IMHO most of the pre-64's are over rated and over priced. The pre-WW-2 rifles are some nice guns if you base your opinion entirely on craftsmanship rather than performance, but that is true of most any rifle of the era. I'd not be interested in any model 70 made after the war up to about 1980, CRF or PF because of quality concerns.
In 1964 a lot of shooters went crazy when CRF was no longer offered and prices on ANY pre-64 skyrocketed simply because it was CRF. A great many of those guns were not left stock, but used as the basis for customs. Compared to the early PF's made in 1964 up through the 1970's the pre-64's looked pretty good. But by about 1980 that changed.
With Ruger, Winchester, Kimber and Interarms rifles available now with CRF actions the 70's made after the war up to 1963 are just another 50+ year old rifle as far as I'm concerned. Most of them shouldn't sell for a premium although some buyers will pay the price. There are a lot of folks still under the impression that any pre-64 is worth a premium. That is simply no longer true.
I think the PF model 70's made in the 80's and 90's are as good as any rifle ever made by anyone. As a shooter and hunting rifle I'd prefer one of the Classics to any of the pre-64's. Some of the older guns might be better made, but are too valuable to actually use anymore. The post war pre-64's aren't any better than the Classics. The jury is still out on current production FN made rifles. Mine is a good one, but I'm hearing mixed reports.
CRF vs PF isn't a deal breaker for me, although I do have a slight preference for CRF. I've never noted a bit of difference in feeding reliability. I do think the extraction and ejection on CRF is a stronger, more bullet proof system and generally prefer it. The way I see it it doesn't hurt a thing, rifles don't cost a dime more with the feature and it might come in handy.
