I don't think I've ever heard more than conspicuous jibber jabber and raving of how the "post 64" rifles are junk and the pre-64's are better... so my question is can you list what one should be looking for.. Kind of a hitch-hikers guide if you will.
Can someone cleanly state what parts and processes changed.
OR
The accuracy or other reasons.
So far the only one I remember that was mentioned like that (not that I know this is true)
1) Metal to wood finish "fit" is better on a pre-64?
2) Metal to metal (bolt to action, lug contact, ... ) are tighter ?
3) Blueing is higher quality ?
4) The barrels were made by hot looking Swedish chicks listed in the 223 AI thread.
I was Born in 64 so I want to know....
Any Model 70 CRF made today is superior to a Pre 64 in wood, metal and finish
Yes some of them are very pretty.
Indeed Bob. However, beauty, perfect bluing and excellent stock to metal fit doesn't guarantee it's going to function or operate perfectly. That's the true beauty in a pre 64. They will function like a well oiled machine, day in and day out. They've pretty much proven that they are the true "rifleman's rifle". Not really much to debate here.
