[fourbore]

I had an opportunity to examine a 52 pre A and 52B recently for sale. I realized how little I knew about these guns. I came back to this forum and also did a quick read a wiki pedia.

I think I have a general handle on triggers, actions, and stocks. What I have not found are reference to how the barrel making may have evolved over time.

Specifically were all 52 choke or taper bored? Or when did that start?

Logically, I would expect a lot more care into an Olympic grade E than a sporter. How does a D compare to a B? Or, exactly what models and when are the key differences in boring and chambering barrels?

 

[newbie2]

I have a 52 of about 1935 vintage. It has a Remington 37 barrel. After some digging I found that some shooters preferred the Remington barrel to the stock 52. Both are target type rimfire. My Remchester shoots well, better than I can. This is my only venture into a 52. I have always wanted one but didn't want to pay $1000 and upward for one. This was a very clean rifle and the cost was $525.
As a plus it came with a Vaver / Vartek aperture sight. I understand this is a premium addition. I have added a Lyman Super Target 20X on external mounts.
I just shoot it for fun and use it to test various brands of rimfire.
This might not answer your question, but once I started typing I got carried away.

 

[fourbore]

I guess barrels may not be a well researched topic?

I wonder if the $200 book gets into this? I am not being a wise guy. I did a google and went to Amazon. I have a bad memory and hate to repeat the google just for sake of asking. Or I will come back an edit.

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

The book does feature a page outlining 200 yard accuracy over time, although it was accuracy of rifles and the contemporary Winchester ammo. Nonetheless, the acuuracy improved considerably over the time span the statistics were compiled. I'm out of town, so I can't give you the page number or the details. I'm sure someone will come along soon enough.
TBR

 

[cleanprone]

Houze book, etc.

fourbore- the Winchester 52 book by Houze has been listed on used book sources for big bucks, as you know. The publisher at one time released a paperback edition, so there is some hope we may see another printing, but unlikely considering the market. If you contact your local library you may order a copy Interlibrary loan, to browse and freely copy from. The book is comprehensive in detailing changes made over time to improve lock time, ergonomics, trigger pull and many other factors. Winchester responded to the needs of the shooting market and had shooters on their staff who were personally involved in improving the rifles accuracy, reputation and sales appeal. Unfortunately the text doesn't delve into rifling processes or specifications. The barrels may have been finish lapped, but as far as an intentional choke I won't speculate.

 

[wwace]

I have a 52 of about 1935 vintage. It has a Remington 37 barrel. After some digging I found that some shooters preferred the Remington barrel to the stock 52. Both are target type rimfire. My Remchester shoots well, better than I can. This is my only venture into a 52. I have always wanted one but didn't want to pay $1000 and upward for one. This was a very clean rifle and the cost was $525.
As a plus it came with a Vaver / Vartek aperture sight. I understand this is a premium addition. I have added a Lyman Super Target 20X on external mounts.
I just shoot it for fun and use it to test various brands of rimfire.
This might not answer your question, but once I started typing I got carried away.

I believe the 37 barrel was desired over the pre A and A 52 barrels, as was the rest of the rifle. I certainly wouldn't go that direction.

What you probably have is someone rebarreled a model 37 and the smith then used the 37 barrel to resurrect your 52.

 

[wwace]

I guess barrels may not be a well researched topic?

The problem is a general lack of concise information. Certainly not in any one thread or the Houze Bible. Not a couple of months ago I made a thread about the "Choking" process seeking more info on this subject also, if you care to look it is not too far away.

To answer your question it seems that the barrels were line bored and rifled until the later guns which used hammer forged barrels. I have never heard of the Winchester being described as "tapered" bore. However some are certainly "choked" to some extent. The process certainly involved witchcraft of some type to come up with the final desired internal bore and external dimensions. I think it is easier to hammer forge a barrel upon a mandrel of the final dimensions of the bore but that isn't even an accurate description. They will forge it and the final bore will be determined by turning the barrel to the final external size.

While all of this is certainly fascinating to those of us who know everything else already I am guessing it wasn't important enough to include a chapter in the Book. At the time when our antiques were in development and early manufacturing process being setup and developed the old Guru in the barrel shop who slugged and lapped your barrel was certainly as important as the process used to manufacture it.
I would guess that was still true when number 125000 left the shop.

Regarding accuracy I would say your statement is misguided. While great care would be taken with any rifle intended for an Olympic match if it went down the Model 52 assembly line it got pretty much the same care as the next. If your rifle went to the Custom Shop you would get what services you paid for. While it is true that the E model is slightly more capable with its hammer forged barrel there are thousands of others nearly as adept. That is why the 52 is the King.

The above is my opinion and experience, nothing else. The real experts here have more info than H.H. did when he wrote the book, I am not one of them.

 

[SBS]

The OP posing an interesting question on the relative accuracy of the 52 barrels over the period of manufacture. I think the main reason there is not much information from shooters is the changes to the action, triggers and stocks. A's and pre-A's only had one action screws and the left wall of the receiver being cut down does not help rigidity. The B models had better triggers, but not as good as the later C, D and E models. Stocks started out looking similar to a 1903 Springfield and ended with the International series of stocks. Stock design makes a lot of difference on the ability to shoot smaller groups, as does chambering reamer design which also changed later on. Winchester reported accuracy of the different models as production went on, but with different model actions, triggers and stocks using different ammunition as time progressed. It would be an interesting experiment to fit a good looking barrel from each of the models to the same late D or E action with a light trigger, bedded in a BR stock and compare accuracy. It would be the proper way to test the relative accuracy of the barrel only; and to achieve accurate results, you would need use several barrels of each vintage to get an average. I somewhat doubt it would ever be undertaken, considering expense and having to procure the necessary barrels which would no longer be original after having been refitted to another action. Plus while the results would be interesting, it would have no practical information gained, as most shooters would still use the barrels that came on their specific models.

 

[fourbore]

wwace, I found that thread. I should have said choked. I am making assumptions all around.

At this point, I think I would like to own a nice D. I like single shots so; that is not a negative for me. No rush, someday.

 

[wwace]

wwace, I found that thread. I should have said choked. I am making assumptions all around.

At this point, I think I would like to own a nice D. I like single shots so; that is not a negative for me. No rush, someday.

Other than triggers and ammo I would say barrels are the 3rd most looked for item, just because there isn't a ton of info out there about them.

I own a B, 2 Cs, a D and E and none of them are slouches but the Bull C and E are just a bit better with the C being easiest to shoot well. I giggle while watching the bullets head to the target, most right into (or close) the hole of the last shot. Any of the Post slow lock guns can be very capable, good luck on the hunt for a D.

 

[newbie2]

wwace, That is an interesting observation. I have no history as the owner prior to me passed a while ago. He was a tool maker and machinist and I suspect he did his own work. More than one person commented he was a force to be reckoned with at the range.I am just having fun. I wish I could put my CZ trigger on the 52. When ZI shoot them back to back, I have to shoot the CZ first or my trigger muscle memory really is out of whack switching from 52 to CZ.

 

[wwace]

wwace, That is an interesting observation. I have no history as the owner prior to me passed a while ago. He was a tool maker and machinist and I suspect he did his own work. More than one person commented he was a force to be reckoned with at the range.I am just having fun. I wish I could put my CZ trigger on the 52. When ZI shoot them back to back, I have to shoot the CZ first or my trigger muscle memory really is out of whack switching from 52 to CZ.

I own 2 Model 37s and most of another. Remington put their best people on that rifle and it was superior to the preA and A model 52s and at least equal to the B model in my opinion. As Remington was playing from a poor market position the rifle never sold as well as it should have. Winchester did have a solid 20 year head start and almost immediately countered with marked A models and Bs within a short time.

When these guns were in production shooters regularly modified them. If you owned a pre A 52 that didn't shoot so good I promise there were 37 barrels kicking about to buy if you knew of any popular smiths of the time.

Practice trigger control when you shoot enough and you will find it doesn't matter much what the pull weight is. I own a CZ also and it cant touch the trigger on any of my 52s or other target rifles. The closest is a 1939 Model 75 in feel. I am always switching guns on range trips and they vary from a couple ounces to 3 lbs. If there is nothing mechanical wrong it should feel good still at a 3lb pull weight which is what your gun was designed at.

 

[newbie2]

I bought this 52 on impulse for the most part. I cleaned the barrel and action that could be reached without taking the action from the stock. It is currently at a measured 6# and acts like it is very dirty. I am going to break it down and give it a good flushing and go from there. All I need is time.

 

[wwace]

I bought this 52 on impulse for the most part. I cleaned the barrel and action that could be reached without taking the action from the stock. It is currently at a measured 6# and acts like it is very dirty. I am going to break it down and give it a good flushing and go from there. All I need is time.

clean it up and see if there is any crap in it. it should be between 3 an 4 iirc

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

The statistics I mentioned were compiled from 1920 to 1937. Accuracy was for 10-shot groups at 200 yards (!). Page 112 of the House book displays this information:

1920: 3.0" average 10-shot group diameter
1924: 2.5" average 10-shot group diameter
1927: 2.25" average 10-shot group diameter
1929: 2.0" average 10-shot group diameter
1932: 1.75" average 10-shot group diameter
1934: 1.50" average 10-shot group diameter
1937: 1.25" average 10-shot group diameter

Better barrels and better ammunition contributed to the accuracy improvements. The group sizes seem too nicely rounded to the 1/2" or 1/4", but the data is what it is. Obviously, it ends in 1937, so these were just the Slow Locks, pre-As, As, and possibly some very early Bs. I've never seen any accuracy or barrel data subsequent to 1937. I have seen Bs out shoot Cs, Bs and Cs outshoot Ds, and Bs, Cs, and Ds outshoot Es, so the variation from barrel to barrel could be as great as that from model to model over time. I always cringe when I read comments like, "the later models will always outshoot the earlier ones," or, "the bull barrels will always outshoot the standard barrels"...just not so, from my experience, anyway.

I hope this helps,

TBR

 

[Greg Palman]

The

1940 on model 37 miracle trigger was superior to the factory B trigger imo. I have/had both.

 

[troystat]

Not having any skin in this game I would suggest that the biggest difference would be the improvement in ammo. I would be fun to see a comparison of the various models all shot with a range of the current high end ammo and see the differences.

 

[wwace]

Not having any skin in this game I would suggest that the biggest difference would be the improvement in ammo. I would be fun to see a comparison of the various models all shot with a range of the current high end ammo and see the differences.

I would like to do this type of stuff. There are no local competitions that I am part of so I would get something to do with my spare time. I already do a lot of this usually shooting 5 types of ammo per rifle each trip to the range. Getting ammo is always the hard part for me. The rifles I could use a few more early 52s maybe.

 

[fourbore]

1920: 3.0" average 10-shot group diameter
1924: 2.5" average 10-shot group diameter
1927: 2.25" average 10-shot group diameter
1929: 2.0" average 10-shot group diameter
1932: 1.75" average 10-shot group diameter
1934: 1.50" average 10-shot group diameter
1937: 1.25" average 10-shot group diameter

Ten shots at 200 yards!

 

[Dickn52]

200 yds? That make the end shoot less than 1 MOA.