Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors All this love for the pre 64 winchester model 70, but none for the 54?

I know some of you must love the model 54 as well. Give me the skinny on these rifles please. I have my eye on one and at $350.00, it's kind of haunting me to buy it!!! I realize the stamped steel bottom metal isn't as nice as the model 70. How many of you have installed a model 70 stock on the model 54 and used model 70 bottom metal, or is this even possible? I'd like to learn about what you can do with these rifles to spruce them up a bit. The rifle I'm looking at now is not primo (stock is damn near ready to be thrown away if I bought it), but the barreled action appears to be all original and in great shape. This particular 30-06 rifle was made in 1927, I believe. Thanks for your help in advance...

BSA,
Suggest you Google 'Long Live the Model 54 Winchester' by Wayne Miller....

Thanks Pocono. I'll do that.

this sheds a tad of light...

http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/Active.aspx?storm=1&type=track

http://www.ogca.com/WRM_collecting_winchester_pre.htm

"Winchester Model 54 rifles were the first successful bolt action sporting rifles manufactured by Winchester and were available from 1925 up until the Model 70’s began appearing on dealers’ racks in 1937. The model 54 was really a form of sporterized Mauser and lacked refinements being sought by the bolt action minded sportsmen. The Model 70 offered stronger action, more checkering, improved safety, and much improved trigger."

I'd take a clean M54 in a 270 Winchester. I think that would be a fitting piece of rifle history.

Jack O'Connor's first .270 was a 1925 M54. So, yes, I would consider it to be a fitting piece of rifle history.

Along with the stamped bottom metal, the safety, the stock had a lot of drop and was not suited to use with a scope. The bolt handle too did not lend itself to scope useage. Some M/54's whose owners used them with scopes also swapped the bolt for a M/70. Long story short, they were just not as glamerous as their successor.

Yes, I've done it. The 54 barreled action fits in a pre-war M70 stock without any significant issues. The bottom of the 54 recoil lug will require D&T for the front guard screw. The bolt handle cutout on the stock might need to be modified, depending on whether the 54 bolt handle has been altered for scope use.

Aside from the bolt handle, the biggest drawbacks on the 54 are the safety and the trigger. Safety is easy to change; trigger, not so much, since it incorporates the bolt stop. People can be inventive, however. Years ago, I ran across a 54 that had a Timney trigger installed, along with a bolt stop unit from a Ruger 77.

This was true with the early 54's. The later ones had stocks with less drop - about the same as the first M70 stocks.

All good info. Thanks!!!

Replacement triggers and safeties are getting very scarce.
If you find a Timney trigger another trick some guys did was put a longer set screw into one of the receiver sight holes to act as a bolt stop.

As stated earlier you can put a M54 into an M70 stock and use the M70 bottom metal but you will need to D&T the bottom flat on the receiver.

The M54 trigger although a long military style two stage is not bad for a hunting rifle.

I have had a few M54's and if I had one right now I would leave it as an iron sighter with the original trigger and safety. A lyman 48W or better yet a 48WJS would be a great option.

I believe that Townsend Whelen had a hand in the redesign of the M/54 stock, the later stocks had a straighter comb and the schnable forend was changed to a profile similar to the M/70.

An aftermarket trigger for a pre-64 M70 might work in a 54, but I've never tried it. Buehler M54 safeties pop up fairly regularly on ebay, but, like you said, they're getting scarce.

I've seen this trick, too, but with a much larger diameter screw. I wouldn't trust a 6-40 screw as a bolt stop!

I would love to have a M54 carbine in 250-3000, or 7X57MM to hunt with. Not a safe queen, but just a good, not abused shooter.

Mine is an 06.. Had the bolt bent , custom stock, screw for a bolt stop😥 But it was my grandfathers, and one of my finest friends did most of the other changes, just before he was killed in an accident about 50 years ago..😥Great shooter, my main rifle for ten + years.. Stilluse it once in a while, but the B & L scope is a bitch to adjust.. once set it stays, but I like trying different bullets.. So most we just remember our early hunts.. That is good too.👍
I would love one in .30-30!

My 54 is a Hornet. Decent trigger and had the bolt and safety worked before I bought it. Very accurate and 1/4 the cost of a M-70 Hornet.

Sounds pretty cool guys. Thanks for sharing...

A belated reply.
I appreciate both the Model 54 and Pre 64 Model 70 rifles, each for what they are. The exception only for the fact of so many (500K+) 70 series, the rifles still fairly common. That and an action with potential for great custom rifle use, also to be appreciated for what it ‘might yet be’. The 54, not so on either count of ‘high customization desirability’ or great numbers. It, equaling only about 10% of ‘pre 64' Model 70 production. Also, simply due to age/scoping/recoil pads, etc., materially fewer 54 Models surviving the forces of time an ‘modernization’, as intact, original and good condition. What remains is not just a 'period' rifle, but a fine rifle generally.

I see little utility in modification of the 54. A specimen in nice condition, only to be depreciated IF otherwise yet original. These rifles themselves, functionally quite good. Design limitations cited, often tending more ‘picky’ than ‘profound’. None I consider material except perhaps the stock. The original “early model” stock, as noted, with considerable butt drop. Not materially affecting sight acquisition with iron sights, but scoping (especially unaltered bolt) definitely more of a problem. Yet only in the ‘if you do’ category. Otherwise, the universal issue with the early stock; ergonomics. Much of that expressed in ‘felt recoil’, tending to be bothersome with prolonged firing. The late model 54, aka: “NRA Model” (so called because following suggested modifications by several NRA connected potentates), incorporated a more (bore oriented) straight-line butt configuration. Also substituting a beefier forend, eliminating the slim Schnabel design. Interesting to note that the corollary Remington Model 30 (1917 Enfield Pattern based) also with similar early stock configuration and NRA criticism/issues. Resolved utilizing the ‘common source’ NRA style revision paralleling Winchester. Both firms with these revisions about 1930-31. To note also, the later 54 Winchester style adopting a quite nice, modern ramp front sight, later reincarnated in the Model 70.

I have no experience concerning the 54 modifications discussed above, excepting the Model 70 bolt substitution. Most 54 rifles encountered with 70 bolts, Winchester factory apparently authorized/performed the substitution. Such for owners as scope-friendly adaptation. Later mandatory, as original 54 bolt supplies exhausted. Incidentally to be noted, the 70 bolt substitution is NOT a drop in. Beyond headspace issues, the interface with trigger/bolt stop function differs and requires machining the 70 bolt underbelly to accommodate 54 functionality. I have one such 54 rifle, so modified and looking quite decent. Not otherwise knowledgeable of 54 ‘normal’ configuration, to appear original. Just a conclusory note here. I consider a properly ’70 bolt configured’ Model 54 ’, of value equivalent… IF the rifle otherwise all original and correct Stith (no-D&T) mounts. Conversely perhaps, from average shooter/hunter perspective, especially those content with iron sights, the 54 seems a fine, capable rifle. Otherwise even superior in functionality/capability if properly scoped.
Reiterating for emphasis, my central point above. If ‘new & improved’ is desired, far better simply go to the pre 64 Model 70. With such, automatically buying into the 'full Monte'… Hallowed rep for factory design/workmanship/materials in one complete package. Whole rifle or begin with ‘the nuke’, a chambering suitable action and ‘flush out’ from there!
Of my Model 54 rifles, particular favorites: 7mm Mauser chambering; one each, early and late rifle styles. A Super Grade rifle in 270 Winchester. Several in 30-30 chambering, only available in early style; 3 carbines, 1 rifle. (Almost all Model 54 rifles & carbines with integral "clip guides" in the receiver bridge. The only exception, the rimmed cartridge chamberings, most commonly, 30-30. These using a special, different receiver altogether - omitting the guides!) Last in my stable; honorable mention. A late style 22 Hornet with period scope & Stith mounts. Never quite understanding this full-sized rifle and Hornet chambering. But unusual. Moreover, mine ‘a deal’, not to be passed!

And concerning scoping… A notation. As prewar Model 70 configuration, the receiver bridge of all production Model 54 series NEVER factory tapped, only the receiver ring and bridge side-left for standard receiver sight mounts. The only non-D&T scope mount adapted to such configuration I've encountered, the Stith series mounts. Such nicely scope-adapting the Model 54 (and prewar 70), retaining factory originality so important to collectors/$$$.

As a generalization, the Model 54 in decent condition, collectible IF ORIGINAL. Also, as many quality guns irreversibly altered, joining the swelling ranks of ‘nice old shooters’. There, ‘all mods’ presumably fair game.

An ultra wordy...
My take

Thanks for your take on things iskra. Much appreciated. You know you could throw in a few pics of your rifles too. It would go great with your words of wisdom...

I love to share pix and often do as I blog on Forums which offer direct upload. However quoting this Forum: "In order to add an image to your message or your signature, you must have the image already available on a web server and reachable by a URL. This can be an image on your own personal web page, for example." Alas, I don't maintain a webpage or have them otherwise available. Sorry.

General advice concerning 'project rifles', to exercise caution. Too easy to get in well over 'cost basis +' head and end up with a mix-master investment considerably exceedingactual net value.

Just the further postscript, my post needed an additional edit. A bit convoluted and obtuse in places. But with essential facts/opinions across.

Good luck and...
My take