Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors 1953 FW 308 to the Range

It was killing me that I hadn't dropped the hammer on this so I took her out back. I grabbed a box of shells off the shelf and hung a target. Now my aging eyes don't do well with peep sights anymore but I believe any one of the 3 shots would have hung meat. I may have to take her out one day this fall to the stand.

That is really nice....

That’s a classy old gun that needs a job. Give it one this fall.

Yeah it is. That’s a sweetheart of a rifle!

A low comb featherweight with a peep is a gem, enjoy!

Needs a good workout... .

It was a joy to shoot too.

I blooded my '54 vintage '06 FWT last fall using it to take a KY buck and doe. For the past 30+ yrs. I have hunted with pre'64 70's, either my .35 Whelen Super Grade or the '06 FWT. Always made meat with those two rifles.

My old 721 Remington 300 H&H May be getting replaced by that pre war 300.

That’s good shooting with a peep sight! Even with young eyes!

Good post. I like your rifle.

what fun, I have one just like it but with just factory irons, it handles great in the thick stuff.

Very nice! I have one from 1953 as well, mine has a Redfield rear mounted peepsite on it.

That's a fine rifle and I'd be proud to shoot one that well. It's hard to beat the handling and carry of a Featherweight with a receiver sight. Or, really of any Model 70 with a receiver sight. In fact, I elected to dismount the scope on my Grandfather's 49 standard .30-'06 and put a Redfield 70 on it, which I have just finished.

Time to go to the range!

Thank you for sharing your rifle with us.

Yes, go hunt with it!
Here is my 1953 M70 FWT in .308 which has been my main rifle since about 1970. It has been tuned to my needs and is my meat-in-the-pot rifle.

Nice hunting rifle and excellent marksmanship.
Neat how the early FWT's didn't have the hollowed out bolt knob.

160 user great group, crappy target for peep and/or tang sight use a black 3-6" circle will help the sight picture with
those sights a lot .my eyes aren't perfect anymore either so help them out with better targets suited to their use. I think you will find that your eyes have limits but their is nothing wrong with your shooting ability. Mb

Even an 8 moa black bullseye works well for my eyes at 100 yards. I wouldn't have been able to shoot the target posted in the op at 100 yards either. 6 oclock hold on a good target makes all the difference in the world..



Nice rifle in the op though.

Found a photo of my 1953 M70FW, 308 WIN with the Redfield peep-sight.

Really nice!

Nice...

My .243, now .358 Win. Look forward to working up a load. I do like the looks of the Pre-64 Fwt., simple, classic elegance.

This one had a Decelerator already fitted, your's is more original. I swapped classic rings for QD studs. Will save those OEM rings.

DF

I have a 1954 .308 Featherweight. Have not shot it much with the iron, except to sight them in, just in case. I mounted an El Paso K4 Weaver (in El Paso Weaver rings) and with a slight adjustment to the bedding it groups 5 rounds (not just 3) of it's best handload into less than an inch.

I got mine pretty cheap because some previous owner had shortened the stock a little, filing down the aluminum buttplate to fit. So I eventually installed a 1" Decelerator (Winchester red, of course) to lengthen it.

They're GREAT rifles!

Pix below, one of my two M 70 "Featherweight Westerner" rifles from intro year1962 (SNs 548k & 551k range) in 264 Win Mag w/22" barrel. Roger Rule Book - to my recollection - only some several thousand Westerners produced, 62-63; name exclusive to combo of Fwt & .264 chamberinig. Distinctive as only Featherweight with factory ("Winchester") recoil pad standard. Rule also with generalization that in these closing years of "pre 64 models", stock grade quality depreciated. Neither of my copies of these rifles, looking bad at all. I do have a '63 300 WMag, with stock looking bit cheap!
One of my few gripes concerning all pre '64 Featherwegith models - and many more rifles; all that employ alloy bottom metal. Winchester did about the best job possible with perhaps one of the hardest alloys to be utilized. Still... Simply nor as scratch resistant as real steel and tending to easily mar otherwise nice rifles! (Some quality 'other brand' rifles of sixties, yet more suceptible, looking pretty horrible with bright alloy scratches set against dark finish!)

Best & Stay Safe!
John

You have some nice rifles John.
Thanks for sharing.

My pleasure! Sometimes "sharing" pushing the original envelope and needing to be cautios at least in timing. Being sure adequate time for original Post explored/responded. From there, to expand and always in hope that further expands the Wincheser subject. A good learning opportunity for myself concerning the subject! Collecting about six decades, still learning!
Best & Stay Safe!
John

Odessa, how does that Monte Carlo stock work with the peep? Guessing you had to add a taller front sight?

Not Odessa, but can address that issue.

The Fwt Montecarlo stock is slim and works well with irons.

I'm working with a new Mauser-18 for a bud (really nice gun, BTW, and a Creed, for Pete's sake). I currently have Med, Ext Talley LW's (.5") on it. That comb looks to be about as high as the Fwt, M-70, but is pretty thick. With the Med rings, I close my eyes, shoulder the gun, open my eyes and I'm looking squarely thru the scope.

Same exercise works with the M-70 Montetcarlo Fwt using low rings. I think med would be a bit high for my tastes. Std. height irons will work without going higher, IMO.

How slim or thick the comb is makes a big difference.

DF

Thanks DF. I have a Monte Carlo 30-06 FW. I just remember having to really squash down on the comb to sight in the factory irons before I mounted a scope. It just seemed very un-natural. I thought a peep would have to stand pretty tall for it to be comfortable. I’ve been sulking a low comb FW for a dedicated receiver sight rifle, no luck so far, might opt for a standard model.

As far as rings, I run med Leupold DD on mine, they are just a smidge taller than I like, but with Lows the bolt handle doesn’t clear the ocular of the Leupold 3-9. If I switched to Burris bases, which are just a smidge taller than leupold, lows would work. That’s what I ended up doing on a low comb standard model I had years ago. With that stock I couldn’t tolerate mediums, even lows were a stretch. A Lyman peep was perfect on that rifle, pointed itself.

Appreciate the report.

Faces have different shapes, some necks are long, some are short. People hold their rifles differently.

People's habitus and build makes a difference.

I have no problems seeing irons with the Fwt MC stock with a good tight cheek weld without much effort.

The rings on the Fwt posted earler are actually Weaver Med which are .160", Weaver low is .090". Weaver Med is about like Talley Low, their LW low is .4 from receiver to bottom of scope. With bases, the Med Weavers are pretty close to that, actually .42".

DF

Always had a thing for the low comb M70 stocks. Can’t beat the classic lines, but I’ve never had an issue with cheek weld or lining up with scopes or irons on any reasonably configured gun.

Tom, that rifle has never been shot much (I've had it to the range twice in 25 years). That said, I had no problem zeroing it to the Redfield rear peepsite with the factory front blade. I have a narrow face and average height neck, that may aid me in a natural check to stock weld on that comb.

Thanks, I’m beginning to think I am a descendent of a family of Giraffes.

That Pre-64 bolt handle can be a consideration using low rings.

Low isn't the same with different combinations. And, scopes have different ocular sizes.

Trial and error seems to be the only way to figure it out.

DF