Hello all,

Haven't posted in a while. I have a question for the gurus about Pre '64 M70 proof marks.

If the proof marks are in the usual "9 o'clock" position (not near 12 o'clock as on some late guns) but slightly covered by the stock wood, does this indicate a different stock than the gun was originally assembled with?

Rule (page 56) seems to say the barreled action was in the stock when proof fired and stamped. If this is true, then the proof marks should not be covered or partially covered. I have seen some very close to the edge, but in this case I mean perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 of the both the receiver and barrel ovals are beneath the edge of the wood.

I did a search, but found nothing. Thanks in advance for any replies.

Best,
Gun Doc

I'd also be suspect that the stock was not original to the gun. Winchester was pretty particular about the location of their barrel stamps and proofs and IMO it's not likely that a gun would have left the factory with the Definitive Proofs partly obscured....

Poconojack,

Thanks for the reply. You are one of the gurus I hoped would reply.

It seems that late in production they got a bit sloppy with the location of the proof marks. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion at all, just commenting on the "pretty particular" part of your reply. For what it is worth, this is a 1954 rifle, way before late in production.

I'm looking forward to opinions of the other experts here.

Best,
Gun Doc

Interesting! I also checked Dean Whitaker without result. In personal experience, I've found great regularity in the pre-64 model 70 standard stocks. in the instant case, IF the stock appears normal, original & vintage to the host Model 70, I would tend to assume it original. The idea of an "original" stock being of such configuration that a stamp would 'fit' properly and another ostensibly like stock would not... Such postulates more of a variation in stock dimensions than I would expect.
One of the liabilities of being a Winchester collector, or widget collector for that matter; too easy to view procedural regularities as doctrine. How about the theory that for some reason, the barreled action was pulled from the stock and as a matter of CONVENIENCE, it was stamped 'with it's pants down'; out of the stock. I do doubt there was doctrine regulating such matters and 'things' do happen. I believe a procedural irregularity more likely than a wooden stock deviation.
Occam's razor deployed and...
Just my take

If one handles and closely examines a fair number of guns that are known to be restocked, the subtle differences in stock inlets during the 28 year production run of the pre-64 M70 is usually pretty obvious....

All,

Thanks to all for the replies so far. I am bumping this back to the top in hopes of hearing from more experts. But I don't want to be one of those guys who bumps his stuff to the top far too often. That is just rude. I figure every ten days to two weeks is reasonable.

For what it is worth, and supporting iskra's supposition, it never made a lot of sense that the guns were proofed while in the stock. One, suppose one "failed" and wrecked a good stock? Two, if it were me, and I have some experience running a ballistics lab (albeit a research lab and not a production environment), I would not proof and function fire the guns in the same place or at least not at the same time. Why? I think it would be far too easy for someone to start function testing with a magazine full of proof loads. I guess a rifle should be able to handle that, but it doesn't seem like a good idea. But having said all that, "Rule is Rule" after all, and he says rifles were proofed in the stock . . .

Also, repeating myself, I have seen some rifles I assumed wore the original stock where the proof marks are so close to being partially covered that one wonders how the proof stamp was shaped to allow the marks to be so close to the wood without marring the wood.

For what it is worth, on the rifle in question, the stock seems to be a fine fit along the flat at the bottom of the ejection port between the receiver bridge and ring. The issue in question is the proof marks are partially covered by wood.

And in case you are wondering about the origin of my question, this is a 99% gun from a dealer who's reputation is questioned by some experts. So I am trying to determine if I "got snookered" and if so, how badly.

Thanks again,
Gun Doc