Hi Henry Mero,

At the risk of stirring the wrath of some collectors I will mention that there are 2 schools of thought regarding the “P” and “WP” proof markings.

There is no dispute among researchers and collectors that the “P” alone indicates a mail order barrel that was not fitted by Winchester.  Nor is there dispute that the “WP” alone indicates that the assembled gun was test fired by Winchester (barring barrel swaps of course).  Existing documentation clearly supports both of those cases.

Where the difference in opinions arise is with the application of BOTH markings on a barrel.  One group steadfastly maintains that ANY “P” (whether alone or in conjunction with a “WP”) means the barrel was fitted outside of Winchester.  The other group believes the combination of the “P” and “WP” indicates the barrel was installed on the receiver by Winchester and then subsequently test fired and proofed with the Winchester “WP” provisional proof mark.

There is no clear evidence that supports the first theory that both proof marks were applied outside the factory.  However the second theory that both proofs indicate a replacement barrel fitted at the factory has several circumstantial evidence items to support it, including the following:

1) In no known case was a “WP” provisional proof ever applied outside of the factory.  By Winchester definition it was applied after successful factory test firing and outside gunsmiths, even factory authorized repair facilities, did not possess that proof stamp.  There is absolutely NO supporting information that I am aware which indicates a “WP” was ever applied by an outside fitter (not including the fake “WP” stamps available on todays market).

2) At lease one former Winchester employee has stated that occasionally, when a rifle came back for repair or barrel replacement, the replacement barrel was pulled from the existing stock set aside for “mail order” replacements (which already had a “P” applied).  This was done if there were no current barrels for the model in production, or if the required barrel was obsolete, and sometimes just because it was more convenient to do so for inventory purposes.  Winchester did not care (nor did anyone else at the time) that the barrel ended up with 2 stamps on it.

3) An unmounted “mail order” barrel cannot be properly test-fired to earn the “WP” stamp per the Winchester procedure and there is no known Winchester procedure or process for mounting a mail order barrel for test firing and then removing it to mail out as a replacement part.  The bulk of the replacement barrels were shipped with only the “P” indicating not test fired (as expected) so the dual-stamped barrels were treated “differently” somehow.

4) Dual-stamped barrels are not relegated to a single era.  At least for the .22 rim fire rifles in my realm I have seen the dual marking on rifles at least from 1913 well-through WWII.  Circumstantially that indicates it was likely not a practice that was performed by a single employee but might imply there was a pattern or in-house procedure which resulted in the dual stamping which differed from the standard mail order “P” replacement part.

Again, all circumstantial, hence the continued dispute among collectors.

Hope that helps, you have a nice rifle.

Best Regards,

. 

Louis Luttrell said
Jeff-

If I can ask a question along those lines…  Some rifles, like Henry’s 94/64 hybrid in 30 WCF, have BOTH “P” and “WP” proofs on BOTH the barrel AND the receiver.  To my knowledge Winchester never sent out mail order receivers, and even if they did they wouldn’t have put the definitive “WP” proof on them.  Similarly, an outside fitter installing a “P” barrel (with or without a “WP” on it) would have no reason to stamp a “P” on the receiver.  

So the theory that the presence of both proofs might indicate a factory rebarrel, possibly using a “P” barrel pulled from the parts inventory, seems to make sense.  It would be interesting to get a photo of one of these double stamped receivers to see if the “WP” looks like it’s in the usual place, with a “P” stamp applied later (after the barrel was replaced).

I’ve seen a small number of pre-war M70s that were double proofed and still don’t know what to make of them.

Thanks!!!

Lou  

Hi Lou,

I didn’t see a question mark in there but your point is well-taken and I agree

I was tip-toeing the line in my initial post to refrain from indicating which camp I was in but regardless, it is probably obvious that I am of the belief that at least some, if not all of the dual-stamped barrels were fitted and then proof fired at the factory.  I didn’t mention the point about Henry’s rifle being dual-stamped on both receiver and barrel because I could not see that detail clearly in his photos and thought I might have potentially misunderstood him.

Regarding receivers, Winchester actually did send out mail-order receivers (prior to 1968).  Again, I can only speak about my lowly .22 rim fire realm but I have in my collection some “P” only marked single shot rifles (a Model 60 and a Model 67) where the receiver is integral to the barrel (all one piece).  So, when ordering a replacement mail order barrel you “automatically” got a new receiver also.  Since these did not require any fitting they were mailed directly to the end user where they could be swapped onto their firearm.

I also agree that some additional forensic analysis of the markings might be beneficial.  I don’t have any photos of dual-marked receivers as I am sure they are rare but will keep my eyes open.  Hopefully Henry can take some better pictures of his.  I do however have lots of pictures of dual-marked barrels (again, mostly .22s) that I was tracking to see if the “P” was always applied first (behind the “WP”) which would rationally be the case if it was applied as a single stamp and the “WP” applied afterward.  I was also monitoring to see if the stamps were aligned but since the Stamper would have to set down the “P” stamp to pick up the second “WP” stamp the chances of normal alignment and matching stamp angles are lessened than with a single, normally applied “WP” so that might be moot.

The practice is definitely worth more investigation although we may never have a definitive answer.

Best Regards,

Jeff

Louis Luttrell said

I’ve seen a small number of pre-war M70s that were double proofed and still don’t know what to make of them.

Thanks!!!

Lou  

Hi Lou,

I forgot to mention, that if I was to order a barreled action from Winchester back in the day I could postulate that Winchester MIGHT assemble it for test firing before mailing out the mated barrel/action assembly.  In that case I could envision it having a “P” and “WP” on both the barrel and receiver as that would match their described internal process for mail order and test firing.

Just another hypothesis……