Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors 54 Condition question

I've been thinking about adding a 30.06 Model 70 to the guns I own, with the idea that I would have a Peep site on the 06. I have not yet run across one that has sparked my interest, but just today I did find a Model 54 that checks the boxes pretty well.

Serial number is 497## - so guessing this would have been right at the end of production for the 54.

Most of what I'm looking at appears to be correct and original for the gun from my limited knowledge. It's generally is pretty decent shape, wood finish is not flaking off, wood is not dented scratched, Bluing is good, correct sling swivels, correct butt pad, hood on front sight is present and correct, the rear sight I'm doubting a little bit. My pre-war Model 70 has a rear sight with the ramps to adjust. This one has the folding rear sight mounted in the barrel Boss in a dovetail - I didn't think they had that until later - which may be an indication the barrel is not correct for the model 54? One are of damage that is concerning - on the left side of the receiver, forward of where I would expect a peep site to be mounted - there are 3 holes filled with screws, and something has previously rubbed on the metal, or the metal was filed away in a short area to fit something that was mounted to the left side of the receiver. Pretty hard rub or file over 1/4 - 3/8 inch area, and some indications of rubbing over most of the left side of the receiving cutout. I suspect there may have been a peep sight that mounts to these holes, instead of the normal mounting position for a peep site just left of the rear bridge.

The rear bridge on this gun is not drilled and tapped, but this damage on the left side has me questioning whether I want to make it mine? This area is in the action cutout area, it's rubbed on the Winchester metal engraved marking. I would not want to scope this gun - so running with iron sites, or peep sight would be the plan - peep sight being the hoped eventual out-come.

I'm not as fortunate as bsa so I'm sure the gun is priced from correct to maybe a couple hundred too much, but I'm OK with that if I'm able to buy from my LGS.

So would I be correct that the damage to the metal would be from mounting some type of peep site, and how big of a red flag would it be? Would that model or style of peep sight be something I could find and duplicate - because that would cover the one defect that is visible on this gun? It's not new or unfired condition - but pretty good condition for a 90 year old survivor with a scar on the left side of the receiver. And is my suspicion correct, the barrel is likely not original with the dovetail in boss folding rear sight

I’d pass, could never get past the extra holes (sounds like there was a scope mount on there at one time).
Hard to tell w/o pics, but if the barrel has a M54 roll mark it’s probably original to the gun.

Probably the stuff was done to mount a Weaver or Pachmayr side mount, very popular in the day and perfectly viable mounts....and still available on Ebay. If you are buying it as a keeper, and maybe thinking of hunting it as well....they are fine old rifles, if that is late production, it came with a factory upgraded speed lock and of course they all had great precision cut rifled barrels. JMO.

"Correct butt pad?" A standard model .30-06 wouldn't have had a butt pad. Agreed re: extra holes on LH side of receiver probably for a defunct side mount. The extra holes wouldn't bother me. (You were waiting for me to say that, huh Ted?!) A recoil pad would bother me though. Of much more importance than those superficial faults is of course its bore condition if a simple shooter is what you want. On top of the other faults, if the bore is crummy I would run away, no matter the price!

At the end of the day only YOU can decide what you can and can't live with.

My mistake in terminology, sorry. It's the hard butt plate with the widows peak cut into the stock, not a pad.

The gun would certainly be a shooter for me. I enjoy working up handloads - so another rifle is another opportunity to run through the full load workup process. I'm interested in practicing the trigger discipline to work with the 2 stage trigger on the Model 54's. I've got a couple of Model 70's that are correct for vintage, a 46 pre-war 270 with a 2 power scope, and a 56 243 Featherweight with a 4 power scope, both are correct for vintage, and I was watching for another model 70 with the idea of having a peep sight on it.

I'm a member at an indoor marksmanship center in town with a league during winter months - I thought it would be fun to shoot in the sporter class with a peep sight. Would be mostly just a competition with myself to do load workup and shoot the league with iron / peep sights just to see how well I could do. I try to take every gun I own hunting to get at least 1 deer with it. But I'm a lefty so it's got no chance of being my #1 hunting rifle. I would like whatever I buy to be as correct for vintage as possible. I'm going to dig around a little bit to see if the barrel is correct for this gun. The rear site has me doubting it.

I was just shooting my 30 WCF model 54 last weekend. It has a peep sight mounted and it is very accurate for an open sight rifle. The trigger is quite nice too, particularly for a two stage. Obviously there is nothing wrong with an iron sighted 70. If I was looking particularly to shoot iron sights I would probably prefer the 54, especially since it would likely have a lower comb stock designed for shooting iron sights where a 70 might have a Monte Carlo stock depending on the vintage and the way it left the factory.

Why would a changed rear sight lead you to believe that the barrel on your gun may not be correct?

Checking in a bit late here with a few thoughts. My preemptory disclaimer,as anymore often speed-reading Threds and then answering, leaving me occasionally embarrassed as treading over matters already resolved., etc But here goes.
The 54 to me is a great 'era' rifle and completely valid today in "classic context". The high SN isn't really uncommon within the 54 genre quate a few existing. The "extra holes" as BSA perhaps, just rephrasing in my own terms, as "semi-virgin". Any extra receiver or barrel holes, immaterial where. Damaged goods! Would that be a 'no deal'. Depending on price and "parts is parts". So anywhere from "decent shooter" to perhaps some valuable components. The Model 54 rifles of two generations the NRA "Standard Model and the earlier Model. Various other differences, one of which reflected in a suffix "A" to all serial numbers subsequent to a change in extractor... I'm told.

As lamenting the five pix limit in these Fire Forums, below my five contribution. The specimen below as low SN rifle in .270 Win, the chambering introduced in this rifle in 1925! A great round! In '27-'30 the Carbine. All of the earlier genre Model with the sights. Aft from the - what I term - European style shown on pix below to the "rear barrel leaf sight. The front sight as shown, more of "post" compared to the svelte forged-integral ramp of the later 1930 transition to NRA Style Stock as much more Winchester later model 70 conventional mold! The stock shown is again - European Schnabel style I like, but is described as ergonomically punishingly as recoil meets shoulder! The Butt Plates as I recall were ALL steel with the cross (horizontal) striations.

A momentary return to the sights. Above the first iteraton. A second iteration had an aft solid standing fixed 'leaf' element and one 45 degree rotational, flat horizontal out of way and 'in service as slightly higher than the fixed vertical leaf. The Pix below reflecting a Lyman 48 many of which were factory furnished. They were the "Cat's Meow" - Flapper era talk" as quality ultimate. Notably as they fitted the left bridge-side screw mounts. One of the typically most revealing - suspicions confirmed - post Factory installation is the professionalism or 'lack of' inletting mandatory for such sights. Here, definitely an aftermarket mount as non-pro quality inletting visible.

I believe for most purposes and as BSA duly pointed out, the second era edition of the 54 is a better 'tuned' package. Some common models such as the "Carbine" from '27 to '30, only made in earlier model! For the info, the beaut "Super Grade" in exactly the same rendition as later in the Model 70 was intro'd 'ostensibly' in 1934, but rumored to also offered aftermarket as sales 'new rifle' 54 sales "slow". Such, in Depression Era economics!


Good luck re your quest! 'In my days of collection'... of yore it would have been more economical to buy a 54 with such as the Lyman affixed. Maybe well different now!

Best!
John

Both Factory pads, in red, of various several brands and of

I don't think I commented on this thread buddy. I like your old rifle though. Cool rear sight. Wondering if the OP's rear sight looks like that one? I generally don't comment on model 54 threads, because I've never had one. I've looked at them a few times at gunshows and stuff, but generally give in to the newer model 70.

Also, since the OP mentioned me, I will add that as I read this thread I think of the 1940 model 70 shooter grade that was offered to me for $650 the other day. Although it is not original, the price had me tempted. Ran across a couple shooter grade 270s first, that I could not pass up though. Such is my luck!!