Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have this Model 69 for sale. The scope is 2 3/4x, it should be a 5x on this rifle. It is an original Dual Sighted 69, but the scope has been changed. I will listen to an offer. I am not an expert on these but will try to answer questions. Call or text 207-522-0939 or email [email protected]
Thanks, Dana
Hi Dana,
It is a fine looking rifle but judging from the base spacing it looks as if you have a 2 3/4x scope mounted on a rifle that is supposed to have a 5x scope?
What is the CtC distance between the bases and the overall length of the scope?
A G6951R dual sight rifle should have a CtC base spacing of 7.5″ish (with the base on the receiver) and the 5x scope should be 16+ inches.
A G6961R dual sight rifle should have a CtC base spacing of 4.1″ish and the 2 3/4x scope should be around 14″ish (corrected length)
My eyes and perspective may be playing tricks on me in the photos though.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
The scope is 14″ overall. According to an article by Vincent L. Rausch that I found about scoped Winchester 22’s, 14″ is correct for the 2 3/4 power scope. Center to center the bases are pretty close to 6 1/2 in. The reticle is a post and cross hair. There are no markings that I can see on the tube.
Hi Dana,
Thanks for the info. I am travelling and couldn’t remember the exact length of the 2 3/4x, just knew it was shorter than the 16+” of the 5x
6.53″ CtC is the Winchester dimension specified on the 5-10-40 spec sheet for the 5x (7.53″ is the 1937 dimension).
Overall, a very nice looking rifle, they are fairly hard to find.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
And now folks, you have heard from the two most honest gun folks I know. I have dealt with them both, and
JWA is a personal friend. Big Larry
Jeff, So that I’m clear, This rifle has the correct base spacing for a 5 x scope on a rifle made in 1940 or later? The rifle needs a 5x to be correct?
Thanks
Dana
dane62 said
Jeff, So that I’m clear, This rifle has the correct base spacing for a 5 x scope on a rifle made in 1940 or later? The rifle needs a 5x to be correct?Thanks
Dana
Hi Dana,
Yes, that is correct for both questions, according to the Winchester factory barrel drawings and the Winchester base mounting information.
If you PM me your email address I will send you scans of the Winchester base charts from the Cody files.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
dane62 said
“This page can’t be displayed” is all I see; I’d like to read it.
dane62 said
There are no markings that I can see on the tube.
Only the mounts were marked…except for the ones that weren’t!
dane62 said
There are no markings that I can see on the tube.
Due to the wider 5x base spacing, it is putting the front ring too far forward on the shorter 2 3/4x scope. I would bet that if you loosen and slide the front mounting ring back a little you will find it is marked “2-3/4X” under the ring. Most, but not all, of the dual sight scopes were marked with the power.
The purpose of the closer base spacing for the shorter 2 3/4x scope was to allow enough room to slide the scope rearward to obtain the proper eye relief. You will notice in your photos there is no more room to slide your 2 3/4x scope to the rear and it should actually be further back at least another inch to have the proper eye relief with the correct cheek weld on the stock. A longer 5x scope can be used with the closer base spacing of the 2 3/4x scope but not the other way around since you run out of scope tube before the proper eye relief is obtained. Hope that makes sense?
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
Most, but not all, of the dual sight scopes were marked with the power.
The power, yes, but I was referring to the “Winchester” name on the mounts; many have shown up on ebay marked only with the power.
Hi Clarence,
I have not seen any of the 5X and 2 3/4X front rings not marked with “Winchester” but the 8X front ring was unmarked (although it is a slightly different design with a rivet on top).
What I have seen are the Mossberg front rings which were a very close copy to the Winchester front mount and some of those are marked “4-X”. I still don’t know how Mossberg got away with copying the front mount in 1946 since it was still under patent by Winchester. I have also seen recent Chinese copies of the Winchester front mount that is unmarked but they are usually painted black instead of blued and do not have a thumbscrew.
If you happen to run across an unmarked Winchester front mount in the future on ebay please let me know as I would be interested in seeing it for reference.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
JWA said
I still don’t know how Mossberg got away with copying the front mount in 1946 since it was still under patent by Winchester. I have also seen recent Chinese copies of the Winchester front mount that is unmarked but they are usually painted black instead of blued and do not have a thumbscrew.
Would guess Mossberg purchased the mfg. rights…which, for such a crude design, should not have been an expensive acquisition, esp. since W. was done with production of them. (Or possibly W. had a supply of unused & unmarked mounts that were sold to Mossberg?)
Although it’s difficult to be surprised by Chinese copies of anything (such as Weaver 330-C scopes produced for builders of fake 03A4 sniper rifles), I am surprised to hear of Chinese copies of this primitive mount. What are they being used for?
The current Chinese made mounts are supplied on cheap 4x scopes with internal adjustments and they are also sold separately. I don’t believe they were originally copied with the intent of faking a Winchester mount, I think it is just a simple, crude mount that is easily made so that low-cost design was adopted.
For comparison, here is the current Chinese mount on the left and the Winchester mount on the right –
x x
The Mossberg mount is somewhat different in shape but still uses the patented clamping design so they are not leftover Winchester parts. After double checking the patent dates it appears as if the initial Winchester 1937 patent would have still been valid within the 14 year window and it does not appear to have been revoked or expired prematurely so your guess of a patent license or sale is possible. I have spoken to Mossberg and they do not have any record of that design or of any agreement with Winchester.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
1 Guest(s)
