Model 54 Winchester

dodge69

i posted before about this rifle,i have a model 54 winchester in .270 caliber. the serial number is 352. would this be the 352nd .270 made or the 352 model 54 made ? no big deal just curious

dodge69

Were improved sporter models offer/shipped from the factory with slings when they had the hook swivels included? 1931 mfg year

Thanks in advance, been awhile since I was on here

dodge69

I am looking at a Winchester 54 that has been bored from a Hornet to a 222 and the barrel has been drilled for a scope. If I had a 54 Hornet barrel that has not been drilled and is in very good condition would it increase the value of the 54 if the hornet barrel was installed.

dodge69

OK First let me say sorry! Here I go again, My mother in law was cleaning her closet and found a Winchester 54 30GOV'T06. It has a scope that says Bear cub(4x) and the mount is by griffin and howe. Been sitting for YEARS. Gun looks GREAT Came in a leather (saddle bag?) looks like it would be connected to a saddle ..Serial number 515xxA any help would be Great! also was given a Mossberg 42M in 22 s, l, lr. can't seem to find a # but I will look farther..
Harold

rufe-snow

"Upgrades", like this are commonly done to increase value. To guns that have been bubbaed. The key is to have a pro do it. So that it appears to be as factory original as possible.

Given that Model 54's, were last made 80+? years ago. Not likely that the finish and wear on the replacement barrel. Would match that on the receiver. Because of this, it's unlikely, IMHO. That a knowledgeable Winchester collector would be fooled.

spirits

Wouldn't even call what was done to the rifle "An Upgrade" - maybe an Abomination for the following reasons: 1) hornet twist is too slow to stabilize the heavier 0.224 bullets fired at .222 Rem velocities - usually not conducive to accuracy, and 2) rechambering to .222 Rem involves not just reaming a new chamber but modification of the bolt face and extractor, magazine, etc. The rifle should have just been alone.

dodge69

Thanks guys that is what I needed to know. I will just leave this one alone. From what I read the 54 was not drilled for a scope anyway. I do not need another hunting gun.

MIKE WISKEY

just to note; the m-54 should have 2 holes in top of the front receiver ring and 2 holes in the side of the rear 'bridge'.

"Mike, so are you telling me the m 54 could still be a collectable gun if it has a scope?"............short answer = yes. I believe Stith made a mount that used these holes

dodge69

Mike, so are you telling me the m 54 could still be a collectable gun if it has a scope? Are you aware of a mount that uses the holes? I have never seen one without a scope which is a little strange in my part of the country, Missouri. In a lot of the southern part of the state a scope is a pain in the rear as the average kill is not a long shot and open sights are pretty common.

dodge69

OK, I found a m54 on gunsinternational that shows very clearly the holes that Mike is talking about. The rifle shown has a peep sight mounted in the holes in side in the rear. Never paid much attention to bolt guns.

rufe-snow

quote:Originally posted by dodge69
Mike, so are you telling me the m 54 could still be a collectable gun if it has a scope? Are you aware of a mount that uses the holes? I have never seen one without a scope which is a little strange in my part of the country, Missouri. In a lot of the southern part of the state a scope is a pain in the rear as the average kill is not a long shot and open sights are pretty common.



Not Mike. But Stith made a 2 piece mount back in the 50's. That could be installed, without drilling any holes in the receiver. Just using the receiver sight holes in back, And rear sight dovetail.

dodge69

What few m54's I have seen were drilled on top. The majority of my guns are lever guns so I have very little experience in bolt guns.
You guys saved my rear on this deal, I was about to pay way to much for the gun in question, the converted Hornet. I have learned to ask.

RCrosby

Something else to consider. A number of years ago I picked up a 54 that started life as a Hornet and became a .222. I don't recall if it was simply rechambered or if a .222 barrel was installed.
Didn't matter. Problem was in the feed rails of the receiver.
Load 5 (as recall) rounds in the mag, close the bolt on round # 1, fire, and when bolt was worked to extract and eject the fired case, all live rounds below it flew out like a covey of quail. Dealer took it back, no questions asked. I was told at the time that the feed rails could be successfully altered for the .222 but I'm just as glad I didn't try.

Ambrose

There are a couple of other things that haven't been mentioned in this discourse: If a conventional scope is to be mounted on a 54, the bolt handle would have to be altered to clear the scope as had to be done to Springfield 1903's and Mauser 98's. And if a useable safety is desired, that would have to be changed, too. The slow rifling twist @ 1-16" has been mentioned but the bore dimensions have not. Per Roger Rule's book, the Model 70 specs for the Hornet are: bore, .217" and groove diameter, .222". Of course the 70 is not a 54 but since the barrels are interchangeable, it is likely those dimensions were carried over from the 54.

dodge69

The gun still has hornet on the barrel and all that was said is it was chambered for a 222. I already said the heck with it. We have a real shortage of good gun smiths in my area, most can replace a part. Any real gun smith work is extremely expensive for example I just got a price not long ago to reline a 22 1885 was $ 600.