Re: Model 70 Chamberings
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:41 am
just had a quick look at the above referenced website. An impressive amount if information nicely compiled. With only a quick selective read difficult to make any conclusive judgment. There are some areas which don't comport with my understanding, but some such subjective and to be expected. There are other areas where I believe the material to be incorrect. Several resulting comments.
First a single exemplar. In viewing the section discussion the bit obscure Winchester 264 Mag Featherweight, the data had it introduced five years before it actually occurred in 1960 and almost as long before the cartridge itself was developed. Then also under the general category of “Featherweight” it appears to reflect a model prior to the “Westerner” model, which is obtuse at best and factually no such model existed.
Second, it’s important to distinguish between “cataloged” models and such as small runs such as the early post WWII “barrel clean up” (actually more correctly termed ‘clean out’) program, some of which weren’t actually cataloged, or ‘re-cataloged’ from an earlier production era, as applicable. Yet there were further examples. Particularly in the prewar years, Winchester was often an accommodating manufacturer where an individual sought some deviation from standard available production. This also occurred somewhat into the postwar era. Such resulted in essentially custom rifles which might be later taken for ‘production’ models. An important distinction when inferentially suggesting as “cataloged”, factory produced configurations which never actually existed as such. Later such specimens would be called “Custom Shop” products.
Second point as… ‘the rest of the story’ concerning the Website. A large amount of information noted. An extraordinary effort/accomplishment. Entirely too easy to pick at such work. When performed as a commercial endeavor for profit, the subject of fair stringent criticism. When a gift so to speak, a very nice bit of work. Also the point of technical editing. In my own experience as an ‘extra duty’ of reviewing and critiquing prospective legislation potentially impacting my agency, by the sixth editorial ‘suggested’ reformation, the brain reads over one’s own mistakes. Difficult to effectively critique such a detailed and likely largely accurate effort.
This Website perhaps just to be noted as most (and all of the press). “Entertaining” the information there subject to confirmation in any context of necessary important reliance.
Here to acknowledge a lot of work in what appears a generally fine job managing large amounts of data and very much of it accurately coalesced into an understandable format.
My net concerning this Website Model 70 material…
A hat’s off take.
First a single exemplar. In viewing the section discussion the bit obscure Winchester 264 Mag Featherweight, the data had it introduced five years before it actually occurred in 1960 and almost as long before the cartridge itself was developed. Then also under the general category of “Featherweight” it appears to reflect a model prior to the “Westerner” model, which is obtuse at best and factually no such model existed.
Second, it’s important to distinguish between “cataloged” models and such as small runs such as the early post WWII “barrel clean up” (actually more correctly termed ‘clean out’) program, some of which weren’t actually cataloged, or ‘re-cataloged’ from an earlier production era, as applicable. Yet there were further examples. Particularly in the prewar years, Winchester was often an accommodating manufacturer where an individual sought some deviation from standard available production. This also occurred somewhat into the postwar era. Such resulted in essentially custom rifles which might be later taken for ‘production’ models. An important distinction when inferentially suggesting as “cataloged”, factory produced configurations which never actually existed as such. Later such specimens would be called “Custom Shop” products.
Second point as… ‘the rest of the story’ concerning the Website. A large amount of information noted. An extraordinary effort/accomplishment. Entirely too easy to pick at such work. When performed as a commercial endeavor for profit, the subject of fair stringent criticism. When a gift so to speak, a very nice bit of work. Also the point of technical editing. In my own experience as an ‘extra duty’ of reviewing and critiquing prospective legislation potentially impacting my agency, by the sixth editorial ‘suggested’ reformation, the brain reads over one’s own mistakes. Difficult to effectively critique such a detailed and likely largely accurate effort.
This Website perhaps just to be noted as most (and all of the press). “Entertaining” the information there subject to confirmation in any context of necessary important reliance.
Here to acknowledge a lot of work in what appears a generally fine job managing large amounts of data and very much of it accurately coalesced into an understandable format.
My net concerning this Website Model 70 material…
A hat’s off take.