Don’t know a lot about the Post 64 Model 70.  But, I believe that the Classic Model would have a serial number that you are concerned with.

Thanks for the correction Bert!!!

I didn’t look up the start of the “G” serial numbers last night and best I could remember was that they started somewhere below 1,000,000… 

This “problem” with the DOM lookup tool (which isn’t really a “problem”) comes up pretty often in the WACA queries I get, i.e. folks like Ajk wanting to know when their M70 “Classic” was made.  I don’t think we can “fix” that, since as far as I know we do not have serial number information from USRAC or FN/BACO to put into the system.  I know you know this, since you created the tool, but Ajk probably doesn’t. 

If you enter “120000” in the lookup tool you get 1949 as the DOM, and if you enter “G120000” you get 1949 as the DOM.  This doesn’t necessarily reflect a prejudice against “Winchester” Model 70s made in New Haven by USRAC or FN under license from Olin Corporation, it’s because we do not have serial number application dates from USRAC/FN to incorporate into the system…  

Best,

Lou

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is BACA?

Thanks for the info. I’m always eager to learn.

All of which is a long way around to saying that the G Serial Numbers did NOT just start at G1 and increase sequentially.  There are blocks of numbers that put the lie to that notion.

Hi BRP-

While I do not have any detailed information I’m sure you are correct…   This is why we cannot provide a DOM on Model 70 “Classics” when people ask, which they often do via the “Contact Us” portal.

The “G” prefix was added to then-current production M70 serial numbers around s/n 920,000.  These were all post-63 push feed actions.  Starting from around s/n G920,000, they were numbered sequentially, reaching about G1525000 by 1981 when USRAC took over from Olin, and well over G2000000 before the New Haven plant closed in 2006.  The pre-64 rifles went from s/n 1 to 581471 and the post-63 push feed rifles went from s/n 700000 to G2000000+, in sequence, with the G added around s/n 920000.

But as you state, the new controlled round feed Model 70 “Classics” were not numbered in the Model 70 sequence that began with s/n 1 in 1936.  They were started with s/n G1, which was GCA ’68 compliant, since G1 through about G920000 were previously unused “unique” Model 70 serial numbers.  To make matters worse, I don’t think that M70 Classic serial numbers in the G1 through G920000 block were used sequentially.  My limited (!!!) understanding is that certain serial number blocks were assigned to different “projects”.  For example the Custom Shop got a block of serial numbers assigned that was different from those assigned to regular production, etc.

All of which means (as your facts prove), that a “four-digit” Custom Shop Classic could have been made AFTER a “five or six-digit” Classic Featherweight, and that Classic Featherweight could have been made AFTER a “seven-digit” push feed M70, since the push feed rifles were being serialized in the original M70 sequence that started in 1936…  They’re “apples and oranges”, different serial number sequences for different products, like Model 12s and Model 94s…

If you have data on how the G1 through G900000 s/n blocks were used, e.g. which products got which numbers, please share.  I don’t even have any post-63 Winchester catalogs!!! 

Thanks,

Lou

Gentlemen,  I’ve seen this struggle over dating USRAC built Model 70 and Model 94 rifles for some time now. I think it is time for an organized effort by our Asociation, acting through a committee or subcommittee created and tasked by our board of directors to do the following:

1. Advise the President or other appropriate senior officer of Browning Arms Co. of our desire to obtain, preserve and make publicly available, for the benefit of collectors and enthusiasts Worldwide, thereby giving highly favorable publicity and marketing benefits to the Winchester brand of arms, a set of DOM records as accurate and complete as possible in the circumstances, from whatever historical records remain in its possession. 

2. Ask that the company assign someone to help us with our project, on our promise to give public credit in full measure and overflowing until the World ends, to Browning for its commitment to American history, American manufacturing history, and so on ad nauseam. It may make you queasy but it works. 

3. Firearms manufacturing records do not disappear like flash paper. If nobody else has them, BATFE does.  Acting as a committee, now that we are about to have a non-hostile agency head, whose sponsor can be made blissfully aware of the number of American WACA members eligible to vote in national elections, a letter to the sponsor expressing our gratitude at the outcome of the presidential election and our strong desire to memorialize the American gunmaking industry …. ad nauseam… could you please tell us where the [expletive deleted] USRAC manufacturing records are and could we have a look at them?

4. It is important NOT to make such requests by an individual. That will go into the dumper. But corporations love good publicity and committees formed by organizations that can lawfully use the big flaming W on letterhead do NOT go in the dumper. 

5. If there are those among us who are close to any national political figures fond of Winchesters, perhaps they might be persuaded to be named honorary members or advisors to the committee. The committee members would be named on the letterhead. 

6. Somewhere the records we need exist and somebody knows where they are and somebody can give us a sight of them. We merely need to “pierce the corporate veil” and persuade busy SENIOR corporate executives it is in their interest to help us a little bit. Logo beer coozies are nice but records are better. 

7. A similar approach could be directed to FN Herstal itself, to facilitate cooperation from Miroku, Winchester Guns ( if  that is an entity and not just a trade name), and the current iteration of USRAC. 

8. Success in obtaining cooperation will completely depend on convincing upper management there’s something in it for them. Good, free publicity is a convincing argument. 

This is a rough draft, not proofed, but I’m out of time.