Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Yes, I know this has been talked about before, but I’ve either forgotten the answers, or they didn’t make sense to me, so I still question the problem. The experts say this problem began around 1920+- and was caused by a poor bluing process I think. (??) Why it went on as long as it did is still amazing to me. I’m not sure why Winchester would not have corrected it almost immediately. What I really don’t understand is why a majority of receivers during the time period show some signs of the flaking, when others absolutely do not. I look at a lot of Winchesters everyday on different net sites/auctions. If I see an old Winchester that was made during the time period and the receiver is not flaked, I am very suspicious of it. Most times the pictures that are shown do not show areas of the rifle well enough to determine whether or not it has been re-blued/browned or not, so I just pass on it. There is also no sense in asking the re-blue question, and many times they have a no return policy. As we all know, there are folks out there that can re-blue or refinish a receiver well enough that it is about impossible to detect, especially with managed photos. I think I remember Mike Hunter having some scientific answers on this subject, and I’m sure Bert and others know also. Help is appreciated. Thanks, Peter
PS: I can link a present GB auction for an example if desired
November 7, 2015
Offline
It is a bit perplexing, I have a nice 94 from this period that has absolutely no finish on the receiver. For months I was convinced it was faded color case finish. The popular theory of a higher nickel content in the receiver has been debunked, it seems they were simply using bluing process that didn’t work. Bert started to explain it a few months ago over some excellent prime rib in Cody but I either can’t recall the details or we moved on to another subject.
I have a couple of other rifles from that period that look terrible and a few that look very good so I’m thinking that sometimes they got it right, sometimes they didn’t. The ones that look good show no signs of refinishing but I could have missed it.
Online
I dont know what the time frame for flaking but this might help narrow it as there is limited production of the M59.
44
There’s a good article by Mike Hunter in the Fall 2014 WACA magazine explaining the different types of metal finishes / bluing processes used by Winchester over the years. According to the article, the flaking receivers were the result of a new labor/money-saving machine-bluing process used by Winchester in the 1920’s and 1930’s.
https://winchestercollector.org/magazines/201409/index.html#30
I’m not sure that I would characterize the machine/Carbonia bluing process as faulty just because the bluing didn’t last 75-100 years. Kinda like faulting Henry Ford for not putting better paint on the Model A.
Machine/Carbonia blue was a labor/cost saving process; by the time Winchester began using it, it had been an industry standard/acceptable finish in use for many yeras used by notable companies such as Royal Typewriter, Schwinn, General Electric, Colt, Remington, S&W, etc.
I have some indirect information that Winchester did have some issues with the finish early on, traced back to moisture contamination. Workers were to check for flaking by punching with an inspector mark/punch on the lower tang. As of yet I have not specifically identified this mark.
Winchester used this finish for about 10-15 years; around 1937 Winchester contracted with the Du-Lite company and started using their hot caustic salt bluing process, which I believe they continued until they shut the doors.
Mike Hunter said
I’m not sure that I would characterize the machine/Carbonia bluing process as faulty just because the bluing didn’t last 75-100 years. Kinda like faulting Henry Ford for not putting better paint on the Model A.
I like your analogy, we do expect a lot from Winchester don’t we? 
Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886
Mike Hunter said
I have some indirect information that Winchester did have some issues with the finish early on, traced back to moisture contamination. Workers were to check for flaking by punching with an inspector mark/punch on the lower tang. As of yet I have not specifically identified this mark.
Mike:
Could this be a sample of the inspector’s mark you refer to?
This is directly in front of the trigger. It is on an 1923 rifle, TD, 32 WS.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
That is an inspector’s stamp, but it was not for the purpose of checking the bluing. Winchester inspectors stamped hundreds of different combinations of numerals and letters in the location in your pictures for at least 5-decades.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
How does one find Mike Hunter’s article?
https://winchestercollector.org/magazines/201409/index.html#30
The link just takes me back to this thread?
As Bert noted, there are a large variety of inspection marks on Winchesters, I’ve been researching but have not yet found one directly attributed to checking the bluing. Also keep in mind that these stamps can serve more than one purpose… final inspection of the lower tang and as a check on the bluing.
It’s also possible that Winchester only did the inspection for a short time, once they got the process right, they may have stopped checking.
Lots of possibilities.
I think you have to be a member to get the link. If you are a member, sign in and then it will take you back to this thread, then click on the link again and it should come up. Must have/install updated Adobe Flash Player before it will work.
You are right, Eagle. I clicked on the link without signing in and it came back to this same post. Then I signed in and clicked on the link and it took me to the magazine article. Since one has to be a member to access the magazines, that makes sense.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
1 Guest(s)
