doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Winchester 54

OK, I followed this and was 1st loser. I am not sure if that was good or bad. What are your opinions and did someone here get it? Any thoughts on the gunsmith?

Winchester 54

Thaine

Wow. Sure is a lot of checkering.
No idea to maker, but I'd say the checkering was done by an amateur. Look at the picture showing the caliber stamp and Winchester proofs, the angles of the diamonds on each side of the carving don't even come close to matching. No professional would have done that.

I'll agree that the checkering is way over the top and not well executed. On the other hand, it's a .250-3000 with a G&H mount holding a Lyman Alaskan...

I kind of like it, but at that price, I think First Loser got the better deal.

BrentD you make that donation to Dave yet ?

What a bizarre job! Engraving on a stamped floor plate and trigger guard! Very Germanic checkering treatment (more is better!). The barrel seems to be original (WP marking) but why is the caliber marked next to the receiver ring. On Model 54's, like Model 70"s, the caliber is marked out past the sight base on the barrel. (That could be the reason: maybe when they removed the sight base the lettering went with it.)
My diagnosis: during the Occupation a soldier in Germany had the Rod and Gun Club resident gunsmith restock and "embellish" his rifle.

Also, at some point the Lyman 48 receiver sight was replaced by what looks like a Williams.

Judging from the cut out in the stock, the G&H mount replaced another side mount with a longer base. The base does not show the G&H slotless screws, but that may be from before using them became an accepted practice. The bolt handle is nicely done,

Nope, but I'm sending him a supplemental bill for every obnoxious post you make. Thanks for the revenue stream.

I think the work was likely done by the owner,
Mike

Some thoughts I had when I decided to see if I could win it.

1. I agree with Mike about the owner doing the work, but only as it pertains to the checkering and engraving. I also agree, way over the top, amateurish and inconsistent in layout. I still haven't figured out the engraving/punch work.

2. There is what looks like a nicely done 3 panel checkering job on the bolt, I don't think the same person did that or the jeweling.

3. I believe the barrel was turned to a light profile removing the original caliber markings and they were relocated. Thoughts on this?

4. Looks like a G&H front sight to go along with the other metal work.

5. I agree about the Williams sight, but the inletting for the Lyman looks good as does what I can see of the rest of it.

6. I too believe the G&H base replaced a larger side mount. That might explain the standard screw appearance. This is a 1932 rifle and I don't know when the flush screws became the "norm" but it could be a later replacement for an earlier scope setup as was the Williams for the Lyman.

For what it's worth, I think this might have been a nicely executed rifle that received some replacement parts (scope and peep) and then was subjected to "embellishment" by it's owner or a subsequent owner. I can see it being passed on to a younger generation who thought they could make it "look better" but totally lacked the skills to do this, that is the voice of experience speaking.

Winchester 54, 250 Savage, Lyman Alaskan & G&H mount decent stock design added up to something I felt had potential. My 250s consist of a pair of Savage 1920s and a 99 so this would have complimented them. Sometimes ugly has hidden beauty and I thought I saw that in this rifle. As it is, I'm sorry I didn't get it, but glad I have the $$ for something else.

jOe, I don't think anti-lead BrentD has the stones to send Dave a bill for anything. His pathetic and immature little crusade to get everyone to help him bankrupt this forum doesn't seem to have much of a following.

I'll add my two cents to say I too thought the Model 54 in question was overpriced, considering the amateurish checkering.

AFAIK the 54 had a front sight base that was one piece with the bbl. Not a separate band & ramp like this rifle.
The caliber looks hand stamped with a couple of the numbers out of line and should be out with the Win bbl address on the bbl forward of the rear sight.
The rear sight was on a elevated boss integral with the bbl.
We see no rear sight, no rear sight integral boss, Winchester bbl markings,,just a lonely W/P proof on the bbl.
No pics of the Winchester bbl address or rear sight.

Lots of checkering,,gotta practice to get good I guess.
Maybe there's enough wood left to remove it.

The 'engraving' is all done with punches, mostly small circle/dot punches to form the designs, scrolls, ect. There's no cutting that I can see there.

Good possibilitys for the rifle I think,,but I wouldn't have gone quite that far into my wallet for it.

I have a feeling that this was what the maker aspired to in reworking the Model 54: https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/53051-18-402/

I'll stick with the later (1936-1963) M70s's-- way better trigger, bolt design, safety, stock dims-- That "tarted-up" M54 looks like someone tried to "put a $5K mink stole on a $5 hooker-- the Mauser wing safety makes a scope mount "iffy", and like the early M70's )1936-1942) only the front receiver ring was Drilled and tapped for a scope mount- Roger Rule covers the M54 quite well in his book "The Rifleman's Rifle", and as a rule, I refer to that book as my "Bible" when looking over pre-1964 M70's offered for sale. RWTF