It's a standard weight 30-06. Probably not "right", but it shoots good and will make a fine deer rifle. I believe it was made in 1949.

Nice rifle. Is that butt plate anodized or painted?

Greg, looks solid as a rock. And "right" to me anyway, can mean shooting little tiny groups and the piece of mind that your deer rifle is one of the finest weapons ever produced by anyone for any purpose.
I can barely make it out, but is that super grade swivel studs I see?

John

Looks like it was made somewhere around 1950. Low comb stock appears to have been refinished. The butt plate also looks like it may be aluminum instead of steel which the std wt rifles came with back then. The receiver has been polish blued and the barrel also looks suspect for a re-blue. Is the bolt serial #'d to the receiver? Is it a carbine??? The supergrade sling swivels are a nice touch, but not original at all. Nice rifle, but it's been professionally restored and "messed with".. My best guess..

If not original super grade studs, they are that type. I didn't think they'd be original to the rifle, nor the aluminum buttplate.

I will say I don't know too much about Winchesters, aside from they are of great quality.

I'm sure the "gold leaf" in the lettering isn't original, but should be fairly easy to remove.

It isn't a carbine; just a standard rifle. If it's been refinished, it was done by someone who knew their business.

I don't recall seeing a serial number on the bolt.

I was also wondering about the discoloration in the serial # and Winchester trademark in the receiver, but couldn't tell in the pics what it was..

The first load I tried in it was 150 grain Speer boattails on top of 51.2 grains of IMR 4064. This produced 1" groups at 100 yards.

With the Redfield 1 piece mount, rings, and 3-9 duplex reticle scope, did I get burned at $800?

Rhetorical question..

I'll take that as a yes?

You did very well. I'd love to snag a beautiful rifle like yours for $800.00!!!!!! You have to realize that it's still a pre 64 model 70 and there is true value in that. It's the best damn hunting rifle ever made!!!

I'm pleased with it, and as I said, I don't know all I should about them. I really didn't suspect a refinish, except for the fact I think the sling swivel studs weren't factory original, and the stock finish matches there.

Did rifles this early have a matte finished receiver like the later ones?

Congratulations. You did well.

donsm70

Greg, When you subtract for the inherent value of the Redfield and the mounts, you've probably got $650 in the rifle itself. Got Burned? Not at all, just the opposite I think. You did very well.
John

Fellow you have yourself a fantastic gun that someone gave a little botox or facelift to, nothing wrong with that in my eyes! Enjoy the heck out of it and it will drop anything you want like a sack of cow feed! very best on a nice one WinPoor

Yes..

If you start feeling like you have been had I will give you 900 for the rig ,no problem! very best winpoor

Thanks for all your help guys.

I'd be a happy camper to get that rifle for $800. Go forth and taketh mucho game with her.

I'm no expert, but IMO, that is a VERY good deal if it is accurate. If it isn't accurate, it still isn't a bad deal. If the first thing you tried was in the 1 MOA range, I think you done good.

Hint, get yourself a box of federal prem, 165 gr BT's ,Ive never owned a pre 64 mod 70 or a NH classic sporter, plane jane nor SG that did not shoot them better than Im going to tell folks here! very best WinPoor
PS I also bought a case of 168 gr Federal match that I use to test all 30-06 Winchesters, I use them as base line to compare guns with, I also use a 36X proven Leupold with a 1/8th moa lee diamond dot to"see what the gun will do" I pick out clear cool no wind days so as to give each gun an equal chance, I also hold the baby blue bud lites to 2 to steady 61 yr old nerves!This little test I do feels like cheating for a country boy who grew up on iron sights! very best WinPoor

I would test this gun with ammo that will be used for hunting. Nice hunting gun that could benefit from new scope of better optical performance. I had one of those old Redfields on Browning Safari Grade Mauser. Optical performance was pretty bad even when compared to inexpensive (<$200) modern Nikon, Redfield, Burris,.....

I like it and would love to have it...I have a weakness for standard grade 70s, especially in '06. Love the Supergrade swivels. I'd probably ditch the alum buttplate and put a Galazan's Win repro pad on it...then leave it alone. That Redfield 3-9X scope, coupled with a 700 Rem, killed A LOT of bad guys in the RVN...I'd keep it.
Bob

My buddy picked up second hand like new Pentax 3-10x50 (Burris Made in USA) for $185. For love of God I do not understand why people put money into refinishing old guns and leave old scopes on that are optically equal to $80 Simmons from Walmart.

I've owned more than a half dozen of those Redfields and back in 1975-1980 they were likely the best scope America had to offer.

I had a 4X16,at least 4 different 3X9's and a couple 2X7's
I retired my last 3X9 with rangefinder about 4 years ago.
My 2X7 is still going strong.

I've never owned an $80.00 Simmons from Walmart but I doubt like hell it could ever match those Redfields.

Since you helped out us "strugglers" on the recoil pad question, let me return the favor.

You refinish old guns to make them nice to look at. The operative word is "at." People enjoy looking at them. You look through scopes, not at them, and the optical performance of them is not really all that important. The sole purpose of rifle scope is to help you direct bullets to where you want them to go. It needs to gather light well enough and have enough resolution to allow you to aim well (and sometimes quickly), but beyond that, reliability and durability are what you need. If you are a "turret twister", you also need it to track precisely and repeatably. You don't need to resolve the rings of Saturn with the damn thing. Why the hell do I care if there is a bit of distortion on the edge of the field?! Optical performance matters a lot with binoculars and spotting scopes. Good optics here prevents eye strain, and allows you to resolve things that need resolving, like bullet holes at long distance, or the eyes of that leopard when it looks right at you. Here, great optical performance is a joy to use. With rifle scopes, not so much. However, if you are a genuine sniper, who spends a huge amount of time watching things through a scope, optical performance can become more important.

I didn't refinish it nor did I mount the scope on it. I bought it just the way you see it. The scope is clear and works fine. I like it.

I don't think an old rifle looks right with a new scope on it.

I have many Leupold scopes on rifles, and others lying in the safe. While I appreciate good optics, most of my deer hunting is done with lever rifles and irons.

I had several older scopes: Meopta, B. Nickel, Browning (made by Redfield) and Tasco World class. While all fall short when compared to my modern Zeiss or Nikon Monarch the Tasco was best of that bunch.
The best scope I ever owned was Khales Helia 1,5-6x42.