Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Pre-64 Super Grade Featherweight?

This.

I am leaning in this direction.

I still believe if I put the rifle on GunBroker I could get my money back. It's not out of the realm of possibility that that Barrel is original to that rifle.

"It's not out of the realm of possibility that that Barrel is original to that rifle."

It seems it is quite common for Pre '64 M70 rifles to have barrels marked a year earlier than the receiver serial number indicates when the receiver was made. This is true for even high production rifles such as standard rifles in common chamberings. Apparently Winchester made barrels in batches, then used them to build guns over time. Rule may state directly that similar (contour and caliber) barrels were made in batches, but I do not recall at the moment. I also do not recall how Super Grade barrels were different, but since many are marked "Super", apparently there was something special about them.

Since Super Grade Featherweight rifles are "extremely rare" (I don't recall how rare), it might take longer than usual to use up a batch of .270 Super Grade Featherweight barrels. As such, I wonder it it is more common for such rifles to have barrels marked even more than one year before the receiver? It makes sense that this is the case, but it would take documenting a bunch of rifles to determine.

My point is, since this rifle is a rare one, it may be even more in the realm of possibility that the three year earlier barrel is original to that receiver.

gundoc, according to Rule, there were about "248" 270 sg fwt's that were produced.... You may be right in your assumption. However, 3 years difference, is enough to be concerning... If I saw the slightest hint that the barrel was replaced, that would be enough for me to draw a conclusion. A rifle like this would have to be examined by a highly experienced individual like my smith for example. He could spot a counterfeit from a ways away. However, some guys are so good at replacing barrels (my smith included) that there's no evidence that they have been changed. One thing about Winchester is, things are not set in stone. Barrel dates did not coincide with receiver dates all the time. The short magnum receiver is one such critter for example. It's not all too uncommon to see .338wm rifles with receivers that date to 1956, even though the .338 officially made it's debut in 1958... Winchester can be wonky my friend. With this being said, I still think the rifle in the op is pretty cool. I hope Nyrifleman gets it and decides to hunt it. I'm still curious as to how it's going to shoot for him. Hopefully it drives tacks and becomes the perfect hunting machine for him... As for it being 100% original and treating it like a collectors piece. I don't know....

I have, with the same small logo, in both red and black. But not on any pre-64 guns. I think those pads were from the 60's or 70's.

I agree with you guys on the pad...

I believe the barrel is not original to the gun. on later guns I have never seen barrels with an earlier date than the receiver. not unusual to see earlier marked bbls on pre wars, transitions & into the real early 50s. On a '58' gun, the barrel should not be dated, just the caliber mark. thus, the vise mark I thought I seen in one of the pictures, looks close & I think you will see a mark. Also, never seen a pad like that. Still a nice attractive rifle. Put a reserve on it that insures you get your money back, don't forget the fees. that is my 2 cents. good luck

Gentleman I received an email from the gun shop which states "Doug, the bbl imprint is in the epoxy bedding that was done at Winchester."

This was in response to my query about the date difference between the barrel and the action. The imprint in question is the super grade 56 imprint.

Winchester didn't epoxy bed their rifles.

No they did not. Regardless it's on its way to me. I'll scope it, shoot it for a while and most likely put her on GunBroker.

Please keep us posted as to what you find when it is in your hands, how it shoots, etc.

+1

Tag

DF

Will do Gents.

I've enjoyed watching this Thread! Very interesting. I'm with the conservative crowd that says there's an collectible gun forgery every day or so. That said, I think it's a great rifle. Since many SGs are likely somehow modified over time if not faked, I'd just stop worrying about the matter. More than 'due diligence' accomplished, and a bunch of knowledgeable folks weighing in. From views available, the rifle looks good and I believe quickly marketable above 2K with the right exposure. I'd be proud to own such as it!
Big congrats and...
My take

I have a pre war std that barrel and action dates vary two years. Gun originally purchased by an old family friend, bought from him by cousin, inherited by me. I have had two SuperGrades that had the nice transition of the Monte Carlo and cheek piece, unlike the Collectors example, and like your purchase.

An old friend, likely deceased now who at different times repped for Winchester and Browning, once told me to beware, but never say never at either place, especially before GCA '68. They liked to please customers.

So it has been bedded and maybe padded. Buy it and shoot it and see the envy of others. I have a fifties FN with a custom stock that I shoot that I would not swap for it, but folks rarely snap on what I have. That can be my advantage at the range if I change loads or glass. Folks ignore me. I have three other rifles that draw the crowds. That sometimes bugs me.

Enjoy,

Jack

If you are sure those stocks are original (and two of them to boot!), then Rule missed an important variation. Given all the lesser variations he did not miss, that really surprises me.

The Supergrade Fwts are so rare that hardly anyone has ever seen more than one in their life. I only ever saw one that I remember myself, and it was a 270 with a pad as well. It was priced right but no one would touch it.
This was before the internet and affordable CNC machines, and the chance of finding an un-molested Supergrade Fwt stock was slim to none, and that is why no one wanted it.

When I first looked at the OP's pic the cheekpiece and monte carlo didn't strike me as anything that odd. It looked like an older cheekpiece on a later monte carlo. With a gun so rare that blend of old and new doesn't surprise me; nor does the older barrel and again for the same reason.

In a related note, today I handled a beautiful 264 Win Mag Fwt and a very nice nice 1962 375 H&H. The 375 had beautiful wood and the small machine checkering panels were recut to mid 1950's. They did a nice job but not perfect by a long shot. I didn't look at the serial of the 264 the beautiful blueing on the barrel and gorgeous wood dominated my attention!

Again not to argue, but I crossed paths with a serious collector and he knew most of the serious collectors. He was of the opinion that it wasn't rare for Rule to miss. FWIW.

No argument from me. I've heard that about Rule as well. I've even heard a rumble or two about "the book" having some intentional errors to cover some tracks. Please note I didn't say I doubted jt402. But his was the first I had ever heard (in my limited experience) of SG Monte Carlo stocks that didn't have that awkward intersection, non-intersection actually, of the rear of the cheek rest with the step of the Monte Carlo.

As for serious collectors, that is some rare air indeed, and air I don't breathe. I have talked to one knowledgeable person that trusts dealer A, but not dealer B, and then another who tells me exactly the opposite. As far as I can tell, if you don't have a rock solid paper trail, the "correctness" of any given M70 is what some undefined community of experts is willing to agree on, although there is often disagreement. You may have private knowledge you trust, and that may give you peace of mind, but that is all it is.

Doc,

Your thoughts pretty much coincide with this individual. I mentioned earlier his phone number has gone silent and I'm afraid there is no good to come of it. A good, intelligent and interesting individual. .