There was never anything "wrong" with the post-64 push feed Model 70's.......except for the fact that they were not "real" (pre-64) Model 70's. That was the thing that cause most of the problems in most shooter's eyes.
The push-feed Model 70's were always very reliable and accurate, but they were (compared to the pre-64's) ugly, cheap looking and NOT a Model 70, in most riflemen's eyes. Winchester would have been better off just dropping the Model 70 name and introducing a new model number in 1964....instead of creating ill-will among shooters by giving the push-feeds the honored Model 70 label.
Unfortunately for Winchester (which had basically "owned" the bolt action market in this country since the mid-30's) they chose to give the push-feeds the "Model 70" name while also dropping quality of finish and stock design......at the exact time when other manufactures (Remington 700, Ruger 77) were introducing models that were better looking and could finally compete with the original Model 70.
If Winchester had decided to introduce the push-feeds, but called it the "Model 74" (maybe) the new rifles would have competed quite well with the other rifles introduced by others (OK, maybe the Rugers would have beaten them out anyway....it IS a better rifle). Instead, they had to not only compete with very good rifles from others while at the same time creating animosity among those who loved the pre-64 Model 70's.
Winchester created their own doom (as far as "owning" the market) with the decision to use the Model 70 name. And...as Ruger proved....the decision to lower quality and cheapen the stocks on their rifles did NOT have to happen.
The push-feed Model 70's are and always have been very good rifles......just poorly marketed by Winchester. Maybe there's a good reason "Winchester" no longer exists.
