctance to turn what seem to be “virgin” screws. I’ve got a few myself that I won’t take apart just to get a number…
If you’re a paid member and can’t load photos, please contact WACA so they can fix it. You do need to be logged it… When logged in, there’s a bar directly below the one you’re typing in called “Upload Attachments”. Clicking on it should open a window into which you can “drag and drop” photo files. Then just click “+ add files” and it should work. Works best if the individual files are <1 MB…
Thanks,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks for that clarification. You are right. The front ramp on mine has the thin slots (matching the #3) for the hood, verses the wider groves of the #2.
I do have to log-in. I guess I need to get with WACA about up loading pictures. I see on my profile, it shows me as a guest, but below it shows me as a member since June 28 2020
Thanks again for the information
Todd
The Phoneman said
I just hate that there’s no records on these rifles at the Cody Firearms Record Office.
It would probably tell you nothing that you don’t already know, because standard features such as the sights aren’t described. You’re getting far more detailed info from Louis than you’d get in a letter.
The Phoneman said
Thanks for that clarification. You are right. The front ramp on mine has the thin slots (matching the #3) for the hood, verses the wider groves of the #2.I do have to log-in. I guess I need to get with WACA about up loading pictures. I see on my profile, it shows me as a guest, but below it shows me as a member since June 28 2020
Thanks again for the information
Todd
Send me a PM with your WACA membership number so that I can investigate the issue.
Bert – Admin
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
