A friend of mine has a .338 pre 64 that looks correct in every way. Correct stock, bolt, magazine box etc. The receiver is marked 458 on the front lug. The only thing is the serial number, 401xxx puts it manufactured in March 1957 and the .338's did not come out until mid 1959.
Is this rifle correct??

Photos?? The receiver dates to '57 but the actual rifle may not have been assembled until '59. This seems to have happened quite a bit. The the receiver of this rifle was made after the .458 was announced in '56 and probably sat around as the .458 didn't exactly set the world on fire sales wise.

Check the magazine box as it should only have one verticle crimp on each side about 1.5" from the front of the box. And the follower may be stamped with an "M" on the under side. But not all were. The barrel should be 25" as well. What does the recoil pad look like? In the Rule book there is a photo of a .338 with a .393xxx serial number.

David is right. It probably is. When Winchester brought out the 458, they expected to sell a lot more. Consequently, when the 338 cam out they had LOTS of actions marked 458 just as you describe. It's all explained in good detail in Roger Rule's book. I have a Csutom Shop 338 with the same "458" markings like yours. The reciver serial number dates in to 1958, but the rifle was built in 1962. jorge

Hey guys, thanks for the replies. I did a little more investigating last night in Rule's book. On page 60 there is a .338 with serial number 393xxx.
So apparantly the rifle is correct. I've checked the mag. box ...everything. The serial number was just suspect to us.
I wonder if there are .264's with earlier serial numbers?
The barrel is indeed 25", and solid red pad.
Now if I can just talk my friend into selling!!
Interesting.....

Winchester marked the recoil lug with 458 to designate magnum actions.

That said, the marking was variable. I've seen many magnum adtions that weren't stamped

quote:

The reciver serial number dates in to 1958, but the rifle was built in 1962. jorge

Jorge, just curious. how do you know the rifle was built in 1962? Did you buy from the original owner? Was this a special order rifle? What's different about it?
Sounds like an interesting rifle..

I also have a custom shop in 338 # dates to 1960 with no 458 on Rec. mine has a few interisting features barrel band sling and receiver sight W/ band front sight, I bought this from orig. owner 1970 with factory shop paper work in custom case.

Hunt-ducks,
That sounds like a treasure!! ....

I was browsing the other day and came across the very rifle I mentioned in the Rule book.
Looks like it's for sale on gunsamerica....
A search for pre 64 338 will bring it up.

Sendero: I mis-spoke (wrote) what i should have written is the rifle could have been made from 1959-62, 59 being the first year of production and I believe 62 was the last year for 338s but I don't have the Rule book with me. I'm still waiting on a serial number search but here's a picture and many of the characteristics, checkering, stock style, sights, etc can be found througout Rules' book including Winchester proof marks. The only thing that bothers me is that it is not a Winchester marked barrel but I know other barrel makers were used at customer request and it does have Winchester proof marks as I said. I wish I knew who the original owner was. A good friend of mine that owns a gun shop in North Carolina took it in on a trade and my wife bought it for me. jorge

PS: Moderators, can you edit/crop to size please?

According to the "bible:" p.95-6:

The .458 Win came out in November 1955, first shipments were May 1956.

The .338 Win was authorized in 1957, but "rifles chambered for it were not assembled until June, 1959."

Nice gun, but not original.

because? fake proof marks? Every aspect of it checks out with Rule's book, stock, checkering, sights, swivels, stock, proof marks, etc. and I'm waiting on a serno check from the B. Bill Museum, but if you have amplyfing data I sure would appreciate it. jorge

Hi Jorge! I will try to help you, since this is what I believe this forum should be about. O.K, first of all the stock was custom made, but not at the factory. Next, the floor plate release is a dead give-away, again not factory. The rear barrel boss isn't correct, and your right the proof mark is a concern. there should be one on the barrel next to the reciever on the left side, and one on the reciever as well. The Buffalo Bill Museum will not have any factory letters on the Model 70. You will find that out when they write you back. Custom order Model 70's are very hard to prove correct. You better have some factory paper work, or better the box to prove the originality of the rifle in concern. The Rule book is a great source of information, and anyone that is interested in the Model 70 should have on. But, you can't beat knowledge, and that takes time to achieve. I'm glad to see that you enjoy these fine rifles. I have collected, shot, and hunted with them for a long time, and hope to for even longer.

Thanks Bo. I contacted the museum and they do have a lot of the custom shop records there so if that gun was made in the shop, they might have a record. I spoke with them on the phone and they have what ammounts to record book data entries by serial numbers of guns they worked on in the Custom Shop. There is an identical stock in Rule's book as well. The proof marks are right where you say they belong. I'm not at home until the weekend, but maybe I can take some more pictures if you care to look at more and I'll also send you the page references where the stock and other features of this rifle appear. Thanks, jorge

jorge, Does the mag release have both a Winchester style button in front of the trigger gaurd and a Remington style inside the trigger gaurd? It's hard to tell from the picture as it looks that way but it might just be a bit of the zebra hide showing through.

reelman: Yes it does have both and in the Rule book there is a similar one as well. Like I stated on my last post, there is also a stock that looks exactly like mine in a few pages of the Rule book as well.
I am not 100% convinced it's a Custom Shop rifle because everything adds up right down to proof marks, sights, everything checks out. The only thing odd is the fact the barrel only has a proof mark, albeit in the correct place but no other writings on the barrel itself. I've owned quite a few pre-64s and I'm fairly well-versed on them but not on the Custom Shop offerings, so I don't know if they ever built "slick" barrels (without writing) on customer request.
If you or any other savvy guys can help me I sure would appreciate it and I can post more pics this weekend. jorge