Does anyone know the correct rear base # for a JC Higgins M50? This is the FN Action rifle made by High Standard in 30-06 and 270 Win.

The Weaver chart shows #45 which is not correct as it has a hole spacing of about a half inch and this rear bridge has the same spacing as the M70 or .86"

Its tapped for 6-48 screws and the #46 front base seems to fit fine.

Thanks

I'm in the same boat.

The only source i've been able to find is Talley

It's described as MAUSER LARGE RING.860 REAR

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
Does anyone know the correct rear base # for a JC Higgins M50? This is the FN Action rifle made by High Standard in 30-06 and 270 Win.

The Weaver chart shows #45 which is not correct as it has a hole spacing of about a half inch and this rear bridge has the same spacing as the M70 or .86"

Its tapped for 6-48 screws and the #46 front base seems to fit fine.

Thanks

Why don't you call the guy at Control as I think he can fit just about anything.

they came with their own special bases. I have a set on mine and have never been able to find a set of rings to fit them. I have been thinking it might just be easier to buy a set of leupold or burris bases, weld in the old screw holes, and cut new ones to fit.

I called Weaver and they are mailing me a list of all of their bases with the dimensions etc.

I would rather have the Weaver system but this does not seem as easy as it did the other day!

I have had a M51 for a long time with Lyman Tru Lock bases and rings. Perhps WRF's bases are Lymans? The Talleys are a copy of the Lyman design but with not as good a locking nut.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:

Does anyone know the correct rear base # for a JC Higgins M50? This is the FN Action rifle made by High Standard in 30-06 and 270 Win.

Thanks

That's interesting. My Higgins M50s have FN made in Belgium on the receiver. I had no idea that High Standard was associated with the Belgium factory. I always thought they were as they said - made in Belgium.

As I remember, I had a gunsmith weld up one of the holes, and drill/tap it in the appropriate place to take normal FN base - end of problem.

KB

My Higgins Mod 50 uses the Weaver 46 front and 45 rear. Same as my post 64 M70.
Lyle

Lucky My higgins has the .5 spaced hole on the rear

That model is a FN commerical actiion and it does use #45 base.If yours doesn,t fit,then did you ever think that the base could be mis-marked? Those rifles sold in the late 1950,s for $54.50,chromed lined barrels and great guns. van

The #45 bases are stamped right on them (45) and they seem of the right height. An old Weaver chart shows the 45 to be the rear base for the JC Higgins 50's and 51's yet my receiver has .86" hole spacings.

I will look at the paperwork that Weaver sends me. Maybe there is something they make that I can modify. They do have gunsmith bases.

Another way out is to use a one piece base. Many of those only use one of the rear screws. I do want to shoot the rifle. Maybe I will do that with a #45 rear with only one screw.

I have one of my J.C. Higgins M50 rifles right at hand. The front base is marked 46 and the rear base 47. This is one I just acquired at the last gun show and I haven't mounted a scope on it yet although it came with bases.
Interesting, as my well beat up 1959 Stoegers shows 46 for the front and 45 for the rear. Kind of makes me wonder, do I have a wrong rear base, or wer some of the M50s made to different tolerances. I haven't had a chance to scope and shoot mine yet, so no comment as to whether that #47 is the right rear base.
Paul B.

#47 is the rear base for a M70. I put one on earlier and is does not follow the contour of the rear bridge although the hole spacing works.

I may try to bore sight it with a #47 on the rear bridge. I type this from memory and have not checked on it again.

here is what my Sears Model 50 FN looks like. These are the original bases that came with the gun when it was new. As I said, I have not been able to find a set of rings to fit them. No numbers on them either. But they do fit the receiver almost perfectly.

Those FN's for Sears were produced with two differing hole spacings on the rear bridge. The closer hole bases are hard to find and don't know if they are being produced any more. You may have to get a third hole tapped if you want to use Weaver.

quote:

Originally posted by stocker:
Those FN's for Sears were produced with two differing hole spacings on the rear bridge. The closer hole bases are hard to find and don't know if they are being produced any more. You may have to get a third hole tapped if you want to use Weaver.

Please don't drill another hole. Weaver base stock is readily available, just machine a piece of it to fit and drill for whatever spacing you need. Way to many fine old rifles have been ruined by drilling them full of holes. Always modify the cheapest part.

Thanks,
John

Excellent point. Mind must have been out of gear.

22 WRF,

Those bases are similar to the Talleys. A Talley base is .5" wide at the top. How wide are yours?

I scoped mine up today using a #47. Its temporary but I just have to see how it shoots. You know how it is.

i purchased two a 30-06 and a 270 jc higgins model 50. i intended to rebarell but shot them first. they have shot so well that it would have been insane to do so. ive put new triggers on them and alas drilled a third hole but they are shooters. very good rifles, now if i could find another to make into a 25-06

Since there is so much Higgins talk here, I thought I,d toss in my 2 Cents.
i will be picking my 30,06 saterday from my smith. I had it blued and the trigger guard tapped back into shape, some one must have droped it.
I think I will put a Bell& carlson stock on it, I love wood but I really don't want to spend a fortune on this one.
I Put a timney on it and I am pumped to stock it and shoot it !
Any body have a better sugjestion on a relitivly inexpensive synthetick stock that is not real heavy ?
thanks ...tj3006

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
22 WRF,

Those bases are similar to the Talleys. A Talley base is .5" wide at the top. How wide are yours?

I scoped mine up today using a #47. Its temporary but I just have to see how it shoots. You know how it is.

Savage

They are 5/8" wide at the top.

I got the pages from Weaver of their base data and I will post it on a separate topic here in gunsmithing. I am having a heck of a time getting the pictures the right size.

Link to Weaver base data here.

Just glancing at the pages I don't see the gunsmith blanks nor a base the same height as the #45 with the correct diameter. Grr.

I may be able to figure it out using an extension ring in the rear and the regular height ring on the front bridge. In fact thats whats on there now but the base is for a M70 and therefore the wrong "diameter".

I shot the rifle yesterday and it has a good chamber as the gages and borescope predicted.

This rifle is just a hobby project to get it to decent accuracy and function. So far there is plenty of improvement possible as the first groups were 3" at 100 yds!

The bolt is rough in operation as the rifle is almost new yet dinged up some.

I have a JC Higgins Model 50, in 30-06 and the bolt is not jeweled like Mr 22WRF's bolt. It is a plain bright bolt. Which is normal?

Also my barrel is chromed, and fouled horribly until a local gunsmith lapped the barrel. Now it fouls, but not as bad as before. Before lapping after like 20 shots, you could not see the rifling. Has any had a similiar experience.

And a comment, notice how thin the barrel and light the overall rifle? I believe that the earlier the rifle the lighter they built them. And I believe this was due that people walked in and out to their hunting locations instead of driving four wheeled vehicles.

The rifle weighs 7.25 lbs which is a half pound more that the M70 Featherweight of the same era.

The barrel is about .56" at the muzzle which is the same as the M70's but its of a heavier taper otherwise and thats where some of the extra 1/2 lb is.

The barrels foul yes. Not sure if the chrome has anything to do with it. Jeweled bolts were not standard.
-----------------------------------------------

I see that the #75 rear base has the correct 'diameter' and hole spacing but is .31" high. I should be able to make that work with different height rings.

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:

quote:

Originally posted by stocker:
Those FN's for Sears were produced with two differing hole spacings on the rear bridge. The closer hole bases are hard to find and don't know if they are being produced any more. You may have to get a third hole tapped if you want to use Weaver.

Please don't drill another hole. Weaver base stock is readily available, just machine a piece of it to fit and drill for whatever spacing you need. Way to many fine old rifles have been ruined by drilling them full of holes. Always modify the cheapest part.

Thanks,
John

I have several FN actions. Two are Higgins Mod 50, one Higgins Mod 51, and four Husqvarna '98 commercial actions, made by FN. I bought them all as complete rifles, or barreled action. Naturally, I considered keeping them original, and used one Mod 50 in 30-06 for about two years in its original set up.

I finally concluded that they are all donor actions. There is nothing sentimental or nostalgic worth saving about these rifles, except the receiver. That’s one of the nice aspects of these actions. There are plenty of classics, which have real value in their original set up, including the FNs, and many European Mausers, but the nice thing about these Higgins receivers is that they are good for custom rifles, without the angst of tossing everything but the receiver and bolt, and starting over with high grade parts.

Once I discovered the issue of the hole spacing with the Mod 50, I didn’t hesitate to send the two actions to a competent gunsmith, who tig welded the hole or holes (I’m not sure if it was one or both) and drilled/tapped the rear base holes to standard FN spacing. I certainly didn’t consider it ruining the action, and I’ve never looked back, and never had a problem. Now, I can’t tell the difference between the Mod 50 and 51.

Two of my Husqvarna actions still had the military style safety, and were not drilled for a scope base at all. Frankly, I have no use for a rifle which a scope can not be mounted upon, so it would have been silly for me to worry about maintaining some original condition. In fact, on all these actions, the safety, trigger, bottom metal, stock, barrel has been replaced, and the replacement parts are a vast improvement.

All my scope bases are interchangable on all my Mausers, FNs, Higgins, Husqvarnas, Mark X, and two '98 military conversions - the hole spacing being the same, to use two-piece Warne bases.

So, I don't fully understnd the problem - or perhaps I don't appreciate it. Some folks like chasing hard to find parts, and solving problems the hard way. Each to his own fun.

KB

Yea, those Husqvarnas are junk and the FN actions used on them are crap rejects not good for reuse

I have a different and, I think, more practical view. First of all I don't want any welding on my action if I can avoid it.

Second of all I can get the rifle going by myself which is a major part of the fun for me. When I get the Weaver #75 base onto that rear bridge it will be done and done a lot faster than any smith would do.

My late dad made some fixturing for High Standard and he tried to get a rifle for free. He owned and ran a tool and die shop and I remember being with him when he delivered some tools to High Standard in New Haven. Finally he got two of them but paid $55 for his. The one he got for my uncle came with a scope if my memory is right. That must have been a Sears scope. Both were M51's and 30-06's of course. I still have my dads rifle. He was not all that proud of the JC Higgins on the barrel but he was of the FN action. He polished off all the barrel markings but the caliber designation, had it black oxide coated and put a recoil pad on the stock and finished it with a poly. He also added a Beuhler safety. The rifle has Lyman Tru Lock rings and bases to the .86" spacing.

I am going to keep the rifle original and use it for a camp/loaner rifle. I don't see the action as anything special. The bolt is homely and the safety not up to my standards. I would much rather hunt with a Kimber or a Winchester which I do.

I cut a new crown on it tonight but it still has a ding way deep on one land. I will shoot it again before any more accuracy work. Either it shoots well or it does not.

quote:

Originally posted by GSP7:
Yea, those Husqvarnas are junk and the FN actions used on them are crap rejects not good for reuse

I certainly agree with you. That has been my experience too. I hope you appreciate me for writing that, because I'm doing it for you, since I have about all the FN actions I want, so I'm not shopping. If I can help you in any way convincing others of their worthlessness, I'll certainly try.

Good shopping.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
I have a different and, I think, more practical view. First of all I don't want any welding on my action if I can avoid it.

Second of all I can get the rifle going by myself which is a major part of the fun for me. When I get the Weaver #75 base onto that rear bridge it will be done and done a lot faster than any smith would do.

My late dad made some fixturing for High Standard and he tried to get a rifle for free. I still have my dads rifle. He was not all that proud of the JC Higgins on the barrel but he was of the FN action.

I am going to keep the rifle original

I understand what you are saying, and agree. In my earlier comments, I wasn't thinking about a family rifle, which certainly has sentimental and nostalgic value. That's different, and I can certainly understand a person getting satisfaction out of doing the work themselves.

On the welding, I'm no expert, so that's why I relied upon an expert who assured me that the amount of welding he was going to do on the rear bridge was not going to damage the action in any way. I think he plugged the hole with a soft screw that fit the threads tight, then peened it to fit even tighter, then hit it as light as practical with a tig welder. Then he smoothed it off and drilled a new hole in the correct place. Anyway, I could not see the weld or any evidence of the old hole when he returned it. The only way I knew he had actually done it is because I could remove the bolt, and look inside the receiver and see the extra hole from the inside.

I have had a few rifles messed up by gunsmiths, so I chose this guy carefully, and with recommendations. He worked as a gunsmith on the side, and his main profession was working on one of those giant telescopes in Arizona, as a precision machinist. The welding of the holes was a test, to see if he could really do it right. He did and I sent him some more serious welding work later, and he always got it right. Once I had him weld up some extra holes in a pre-64 Winchester action. His mauser bolt handles were perfection. I don't think he is doing gunsmith work any more, and he is retired.

He wouldn't weld on the front receiver, and I didn't ask him to.

Regards,
KB

Its been a while since I have read a better response.