Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I can’t say I see one of these every day. Short barrel too. The sanded and refinished wood is a turn-off. The peeling painted finish is not attractive, but I would assume original. Shorter than standard barrels are usually suspect.
I don’t know much about the 54, which is one reason why I bought David’s book on them. At first glance and aside from what you pointed out, it looks right, but like I alluded to…what do I know?! 
I’m here to learn!!!
James
steve004 said
I’m going to speculate the barrel length is correct.
Yes it is…like the 54 short rifle bbl length. RE: David’s book.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Steve-
The subject gun’s faults are obvious, but basically it started out as a M54 1st carbine in 30 GOV’T’06 with a special order stainless barrel. For comparison, here’s a gun of mine:
My gun is a 30 WCF 1st carbine (20″ barrel) with the “Japanned” (baked on enamel paint) stainless barrel. A couple points related to both my gun and the subject rifle:
1. The 1st carbine did not come with sling swivels/bases. Mine has SG style bases. I have no idea of they are factory or not. Since the barrel was special order, I suppose it possible (???) that the rifle was ordered with swivel bases, but I’ve no way to prove it one way or the other.
2. The 1st standard carbine was not offered with a receiver sight (the Redfield 102W – among others – was cataloged as an optional sight for the M54 in general). The subject gun is special order so anything’s possible. But the Lyman 48WHS (as on this gun) was a 1936 invention and required that the stock be cut out. If the sight on the subject rifle is a half block (post-1946 and not needing a cut-out) it’s definitely added. On my gun, I added the Redfield 102W using one from a box that was labeled “M54” with no mention of “M70” (dating it to the gun). So mine (as pictured) is for sure not original. I’ve subsequently changed the sights for a Lyman 66W (one fixed, one folding) with proper front blade. So now it’s “correct”, but it’s still not original…
The metal on the subject gun with scratched up painted (Japanned) barrel and no finish on the bottom metal (typical of M54s) is probably legit (ugly as it is)… The stock is clearly refinished. I don’t like the miss-match, but to each his own… I suppose a spray can of glossy black spray paint would help… 
Just my opinion,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Lou – yours is a wonderful carbine. I love the chambering. Thanks for the information and the photos – all quite illuminating and interesting.
November 5, 2014
Offline
James-
My Dad bought that M54 carbine for me 30+ years ago…
At the time there were some (beat to shit) M54 30 WCF carbines showing up in local VA gun shows that had been reimported from Mexico (such was the story at the time). I told my late Dad (who had an FFL at the time) that I wanted to find a good one. This was what he came up with… No idea about the gun’s story or whether the swivels are original (or not – so I’ll assume not)…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
James-My Dad bought that M54 carbine for me 30+ years ago…
At the time there were some (beat to shit) M54 30 WCF carbines showing up in local VA gun shows that had been reimported from Mexico (such was the story at the time). I told my late Dad (who had an FFL at the time) that I wanted to find a good one. This was what he came up with… No idea about the gun’s story or whether the swivels are original (or not – so I’ll assume not)…
Best,
Lou
Lou, like Steve noted, you have a wonderful carbine, special order at that. Your Dad did you right!!!! Stories are great when we have them, but your carbine does not need one. Thank you for the pictures, too.
James
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Steve-The subject gun’s faults are obvious, but basically it started out as a M54 1st carbine in 30 GOV’T’06 with a special order stainless barrel. For comparison, here’s a gun of mine:
My gun is a 30 WCF 1st carbine (20″ barrel) with the “Japanned” (baked on enamel paint) stainless barrel. A couple points related to both my gun and the subject rifle:
1. The 1st carbine did not come with sling swivels/bases. Mine has SG style bases. I have no idea of they are factory or not. Since the barrel was special order, I suppose it possible (???) that the rifle was ordered with swivel bases, but I’ve no way to prove it one way or the other.
2. The 1st standard carbine was not offered with a receiver sight (the Redfield 102W – among others – was cataloged as an optional sight for the M54 in general). The subject gun is special order so anything’s possible. But the Lyman 48WHS (as on this gun) was a 1936 invention and required that the stock be cut out. If the sight on the subject rifle is a half block (post-1946 and not needing a cut-out) it’s definitely added. On my gun, I added the Redfield 102W using one from a box that was labeled “M54” with no mention of “M70” (dating it to the gun). So mine (as pictured) is for sure not original. I’ve subsequently changed the sights for a Lyman 66W (one fixed, one folding) with proper front blade. So now it’s “correct”, but it’s still not original…
The metal on the subject gun with scratched up painted (Japanned) barrel and no finish on the bottom metal (typical of M54s) is probably legit (ugly as it is)… The stock is clearly refinished. I don’t like the miss-match, but to each his own… I suppose a spray can of glossy black spray paint would help…
Just my opinion,
Lou
Lou, Thank you for the knowledge!
About Lyman sights: I did not know that the receiver sight on it was a Lyman 48WHS. I’ve been trying to find a picture of a Lyman 48WJ sight. Stroebel states that it is for the Winchester Model 54 (Early and New Model). Do you have a picture of one?
James
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi James-
You’ve touched on a “mystery” I’m hoping someone here will resolve for us both. Look at the photo I just posted of the Lyman 48WJS evolution:
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/lyman-48wjs-question/
Like I said on that thread, Lyman catalog 25 (1937) only shows the 48W, and catalog 26 (1939) shows both the 48W and 48WJS (with target knobs). Nowhere in the Lyman catalog can I specifically find the 48WJ. Was there a catalog 25 1/2 that I’m missing????
So… My speculation is that the earliest successor to the 48W was the 48WJ (with thimble shaped knobs), that in turn gave way to the 48WJS. IMHO those thimble shaped knob sights show up mostly on guns from 1939 or earlier. So my GUESS is (48W -> 48WJ -> 48WJS as below):
But I’ve no definitive answer. Strobel, among others, mentions the 48WJ but there’s no picture of one. David Bichrest, in his M54 book, shows a picture of the thimble shaped knob sight (middle) and calls it a 48WJ. But I can’t find a catalog reference to the 48WJ.
Any help appreciated!!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Hello Lou!
I see you have been very busy educating us…certainly me, for one, about Lyman receiver sights. Great posts and information, and before I try to address any questions, I have one that concerns the following statements about the subject carbine on GI, where you mentioned in the earlier post, “The subject gun is special order so anything’s possible. But the Lyman 48WHS was a 1936 invention and required that the stock be cut out.” My question is: What do you think of the possibility that the 48WHS being a later re-designation of the 48WJ?
James
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi James-
Sorry… My bad… The “48WHS” in my post above was a typo… I meant to type “48WJS” but my finger moved over one key too far!!! 
FWIW… In 1938, Lyman came out with the “new” Lyman 48WH (no “S”) for the target rifles with marksman stocks. The only real difference between a 48WJS and 48WH is that the WH cross bar has a 0.100″ step-up that gives a higher line of sight. You need that with the high Marksman comb and the Lyman AK/77R front sight arrangement. Here’s an early long slide one illustrating the step-up:
But the 48WH was specifically conjured up in 1938 for the M70 target rifles and first called such in their 1938 literature. The very first (1936-7) target rifles had the same 48WJ or 48WJS as the standard rifles, but those sights just didn’t work with the Marksman stock and a “fix” was needed. The 48WH had nothing to do with the M54…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
Hi James-Sorry… My bad… The “48WHS” in my post above was a typo… I meant to type “48WJS” but my finger moved over one key too far!!!
FWIW… In 1938, Lyman came out with the “new” Lyman 48WH (no “S”) for the target rifles with marksman stocks. The only real difference between a 48WJS and 48WH is that the WH cross bar has a 0.100″ step-up that gives a higher line of sight. You need that with the high Marksman comb and the Lyman AK/77R front sight arrangement. Here’s an early long slide one illustrating the step-up:
But the 48WH was specifically conjured up in 1938 for the M70 target rifles and first called such in their 1938 literature. The very first (1936-7) target rifles had the same 48WJ or 48WJS as the standard rifles, but those sights just didn’t work with the Marksman stock and a “fix” was needed. The 48WH had nothing to do with the M54…
Best,
Lou
Thanks for the correction, Lou. What are your thoughts as to why the second sight in, pictured with the thimble adjustment knobs in a previous post has a shortened/cut off slide?
James
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi James-
My guess is simple parts clean-up. The 75-point slide is nothing but cut-off 175-point slide with a shortened elevation screw (but the same pitch thread).
When Lyman went to the 60-point marked slide they also changed the pitch of the elevation screw, which is why the scribed lines on the slide 60-point slide are closer together… Maybe that’s the difference between the 48WJ and 48WJS??? The former was made from modified clean-up 48W parts???
FWIW… All the sights I posted pics of today in this and other threads have matching assembly numbers (the code stamped under the dovetail). So I doubt there are any “mix-masters” in what I’ve shown…
It’s hard to tell… I do not recall ever seeing a Lyman 48W-series sight marked “48WJ”. If anybody’s got one marked “WJ” then PLEASE POST b/c I don’t know and want to!!!
The early 48W sights are either stamped “W” or not stamped at all. Sometimes the stamps are on the back of the block where you cannot see them w/o removing the sight, sometimes they’re under the dovetail, sometimes they’re not stamped at all. By the time you get to the 48WJS they’re pretty consistently stamped “WJS” on the right side if the block.
So many mysteries…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
Hi James-My guess is simple parts clean-up. The 75-point slide is nothing but cut-off 175-point slide with a shortened elevation screw (but the same pitch thread).
When Lyman went to the 60-point marked slide they also changed the pitch of the elevation screw, which is why the scribed lines on the slide 60-point slide are closer together… Maybe that’s the difference between the 48WJ and 48WJS??? The former was made from modified clean-up 48W parts???
FWIW… All the sights I posted pics of today in this and other threads have matching assembly numbers (the code stamped under the dovetail). So I doubt there are any “mix-masters” in what I’ve shown…
It’s hard to tell… I do not recall ever seeing a Lyman 48W-series sight marked “48WJ”. If anybody’s got one marked “WJ” then PLEASE POST b/c I don’t know and want to!!!
The early 48W sights are either stamped “W” or not stamped at all. Sometimes the stamps are on the back of the block where you cannot see them w/o removing the sight, sometimes they’re under the dovetail, sometimes they’re not stamped at all. By the time you get to the 48WJS they’re pretty consistently stamped “WJS” on the right side if the block.
So many mysteries…
Lou
Tons of mysteries with these 48 sights!!!!!!!! There is a 48 on my Winchester Sniper Rifle with the 1903 Springfield action (assembled by Winchester in 1922), that looks like the 48W on the Model 54, except it is mounted on the right hand side of the action. I’ve never checked to see what code might be on it, if any at all.
I can’t thank you enough for all of the work I’ve helped to put you through today!!!
James
1 Guest(s)
