A, B, or C. Which model 52 Winchester?

[Howland937]

Awhile back I'd posted about the search I was on to find a model 52 Winchester...just because I decided I should have one. Aside from tools at work, I don't own the best of anything, and even though it's quite dated by today's standards, the 52 was the best for quite some time. At least that's my understanding.

So in the last couple weeks I've encountered exactly 3 for sale. I've bid on some on GunBroker but I'd pay more $ for one I can look over in person. There's a early-mid 30's 52A in ok shape, but definitely not original and appears to have extra holes where there shouldn't be any. It's the cheapest, but only by $200.

52B and 52C are in very similar condition and priced exactly the same at $1200. Both are in pretty solid original (best I can tell) condition and retain the ladder adjustable rear and solid post front sights.

The B was made right before WWII, while the C is an early 50's model. In my head I really wanted a pre-war version, but I really like the idea of the adjustable trigger of the 52C. I'd heard the 52B has the worst trigger of all but the pre-A, but not clue how "bad" it is.

Anyone have their own preference?

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I would look for a D or E for their better triggers.

 

[Slamfire]

If you want magazine fed, go for the C model.

I was at a Regional and a local guy had a bunch of Win 52B's for sale that he had worked on. He claimed they were as accurate as any model, and I believe that. Given a good barrel and chambering job, the difference in group sizes will be due to ammunition preferences. The rifle has to be mechanically tight, not beat to heck.

The basic problem with any of the Win 52's, is the triggers are all too heavy to be competitive. At the time Winchester was making these models, the Army was in charge of the rule book, and the Army wanted shooting sports to be training civilians how to shoot a military rifle. So, smallbore stocks were only allowed to deviate a little from the Type C stock of the M1903, and the trigger pull weight was not less than a M1903 trigger. That lasted until the Soviets beat American shooters like a drum in Olympic events. But by then, Winchester stopped the development of the Win 52 and the rifle slide into obsolescence.

Kenyon used to modify Win 52 triggers but he is dead and a Kenyon trigger is hard to find and expensive.

The basic Win 52 action is a good action. I don't know why the custom market is building variations of the Rem 40X action,

https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/school-me-on-custom-rimfire-actions.3972433/

but not the Win 52. Maybe the Win 52 is more difficult to manufacturer, or that accessories are unavailable.

The gun club president brought out an all original Win M52A to a smallbore prone match. It is a very rare rifle and very valuable in unmessed with condition. I do not recommend chopping up an all original rifle, but one that has been modified, original stock missing, custom work, go for it.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I giggle at the thought of the Pre-A having a "bad" trigger. It might not match a later model or even a 40X, but even the worst M52 is better than 99% of non-professional shooters....

Go with the A for style, B for asthetics (being in better condition) or the C for best accuracy. Odds are, you will be very happy with the way it shoots regardless.

 

[Pat Riot]

I always look at spare parts availability if I am comparing different models of older guns and use that to help drive my decision as well. Especially parts that are “wear parts”, springs, screws, easily lost parts.

https://www.midwestgunworks.com/winchester-model-52/parts.html

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/gun-manufacturer/winchester/rifles-win/52-win

I hope you get yourself a nice one.

 

[Offfhand]

If you are looking for a rifle of that type don't overlook the Model 37 Remington, if you can fine one. The have a superb trigger and for many years were the choice of top rimfire competition shooters. And if money is no object Model 52 Sporting rifles are nicer than the target versions.

 

[Slamfire]

I giggle at the thought of the Pre-A having a "bad" trigger. It might not match a later model or even a 40X, but even the worst M52 is better than 99% of non-professional shooters....

Go with the A for style, B for asthetics (being in better condition) or the C for best accuracy. Odds are, you will be very happy with the way it shoots regardless.

Based on talks with those who own 52's, that is original 52's and A models, I don't think there is any intrinsic accuracy difference between models. One shooter had his 52 or 52A lot tested at Laupa and told me that rifle grouped as well as his Anschutz. However, shooting it in position was an entirely different animal. Compare the ergonomics of a canoe oar to a tube rifle and see what I mean.

For a hunting trigger a Win 52 trigger would be wonderful. I came off service rifle to shooting in small bore prone, and it took time to learn that consistency on target with a heavy trigger is a lot harder, probably due to the jarring of the rifle, mechanism, and hand movement. I see stuff in smallbore prone that I did not see in highpower, and I am convinced it is all due to the reduced recoil and noise. Heavy recoil and loud bangs create flinches and movement that hide and disguise trigger pull and positional errors.

To really see the affect of trigger pull errors, try Bullseye pistol. Bullseye pistol is the most difficult shooting sport I have tried.

 

[Howland937]

I ended up buying this 52B. It's period correct best I can tell, but not "original" per se. I decided on it basically because for $1200 it came with a free 513T lol.

The 52 is going to need an OG buttplate or at least this one fitted better. Also missing the rear sight...for the money I have in it, I can still put a couple hundred more toward making it right.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Nice twofer! Wow!

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

PM sent about the sights.

If you want to go with a vintage style scope, the Malcom external adjustment tubes have very nice modern glass, but rather cheesey rings mounts. Steve Earl Products make very, very nice ring mounts- but they are pricey.

Of course, clean Unertls or Redfields can be found on Ebay, but they are still big $$$ and the vintage glass is, well.....vintage.

 

[Howland937]

Serial # shows the 52 was made in 1939. And the crappy trigger? I'm going to have to measure, but I'm betting it's less than .030 take up and breaks in the 2lb range. Way better than the Remington's.

 

[Howland937]

And if money is no object Model 52 Sporting rifles are nicer than the target versions.

I admire the fine examples of rifles you've shared in pictures with us and would have very similar taste myself...if money weren't an object. It's typically the biggest hindrance to my desire to expand my collection.

 

[Jim Watson]

I am not a bullseye shooter but my friend who is reported that his Mk III Martini was more sensitive to hold and position than M52 or Anschutz bolt action. He said it was as accurate as anything with a perfect hold but a little stress would move it more than a bolt action.

 

[Slamfire]

View attachment 1060846
I ended up buying this 52B. It's period correct best I can tell, but not "original" per se. I decided on it basically because for $1200 it came with a free 513T lol.

The 52 is going to need an OG buttplate or at least this one fitted better. Also missing the rear sight...for the money I have in it, I can still put a couple hundred more toward making it right.

Don't toss out that buttplate. Looks like a Freeland, not been made for thirty years, and there are people looking for them. I used one on a cut down BSA MKIII.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

I'd of gone for that deal just for the 513T. That was the version I learned to shoot with when I was a teenager.

 

[Slamfire]

I am not a bullseye shooter but my friend who is reported that his Mk III Martini was more sensitive to hold and position than M52 or Anschutz bolt action. He said it was as accurate as anything with a perfect hold but a little stress would move it more than a bolt action.

Not in my experience





The fixed cheekpiece of a BSA, fixed buttplate, and rotten hand position make it harder to shoot than rifles with adjustable buttplates, hand grips, and cheek pieces. I shot this rifle in two National Championships, and have given up on it. Not that it is less accurate, but because I cannot place my hand in a stress free position to pull the trigger, and thus, my scores suffered. The ergonomics of that grip do not fit my hand and that curved grip places my hand in an awkward position. The design dates from the late 50's, and it was advanced in the late 50's, but it could have used a thumb hole stock

The MKIII has a free floating barrel. The MKII does not



I was surprised to find that the MKII was not sensitive to sling tension, that is minor variations in sling tension. However, really tightening the sling does result in point of impact changes, but it is not due to tension directed to the barrel, but due a change of position.

A MkII will shoot well, but the trigger is way too heavy

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I am not a bullseye shooter but my friend who is reported that his Mk III Martini was more sensitive to hold and position than M52 or Anschutz bolt action. He said it was as accurate as anything with a perfect hold but a little stress would move it more than a bolt action.

The MK3 used a free floating barrel with an aluminum forend hanger. If the hanger is bent- which was apparently common- it can cause barrel/forend interference which would be very noticeable as forehand support position or sling tension changes.

Not in my experience

View attachment 1060898

View attachment 1060899

The fixed cheekpiece of a BSA, fixed buttplate, and rotten hand position make it harder to shoot than rifles with adjustable buttplates, hand grips, and cheek pieces. I shot this rifle in two National Championships, and have given up on it. Not that it is less accurate, but because I cannot place my hand in a stress free position to pull the trigger, and thus, my scores suffered. The ergonomics of that grip do not fit my hand and that curved grip places my hand in an awkward position. The design dates from the late 50's, and it was advanced in the late 50's, but it could have used a thumb hole stock

The MKIII has a free floating barrel. The MKII does not

View attachment 1060900

I was surprised to find that the MKII was not sensitive to sling tension, that is minor variations in sling tension. However, really tightening the sling does result in point of impact changes, but it is not due to tension directed to the barrel, but due a change of position.

A MkII will shoot well, but the trigger is way too heavy

View attachment 1060901

View attachment 1060902

View attachment 1060903

View attachment 1060904

I think that even though it is not free floated, the MK2 barrel/receiver/forend interface is very solid- almost unitized- hence the resistance to tension POI changes. I totally agree on the stock setup for prone or standing, but I actually kinda like it for benchrest. The Martini is so heavy, though, I dont think Id even WANT to try to shoot it anyway except off the bench, lol! Probably why the lightweight "Ladies" version was popular with gentleman competitors as well.

My Pre-A M52 is the heavy barrel version, and even with the Unertl perched on top, it still seems much handier off the bench than the boat anchor BSA.

 

[PapaG]

I have one of the very first models, the second one I’ve owned. Has the aperture rear, globe front, five round mag.
While not a “speed” trigger it works just fine. I love vintage guns.
Your choice, as long as it is a 52, won’t be wrong.

 

[Howland937]

Don't toss out that buttplate. Looks like a Freeland, not been made for thirty years, and there are people looking for them. I used one on a cut down BSA MKIII.

No clue if that's what it is or not. I'm just getting my feet wet in this target rifle phase. It folds flat into the buttplate, which is kind of cool if I needed such a thing. It'll probably only be shot from a bench while I'm it's caretaker.

I'd of gone for that deal just for the 513T. That was the version I learned to shoot with when I was a teenager.

Couldn't find any old rings in my box-o-crap, so these were all I had. I did stick this old Redfield on the 513T, just cause I never intended owning either and they seem close enough in vintage.

 

[Slamfire]

View attachment 1061008
No clue if that's what it is or not. I'm just getting my feet wet in this target rifle phase. It folds flat into the buttplate, which is kind of cool if I needed such a thing. It'll probably only be shot from a bench while I'm it's caretaker.

That is one unusual butt plate. An arm pit hook is very common on smallbore prone rifles, that has to be an early do it yourself type.

 

[Howland937]

It has a number stamped inside the recessed part, but I didn't look super close. I may take it off tomorrow and try to get better pics. Whoever installed it didn't contour the stock (thankfully) to fit the buttplate, so there's a gap in the center.

 

[Howland937]

Upon further review, this is the buttplate. Hook is height adjustable and folds up.
Based on length from trigger to rear of wood being almost identical to the 513T and this big gap (and slight curve on the stock), I'm thinking the stock hasn't been altered. Either a rush job or thrown on cause that's all they had. Either way I'm glad the stock hasn't been chopped.

Apparently this Canjar fellow built some really sweet triggers. No clue if this rifle has one, but I'm curious now.

 

[Jim Watson]

Show a closeup of the trigger. All the Canjars I ever saw were nearly as wide as an add on trigger shoe, then the famous Canjar Single Set had the little firing tab set into that shoe.

 

[Howland937]

Close up of the trigger. Doesn't look special, but definitely feels special lol. It's about 1/8" wider than the trigger on the 513T and the 416 Stevens I bought today.

I didn't want the Stevens. It does have a left side mounted Lyman sight that I thought I could use...but thanks to @NIGHTLORD40K I'm now educated more than I was. Rifle I don't want, check. Sight I can't use, check. Headache, check.

Oh well....it's part of the journey I suppose.

 

[Jim Watson]

That looks like the standard Micro Motion Trigger.