winchester model 52

[Tim Slater]

My take is that Winchester realised free-floating the barrel offered similar accuracy to bedding devices, with less manufacturing time and cost, in line with most European competitors.

Remember Winchester did not build the D, the first free-floated 52, for F-class or BR shooting. It was built for prone/3P/4P shooting, often with irons (or with lower power 'scopes than are available today). I strongly suspect they had in mind US-NRA conventional targets. Received wisdom, at least on this side of the pond, is that a free-floated barrel is more forgiving when shot from a sling; as sling-shooting was the contemporary market for 52s, accomodating this, while saving costs, was surely a no-brainer for Winchester.

I have to put David Joe's comment about stock materials in context. He writes that "when composites became standard for accurate rifles; is this true? Outside of the US, composite stocks seem to have had minimal, if not no, impact in smallbore shooting. One could argue that laminates are composite, but wood dominated until Walther brought out the aluminium-stocked KK200 in 1994/95*. As the companies who had employed barrel bedding devices, or bedded barrels (Winchester, BSA, and Remington) were either defunct, or no longer supplying serious smallbore shooters, by the time composite were a thing, it's no surprise they didn't experiment with this new technology. Anschutz, Walther, FWB (and Toz and Izmash for USSR teams) dominated the matches with free-floated barrels and receivers bedded directly onto wood, what impetus did they have for change? The design bureau at Ishevsk chose barrel bedding, via a hefty flat-based sleeve for the later Strela/Taiga rifles, but later switched to free-floating for the Typhoon and Ural 5/6.

That said, there has been renewed interest in alternatives to free-floating barrels, starting with the Unique X-Concept. Currently the Esprit Carabine Universal Concept and Pardini FR22 offer a clamped/damped barrel and free-floating receiver, and the Feinwerkbau FWB2800 combines a damped barrel clamp with receiver bedding. Anschutz put the latter feature on their concept A22 Max rifle earlier in the year.

*This wasn't the first alu stock, but was the first from a major manufacturer.

 

[D-4297]

My Twin Brother and I got the privilege of getting to own , share , and shoot a fully equipped 52D growing up in Junior Competition . Redfield Olympic sights , Leather Sling , and a bright yellow foam Glove . We were the envy of those we shot against , and that Rifle did what it was supposed to . Great rifle , and lots of great memories . My Dad sold it when I was in Vietnam .

 

[davidjoe]

My Twin Brother and I got the privilege of getting to own , share , and shoot a fully equipped 52D growing up in Junior Competition . Redfield Olympic sights , Leather Sling , and a bright yellow foam Glove . We were the envy of those we shot against , and that Rifle did what it was supposed to . Great rifle , and lots of great memories . My Dad sold it when I was in Vietnam .

My take is that Winchester realised free-floating the barrel offered similar accuracy, with less manufacturing time and cost,

I have to put David Joe's comment about stock materials in context. He writes that "when composites became standard for accurate rifles; is this true? Outside of the US, composite stocks seem to have had minimal, if not no, impact in smallbore shooting. One could argue that laminates are composite, but wood dominated until Walther brought out the aluminium-stocked KK200 in 1994/95*. As the companies who had employed barrel bedding devices, or bedded barrels (Winchester, BSA, and Remington) were either defunct, or no longer supplying serious smallbore shooters, by the time composite were a thing, it's no surprise they didn't experiment with this new technology. Anschutz, Walther, FWB (and Toz and Izmash for USSR teams) dominated the matches with free-floated barrels and receivers bedded directly onto wood, what impetus did they have for change? The design bureau at Ishevsk chose barrel bedding, via a hefty flat-based sleeve for the later Strela/Taiga rifles, but later switched to free-floating for the Typhoon and Ural 5/6.

That said, there has been renewed interest in alternatives to free-floating barrels, starting with the Unique X-Concept. Currently the Esprit Carabine Universal Concept and Pardini FR22 offer a clamped/damped barrel and free-floating receiver, and the Feinwerkbau FWB2800 combines a damped barrel clamp with receiver bedding. Anschutz put the latter feature on their concept A22 Max rifle earlier in the year.

On the .22LR side, I’m curious if today’s match ammo at say 1050 FPS, shoots much different (better?) than subsonic match ammo of the 1960’s. I’d imagine that the bullet shape, 40 grain weight, powder charge are held to possibly slightly tighter tolerances, but otherwise remarkably similar to what was used more than 50 years ago.

Bennett had pm’d me about the thinking on clamped barrels with floated ends (receivers/muzzles). Definitely added cost and complexity, and I imagine that the aesthetics of such a set up, and singular purpose use limited market breadth. With something like 2 grains of powder, I could see the cost benefit question going a different way in .22 over the years, given their proportionally diminished bore vibrations and harmonics relative to center fire.

Scope technology would seem to be the main area of change over the decades. I have a 40-X .308 with those Redfield globe iron sights. They sure are good. I have a 52 that came with iron sights I presume were original optional equipment, that don’t seem equal to the Redfield. I installed a scope on that rifle.

 

[Tim Slater]

David,

Rationally I expect modern ammunition to be better. Although even today manufacturers have times when their QC isn't up to par; I'm thinking of Eley in the late '90s. I suspect much of the legendary reputation of paper box Tenex (1960s-'70s production), is just myth. Although, there may be some truth, as Eley did change the priming composition in the 1970s*, so 1960s Tenex was different.

Barrel clamps like the EC Universal do add complexity, although these are complex rifles, far more complex than a Win 52. When EC are CNC machining the chassis, and fully adjustable hook butt and cheekpiece, the mounting holes for the barrel clamps don't seem like too much extra work. Perhaps any production engineers can comment here?

'Scopes are definitely different to the 1960s, being far shorter and not connected to the barrel. Again, as with composite stocks, this is a largely US concern, at least for conventional smallbore.

*I believe this was part of a number of changes to improve on-site safety following an explosion in a part of the factory that made primers for shotgun shells.