Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters HIGGINS MODEL 50/FN ACTION CALIBERS

I had not realized high standard made them, that's even better.

Yeah, I can understand the stigma that went with the JCH brand, back '56 I had a JCH single shot .22 lr when my friends had Remington repeaters.

The barrel "lump" was either brazed or silver-soldered on. I can't remember which - my "old-timers" is setting in again.

I wonder if the ad picture wasn't an error made by some adman that had never seen the rifle and thought that was the way it should be. I can't image dovetailing a sight right over top of the chamber. Although years ago I did see one at a gunshow that someone had mounted a peep-sight on the front receiver ring and in order to have it low enough to be usuable he had filed almost through the top of the receiver ring.

OOPS!! i just re-read the post by bcp. bcp are you saying that you have seen them with the sight dovetailed in over the chamber?? If so, I don't think that it would be one that I would want.

I have owned 3 in 30/06 and 1 in 270, the 270 is by far the rarest of the two. I sold my last one, a 30/06, about 5 years ago and the guy I sold it to is still killing elk wit it. I did restock it into a (don't laugh) Butler Creek classic style synthetic stock, and put an adjustable trigger out of a Mark X Mauser in it, a Leupold fixed 6X, and the darned thing would shoot 3 shots under an inch day in and day out - usually the first to shots were touching and the 3rd would be out a 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch. The barrels on these are relatively thin and I suspect that it was heating up by the 3rd shot but maybe it was the shooter - it wasn't very heavy.

As you can probably tell the thread has brought back some good memories of them for me.

drover

I had one Higgins M50 with the rer sight set up that way, or at least the groove was dovetailed into the part over the chamber. It was the only one I had that as a .270 and didn't shoot worth spit so I had it restocked and rebarreled to a 7x57 Mauser. All the ones I have now have that "hump" that is apparently silver soldered to the barrel. I was never comfortable with the groove cut over the chamber anyway and always wondered what in hell they were thinking? I do like the Higgins M50s though and just about buy every one I've come across. Most have been quite good shooters and one even has a very nice piece of wood. Most stocks though, at least the ones I have a rather plain at best.
Paul B.

I have an old JC Higgins 2-1/2X scope with the yellow/brass anodized adjustment bases. They also have some odd 1-piece rings on them. Sounds like they came off either the Model 50 or 51.

More trivia - I had forgotten the High Standard connection. Years ago I read about that, it too is my understanding that the FN actions were barreled at High Standard, if I recall correctly the stocks were supplied by Bishop (now defunct). To me the stock design was the pitiful, they seemed to kick harder than any 30/06 I have ever shot. I restocked all of mine, mostly I would look around until I found a Mark X sporter stock and use one of them - it alleviated the recoil problem quite a bit. I will admit to being somewhat recoil shy though - the largest caliber I shoot any more is a 243.

I have never seen a stock as nice as the one bcp has, that is one that I would not restock, or if I did I would certainly hold on to the original.

drover

One that I bought had what I suspect is the same ring set-up you are speaking of. The scope had to be disassembled in order to install/remove the rings. I just left the rings on it and sold the scope and rings together.

drover

It's apples and oranges, but my dad bought a new JCHiggins pump shotgun from Sears in 1954 with an uncheckered stock. He bought me one in 1956 just like it, but it had a checkered stock. His was $49 and mine was $48. It probably wasn't the same years for rifle checkering, but these years for the pump shotgun are accurate.

Yep! The adjustment bases have to be removed to get the rings off.

I inherited the scope I have so I still have it and I have wondered what gun my grandpa once had it on. Thanks.

I've got a JCH Model 51 in .270. Uhhhh.... that's not entirely correct: my son has it down in Alabama. Don't know if I'll ever get it back. I've gotten to kill one deer with it though.

ANYWAY, it's stock has a cheek-piece, the white spacer on the grip cap mentioned earlier, and a recoil pad, but no checkering. And it's got some kind of brass commemorative medallion inletted into the right side of the butt-stock (don't remember what it says).

Dang thing shoots fantastically though, and all I've done is float the barrel, glass bed the recoil lug and tang area, and replace the dry rotted recoil pad. We have a few loads for it that shoot under 3/4" for five shots and very near 1/2" for three.

I paid a kid 200 bucks for it. Would love to have several more.

You guys are going to laugh at this. My Dad gave me a .270 about 10 years ago. It's been in my gun safe and I never gave it a second thought as I have a 30/06 that was my first big game rifle. I knew it was stamped sears on the side, so I figured it was junk (my Dad wasn't really into hunting or guns) and was going to see if I could just get rid of it. For some reason I took an interest in the .270 caliber and figured I'd do some poking around to see if I could find some info on it. Imagine my surprise when I found out that I'm the proud owner of an M50 in .270 with a hi standard barrel. The action and barrel are a 9 out of 10 at least, and the stock is about an 8.
I mounted a scope on it this evening and took it to the range with some .270 rounds I loaded at different grains. I have some Hodgon 4350 powder and tried that. The .270 doesn't seem to like it, but neither did my 30/06. My 30/06 likes H414, so I'm going to load some up for that and try again.
A couple of quick questions though, I bought Warne scope mounts for the Mauser 98 FN, but the holes on the rear are the same distance apart as the front! All the 98 mounts have holes drilled about an 3/4 of an inch on the front, and 1/2 on the back. I secured the back with a single screw, not sure if I need a different mount or if I need to have it drilled and tapped.
The stock is VERY uncomfortable. It was the base model and it doesn't sit well at all regarding alignment. I'm seriously considering getting a new stock. I saw a few suggestions above, does anyone have specific stock recommendations that fit this gun without a lot of work?
Thanks to all!

My father has a Model 50 and he has 1-piece base on it with a single screw holding the rear of the mount on. It's worked fine for years.

Btw he has the original box, manual, etc.
If anyone wants pics I could probably take some.

EDIT:looked @rifle&corrected post

For mounts, check the Weaver list, for stock, Stockys had some M-798 lams that could be fitted. But almost any M-98 stock should fit.

Brian,

I've never heard of an FN action with the hole spacing on the rear that you describe. But in all my years of messing with guns, I've found many anomolies. It seems there is always an exception to the rules.

One thought did occur to me, tho' Are you sure it's a model 50 and not a Mod: 51L? The 51L was a Husqvarna action. And that may well have different hole spacing...

It might behoove you to try a one piece Redfield or Leupold base. If the holes line up OK, that could be the answer to your dilemma... Hope this helps...

Grasshopper

I have an FN actioned 9.3X62 with that odd hole spacing. Forget which bases I used to make to make it work. Will check tomorrow and get back to you.

Have posted this before, but here's my old 270 with a Unertl 6X Condor.



It is now in new hands, and looks a bit different. See post from Mauser98 below.

Ted

The Model 50 stock has a bit more drop than more modern stocks, they thought some people might actually shoot it with the iron sights. Try to mount the scope as low as possible.

If you restock a 50, be aware that the trigger design is unusual, the trigger is pinned to the trigger guard, but the sear is pinned to the action, so the distance between the trigger guard and the action is critical.

I bought a 30-06 50 for $225 in 1988. It was my first high powered rifle. I took it out to the range with a couple of boxes of Winchester ammo and proceeded to shoot sub 1" groups. I wondered what the big deal was. It wasn't until several other rifles later that I realized just how special Model 50's are.

I have a 270 I'd like to restock,but have not found a
drop in.Does anyone make one ready to go?Prefer wood.

I have had a 50 in 30-06 for many years.
I restocked it into a B&C, installed a Timney and mounted a Leupold 2.5-8 in weaver mounts. It wore a weaver 4x for most of the time.
I had to modify the mounts in order to mount the2.5 - 8.
It's a shooter.

Weaver does make a proper fitting mount for this rifle, I am sorry that I don't remember what it was and my old model 50 is off on an elk hunt right now or I would call the new owner to see what number the bases are. Chances are you can call Brownells and they will be able to tell you or if you have a sporting goods store nearby they should have the full Weaver chart showing it.

As far as stocks, I was very pleased with my B&C synthetic, it a classic style with raised checkering, it gave a good grip, it pointed like a fine shotgun, and luckily in my case it anywasy it still grouped under an inch with no stock work.

You really should consider a Timney or other after-market trigger though. As mentioned before the trigger is a two-piece affair that for proper engagement is very dependent on stock depth, by changing stocks you will change the geometry of sear engagement and there is the possibility of creating an unsafe condition.

p.s. - The B&C stock you would want is the same as the Mark X,

drover

Here is what those original odd ball 1-piece rings look like.

I've had quite a few over the years and all of them will shoot. The 30-06 I have right now is an honest 1" gun with just about any ammo I put through it. The 270 I owned was the most accurate. A great gun, to build the same gun today would probably cost over a 1000 dollars. One of these days I want to drop mine into a McMillan. Along with a 3 piece safety, and the 3x9 Leupold it wears, I can't imagine a finer rifle for North American hunting.