L
L COOK
Guest
CAN SOMEONE E MAIL ME A PICTURE Of A 52E. WINCHESTER ........E MAIL TO
COOKIEMAN@triad.rr.com
COOKIEMAN@triad.rr.com
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Brian Voelker
Guest
Fred
I am pretty sure the E was the only one drilled and tapped for receiver bases from the factory and the crown was recessed 1/2" (back bored) also. Other wise they used the same parts and options.
BV
I am pretty sure the E was the only one drilled and tapped for receiver bases from the factory and the crown was recessed 1/2" (back bored) also. Other wise they used the same parts and options.
BV
All the E actions had a flat milled on bottom for the recoil lug which was used only on the Internationals. None the less, all the E actions had this. Also, the stock does not have provisions for the barrel tuning adjustment that the D's used. The barrel was counterbored(recessed) about 1/2" diameter x 3/8" deep on all E models except the std wt barrel model,it did not have a recess. All E actions were drilled and tapped on front and rear of receiver for bases. The barrels were also drilled/tapped for the target style bases. The E models had the "E" preceeding the s/n, where the earlier guns had the letter designation at the end of the s/n. The cartridge loading ramp was also slightly different, to make it feed better than the D. Those are all the differrences I can think of off the top of my head.
Steve
Steve
Last edited:
C
Charlie Murray
Guest
My E model also has the bolt handle that is flat on the upper side so it will clear a low mounted scope easier.Not Sure all E models came with this.
Good Luck,
Charlie
Good Luck,
Charlie
B
BMoore
Guest
I have a very nice origional D that is drilled for bases on the receiver in addition to the barrel blocks for scope mounting.
Brian
Brian
Book of Authority
In Herbert G. Houze's book, "The Winchester 52" It tells about the actual differences in Chapter Eight, "The Model 52 Type D & E" Page 155. Lots of photo's to boot. I tried to scan them, but my scan malfunctioned. Sorry about that. Most differences are cosmetic and difficult to see with one photgraph.
In Herbert G. Houze's book, "The Winchester 52" It tells about the actual differences in Chapter Eight, "The Model 52 Type D & E" Page 155. Lots of photo's to boot. I tried to scan them, but my scan malfunctioned. Sorry about that. Most differences are cosmetic and difficult to see with one photgraph.
Herbert Houze does not really go into much detail on the E or D model. In fact page 163 contains a picture of what is titled a "Standard production Model 52 Type E International Prone Match Rifle". This is in fact not an Internationa Prone, it is the standard "Marksman" style E target. He also states that only 1 style of 52E was made, that being the "International Prone". This chapter has created a great deal of misunderstanding concerning the 52E. He goes on to state that there were only 37 examples made which is totally inaccurate. The gun was made in 4 production configurations: 2 Marksman styles, the standard weight barrel version, and the heavy weight barrel version. It was also made in International Match configuration, and International Prone Match configuration. The latter being the rarest bird with only 37 of that particular configuration manufactured. There is no picture of the International Prone in Houze's book. It had a stock with a very high removable cheekpiece. This was necessary to allow the cleaning of the rifle through the breech.
I mention this only because so many readers take the information in his book as gospel.
Steve
I mention this only because so many readers take the information in his book as gospel.
Steve
B
BrianJ
Guest
52-e
Amen Steve,
"The" book raises its ugly head again, just like clockwork. Unfortunately it will, in all likelyhood continue to periodically do so.
I might add Houze used the eqivilent of two pages to inaccurately describe the "E" model. He might have filled ten pages doing it in a correct and accurate manner.
The section on the "E" is not the only problem here. The "D" information in the same chapter is equally lacking in correctness.
bjm
Amen Steve,
"The" book raises its ugly head again, just like clockwork. Unfortunately it will, in all likelyhood continue to periodically do so.
I might add Houze used the eqivilent of two pages to inaccurately describe the "E" model. He might have filled ten pages doing it in a correct and accurate manner.
The section on the "E" is not the only problem here. The "D" information in the same chapter is equally lacking in correctness.
bjm
Last edited by a moderator:
Fred,
Unfortunately, this info is not printed in any one place, and for the most part is not printed at all. My info comes from 20 years of collecting, shooting, researching, talking to other collectors in the know such as BrianJ, and former factory employees concerning these fine rifles. Herb Houze, in his book on the 52, really did a great job on the development on the model 52, especially the early variations. Unfortunately he just kind of left the D&E dangling, and the info he did print was questionable at best and some parts are downright wrong. It's almost like he got in a hurry to finish it up and did not do his due diligence.
I was fortunate to have a friend who was a former Winchester executive that hooked me up with some of the later drawings as well as those responsible for their production.
One of the major hurdles was trying to get an accurate count on the number of 52E's actually manufactured. For you Precision Shooting readers, you might recall an article written by George Stephens back about 5 years?? ago. In the article he requested anyone that had a D or E model send him their serial number with a description of the gun and its configuration. This has been ongoing research and as of the last few months, the number of E's that have been accounted for is approximately 200 rifles. That pretty much dispelled the statement of Houze that only 37 were made! I would encourage anyone that has a D or E to please send their info to George. Hopefully when enough info is accumulated he can be persuaded to write another article clearing up some of misleading info that is being passed around currently.
Anyone interested in helping out can forward their information directly to George at geoice@gwu.edu, or you can send to me and I will forward on to George. My email is seewinr@aol.com. All information will be kept confidential and no person's name and s/n will ever be published unless permission is granted by the owner.
Also, I'm always happy to try to answer any specific questions you might have on your 52, just email me at the above email address.
Steve
Unfortunately, this info is not printed in any one place, and for the most part is not printed at all. My info comes from 20 years of collecting, shooting, researching, talking to other collectors in the know such as BrianJ, and former factory employees concerning these fine rifles. Herb Houze, in his book on the 52, really did a great job on the development on the model 52, especially the early variations. Unfortunately he just kind of left the D&E dangling, and the info he did print was questionable at best and some parts are downright wrong. It's almost like he got in a hurry to finish it up and did not do his due diligence.
I was fortunate to have a friend who was a former Winchester executive that hooked me up with some of the later drawings as well as those responsible for their production.
One of the major hurdles was trying to get an accurate count on the number of 52E's actually manufactured. For you Precision Shooting readers, you might recall an article written by George Stephens back about 5 years?? ago. In the article he requested anyone that had a D or E model send him their serial number with a description of the gun and its configuration. This has been ongoing research and as of the last few months, the number of E's that have been accounted for is approximately 200 rifles. That pretty much dispelled the statement of Houze that only 37 were made! I would encourage anyone that has a D or E to please send their info to George. Hopefully when enough info is accumulated he can be persuaded to write another article clearing up some of misleading info that is being passed around currently.
Anyone interested in helping out can forward their information directly to George at geoice@gwu.edu, or you can send to me and I will forward on to George. My email is seewinr@aol.com. All information will be kept confidential and no person's name and s/n will ever be published unless permission is granted by the owner.
Also, I'm always happy to try to answer any specific questions you might have on your 52, just email me at the above email address.
Steve
Seewin: I have been collecting 52's for thirty years and never have seen the 52E standard barrel advertised as a production model. I am sure a few exist because of George Stephens research. I would love to see this information on the standardweight barrel E's if this is possible.
V
vicvanb
Guest
Fred
I am pretty sure the E was the only one drilled and tapped for receiver bases from the factory and the crown was recessed 1/2" (back bored) also. Other wise they used the same parts and options.
BV
The "C" model 52 was the first drilled and tapped at the factory. "A" and "B" models were not.
V
vicvanb
Guest
M52 Production Numbers
Regarding M52 production numbers, The Bluebook of Gun Values a few years ago listed a very low number of M52 Sporters that were produced--many fewer than were actually made. For some time after that, ads for Sporters cited that number as fact and some collectors were misled into thinking Sporters were much more rare than they are.
Regarding M52 production numbers, The Bluebook of Gun Values a few years ago listed a very low number of M52 Sporters that were produced--many fewer than were actually made. For some time after that, ads for Sporters cited that number as fact and some collectors were misled into thinking Sporters were much more rare than they are.
52's
Seewin is right about 52c sporters. They were the first 52's to be drilled on the receivers. But I have to disagree with him on the 52D's. The early d's(pre-64) They started production in 1962 and up to the late 60's were not drilled and tapped but the late D's in the 1970's were. In the winchester 1970 catalog it clearly shows a 52D drilled and tapped. All the 52E's were drilled. Another note of interest: I keep hearing these guys crying about herb Houze 52 book that they made only 37 52E's. What he meant to say was that they only made 37 52E international prones. This gun was special order from the factory only for a couple of years.(1975 to 1977). It was probably not a good seller because most people went with the 52 international. The gun on page 163 of the 52 book was mistakenly labeled as a 52E international prone and should have been a 52E prone. Yes there are some mistakes in the 52 book but very damn few. They seem to be primarly in the 52D and E sections. Herb was curator at the winchester museum in Cody,Wyoming and had access to what little records and guns they had. The book is more history than detailed information. I still applaud him for the effort.
Seewin is right about 52c sporters. They were the first 52's to be drilled on the receivers. But I have to disagree with him on the 52D's. The early d's(pre-64) They started production in 1962 and up to the late 60's were not drilled and tapped but the late D's in the 1970's were. In the winchester 1970 catalog it clearly shows a 52D drilled and tapped. All the 52E's were drilled. Another note of interest: I keep hearing these guys crying about herb Houze 52 book that they made only 37 52E's. What he meant to say was that they only made 37 52E international prones. This gun was special order from the factory only for a couple of years.(1975 to 1977). It was probably not a good seller because most people went with the 52 international. The gun on page 163 of the 52 book was mistakenly labeled as a 52E international prone and should have been a 52E prone. Yes there are some mistakes in the 52 book but very damn few. They seem to be primarly in the 52D and E sections. Herb was curator at the winchester museum in Cody,Wyoming and had access to what little records and guns they had. The book is more history than detailed information. I still applaud him for the effort.
JohnnyO, I cannot say for certain that the very very late D's did not have some d/t'd units shipped. I can say that far and away the very high majority of D's were not drilled and tapped. I have D's into the 122,500 range and they are not drilled and tapped. The D's don't go much further than that. I also have an E in the late 122,500 range that is d/t'd. Sure there were exceptions, I have also heard of later E's built to D configurations. I truley believe these are anomalies and were not ever standard production. As far as the 70 catalog picture, take a closer look, it is a E model with a flat bolt handle.
You also questioned the std wt E model rifles. I own 2 of these and there is no doubt in my mind they are original. As far as your question concerning advertising of the std wt E model, Winchester did list a std and hvy wt barrel option in their catalog up through 1973 as I recall. This was well into the E production. They were also listed as available in the Shooter's Bible up to at least 1977. Of course the E's were always listed and advertised as D's and Winchester never changed their description to an E all the way untill the end of production. Again, Winchester could have just been trying to get rid of old stock, but they were advertised, and I know for a fact others have been substantiated. I might add, that they use the D style stock with narrow barrel channel and barrel tuners.
I don't think anyone is "crying" about Houze's book either. I was just stating that the D&E section look's like it was done in haste and has some errors that have created quite a bit of misunderstanding about those models. I cannot begin to recall the number of "International Prone E's" that have been offered to me with the statement that " there were only 37 of these made", only to end up being standard Marksman stocked target rifles. This is a direct result of what Houze meant to say and show in his book but didn't. I agree with you, and yes, an avid collector will know and be aware of this mistake, a person just wanting to educate himself about 52's will not. It is a great book, and yes it is more of a history book, and most of the history deals with the early development. I applaud him for his efforts, I certainly would not want to take on the task.
Steve
You also questioned the std wt E model rifles. I own 2 of these and there is no doubt in my mind they are original. As far as your question concerning advertising of the std wt E model, Winchester did list a std and hvy wt barrel option in their catalog up through 1973 as I recall. This was well into the E production. They were also listed as available in the Shooter's Bible up to at least 1977. Of course the E's were always listed and advertised as D's and Winchester never changed their description to an E all the way untill the end of production. Again, Winchester could have just been trying to get rid of old stock, but they were advertised, and I know for a fact others have been substantiated. I might add, that they use the D style stock with narrow barrel channel and barrel tuners.
I don't think anyone is "crying" about Houze's book either. I was just stating that the D&E section look's like it was done in haste and has some errors that have created quite a bit of misunderstanding about those models. I cannot begin to recall the number of "International Prone E's" that have been offered to me with the statement that " there were only 37 of these made", only to end up being standard Marksman stocked target rifles. This is a direct result of what Houze meant to say and show in his book but didn't. I agree with you, and yes, an avid collector will know and be aware of this mistake, a person just wanting to educate himself about 52's will not. It is a great book, and yes it is more of a history book, and most of the history deals with the early development. I applaud him for his efforts, I certainly would not want to take on the task.
Steve
B
BrianJ
Guest
52-i
John,
Please consider this as another voice being heard, not a whine. The "some mistakes" we are talking about are not just the printed errors but omissions as well.
Yes, I also applaud him for the effort but by the same token reserve the right of dissatisfaction in the "D"&"E" section. In this area the Houze book has done the greatest disservice to owners and collectors by doing poor research and printing inaccurate, misleading data where the "D" & "E" are concerned.
To make matters worse the 2006 reprint has no corrections. A friend in the publishing industry finds it most unprofessional to authorize a reprint knowing that a given book needs corrections.
Yes, I'm glad he did the book but I don't happen to like this particular chapter nor his not correcting the problem areas.
bjm
John,
Please consider this as another voice being heard, not a whine. The "some mistakes" we are talking about are not just the printed errors but omissions as well.
Yes, I also applaud him for the effort but by the same token reserve the right of dissatisfaction in the "D"&"E" section. In this area the Houze book has done the greatest disservice to owners and collectors by doing poor research and printing inaccurate, misleading data where the "D" & "E" are concerned.
To make matters worse the 2006 reprint has no corrections. A friend in the publishing industry finds it most unprofessional to authorize a reprint knowing that a given book needs corrections.
Yes, I'm glad he did the book but I don't happen to like this particular chapter nor his not correcting the problem areas.
bjm