Winchester model 77
I have my grandfather's old .22, a Winchester model 77 and I can't seem to figure out how to lock the bolt back for cleaning and such. I purchased a reproduction of the original manual online but this didn't seem to give me accurate information about locking the bolt back. The manual says to slide the bolt back then depress the hold open button and slowly let the bolt go forward and it will lock the bolt open. The thing is that the rifle I have does not have a button where the manual shows one. This is kind of confusing to me because it is a Winchester model 77 but it doesn't have the hold open mechanism that the manual says it should have. Does anyone out there have any experience with this model?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
0
-
Just bought one with the detachable box magazine. Has a Weaver B4 on it. Seems to be in beautiful condition. My Blue Book says they were made 1955-62; mine is serial #2944. Can the DOM be narrowed down any finer than that? 0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gkpoole/Winchester_Model_77
I never shot one. With the bulk crap 22 ammo today I think a single shot would be a better plan. I liked the Remington Nylon 66 (that rifle never jammed on me) but the stock sights are crude. The Winchester 63 was nice. The Browning 22 Autoloader is nice too. Ruger's 10-22 is OK, the takedown might be interesting. Tons of aftermarket stuff for them.
3/8 tip-off isn't the strongest scope mount IMHO.
I much prefer the all milled steel on my 121 Remington or my Winchester 1906.0 -
I have 2 clip fed 77's. They are good guns, just never caught on like the Winchester 63.
Triggers are not very good, but still good plinkers. Nice walnut and blued finish.
There are large and small ejection ports, and some have I believe loaded chamber indicators. Both of mine are large port without indicators.0 -
I have had maybe 10 though the years and all functioned flawlessly. heavy 22s by todays standards, hence the walnut was very good on them. Really what you prefer,,imo, the 77's are a hidden treasure that are slowly creeeping up in value but will never be the 63- ect. wise,,,my 2 cents,worth about that-[:I] 0 -
Having had one, I would opt for the tubular mag. Clips are a little expensive. The rifle was expensive to make, and although well made, it couldn't compete price wise with what was being offered in other brands. The 25" barrel didn't help either. good hunting, Pete 0 -
I have the tubular version and with 4-12 scope, I can them gophers out there. With a couple of speedloaders, it makes it quite a fun outing.[:p] 0 -
I always loved the profile of the removable magazine model. I have both the removable magazine model and the tube magazine model. Both had a spring missing from the safety lever mechanism when I bought them, but I was able to replace the missing spring with spring stock.
I like their full size and nice metal finish. I like the steel receiver and barrel profile. I do not like the plastic trigger guards, but they do not detract much from the overall appearance of the rifles. I like the bolt-hold-open devices on the early versions (pre-serial numbered vintage I think).
I think they are nice rifles, perhaps a bit overlooked.0 -
I would like to thank each of you for your opinion and insight on this model, it will help in my decision, as I have never really handled or inspected one of these models before. I know what you mean by wood to metal, I have a Winchester model 63 and a couple of 62a and 61 even a 52, all beautifully made rifles, but I guess all manufactures had to find some way of cutting cost in order to show a profit and that is understandable. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments