Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Pre 64 M70 guys. Question.

The only thing that jumps out at me is the checkering. Maybe I just haven't seen enough of them, but of all the Model 70's I've looked at, the checkering was never that clean and sharp, especially after being handled and used for many years. Just wondering if it doesn't look like the checkering was recut at some time?

Beautiful rifle none the less. Wish my H&H looked that good, but it has gotten an awful lot of use over the years I've owned it- by me and now my son.

Bob

The checkering appears to be original and correct.

I'd buy it as a nice, original example of a model 70 Winchester magnum.

I'd have to give that a hundred percent original finish, and a damn fine kudos on drilling and tapping the receiver if it wasn't Factory.

I had a very late transition era 375 and the rear bridge was not tapped.

That stock looks completely original with respect to the checkering to me. It would be inset more if re-cut unless the whole stock was sanded down and then the steel buttplate would either be proud or ground to match. The butt plate looks like it is unmolested to me.

IIRC Rule wrote that a lot of the cloverleaf magnums were assembled much later (years) in time, where in the same calendar year the std cartridges are 3rd receiver (round) and magnums cloverleafs. So even if the receiver was mfg in the transition calendar period it may have assembled post transition (calendar), so not a true transition model- why the 3rd lever safety. Besides the bolt & inlet screw ups, doesn't look original. Receiver looks too much satin/matte- receiver reblued.

Holes look off. Look typical Pre 64 magnum spacing.

"Beginning sometime around 1946-1947, the post-war "transition" actions, which had the clover leaf tang and smooth bridge (not clip slotted), were factory drilled on the bridge. I think the hole spacing was 0.860" (same as the receiver ring). Even then, the transition era rifles that were still clip slotted (30-06 target models only) or the long H&H Magnum actions (where the bridge was relieved to accommodate the longer cartridge) gave the factory fits, as the hole spacing for these receivers was not yet standardized between Winchester and the scope mount manufacturers. So transition era 30-06 National Match and Target Models, as well as 30-06 and 300 H&H Magnum Bull guns were still not factory drilled. Likewise, the 300 and 375 H&H Magnum rifles in any configuration were not routinely drilled until somewhere around serial number 100,000 (well after the standard length actions were factory drilled).

Again my head for figures is probably wrong, but I think that the hole spacing that was eventually adopted for the long magnum action bridges was 0.450."


That's a refinished matte receiver and a polished barrel. Receiver too clean, no wear, too much matte. Too disparate to be original. Bolt and receiver have/lack the same amount of wear- receiver redone when bolt ground down.

Bottom line it ain't original, ain't a transition, but who cares it's a shooter.

WYcoyote: Had more of a chance to look at the responses, pictures and that concerning your Rifle.
Here are some more random thoughts from my notes that I made.
In your second set of pictures - the first picture in that set tells me a lot!
First that Rifle has the original finish on it! I can tell because of the small black dots and dashes that are a result of the way Winchester finished - filled the pores of the Model 70 stocks! Those black dots and dashes are stain filler - if that Rifle had been refinished those dots and dashes would have been greatly diminished and or usually sanded away!
That picture does show some shrinkage of the wood and that is NOT unusual in a 69 plus year old stock!
Your Rifles action was made in mid-April of 1949 - I am sure that the barrel was attached to it somewhat later as is the case in so many "Magnum" actions of that period.
Your Rifle is indeed a "Transition Model" - not all "Transition Models" had the half wing or "clam shell" safety lever, that was more common on early Transition Models"!
One poster mentioned the difference in "finish" of the action and the barrel - that again happened often on the Rifles of the transition era - especially Magnums.
As far as the scope base holes in the rear bridge of that Magnum Transition era action I would lean towards them being done by the factory - no evidence they were done afterwards.
The bolt handle appears to me to be all original and original finish.
It appears clear to me that your Rifle was used little and the sharp points on the original checkering proves that out for me - looking carefully at the pictures of the checkering and the borders of the checkering I see NO evidence at all the finish was removed and replaced.
The beautiful finish on the floorplate and trigger guard lends more credence to the contention I make that the Rifle was used little and retains original finish on the wood and on the blued parts.
Back to the stock shrinkage at the dolls head rear portion of the action - that could have been caused by leaking cleaning solvent from the action? If that part of the stock shrunk naturally why did the wood around the top of the metal butt plate not shrink to a corresponding degree - possible answer again is cleaning solvent seeping out of the action when the Rifle was stored on its buttplate.
The rear sight is all original and no sign of having been removed or replaced!
IF... someone (a gunsmith or the Rifle owner!) went to the trouble of drilling the rear bridge for a scope base then why didn't that someone ever attach a scope base to that action!
I see NO evidence of that action ever having a scope base attached to it - almost always there will be noticeable scuff marks from torquing down a scope base to the action if a scope base has been attached in the past - ESPECIALLY on actions with the type finish your Rifle has.
Judging from the pictures (and I wish I had the Rifle in my hands!) I am sure your Rifle is an original "300 Magnum" action that has not been refinished (metal or wood).
The front sight hood can easily be corrected by buying a replacement!
I have 4 (four!) pre-64 Winchester Model 70's in caliber 300 Magnum or more correctly 300 H&H Magnum - but none are near your Rifle in serial number range so comparisons there don't reveal much and the pre-64 Model 70's within a couple thousand of your Rifles action manufacture date that I own won't yield much because they aren't "Magnum actions"!
Looking again and closer to your last two pictures of your Rifle that shows the stock in profile at the rear of the action - they take away ANY consternation I have about that Rifle's stock being refinished - it WAS NOT!
The profile picture shows the stock to be correctly sized to the action first picture shows some shrinkage away from the metal but not down below the metal.
You are welcome to post my comments, observations onto the original post if you wish - or I will do so.
Hope I have been of help - if you are ever up around Dillon, Montana way be sure and look me up and bring your nifty 300 Magnum with you's!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
Dale in Dillon

I concur with the above statements, rifle looks original and correct.

I just looked at your S/N and one of my books puts that at 1949, I thought the transition year models ended in 1947, again speaking from memory. The bolt matching tells me this is not a transition bolt and not what I believe would be considered a transition gun, collectors will vary on opinions..

But then consider this, I have a .375 with a prewar receiver produced in 1955, that has been authenticated to be original in every regard.

Even Rule could not capture all the anomalies. Recording keep was not the best when it came to configuration.

Have a great day and enjoy a great rifle.

Well I will throw my nickle in.

Of course it is a Transition model. The features of Transitions vary wildly and of course H&H were always the slowest to adopt all changes. H&H didn't adopt the full Type III changes until serial number 121700. That has a Type II receiver with all other features being Type III

The rear bridge is factory drilled and tapped.

I don't like the bolt handle at all. It just doesn't look right. (it very well may be bad camera angle?)

I don't think the buttplate matches the rest of the gun. The finish is much more worn and the screw slots are buggered a bit.

The stock has had something done to it. It may have been refinished or as a minimum somebody (amateur) relieved the recoil bearing surfaces at the tang.

It is a very nice gun and I would be happy to own it.

Bit of an old Thread here to be recently resuscitating! That said... First, a really nice gun! Second my perpetual lament where construing a rifle segmentally, 'by its parts'. Always desire at least a couple (L&R) centerfold photos, the complete rifle. Second, amateuer to best expert, always needing to consider parts/component replacements. That safety noted, otherwise...
From factory replacements to later. Particularly as "drop-in" easy substitution components. Rifles even several decades old, much less almsot century old, many species, 'more likely than not' non original.

I so agree that the bolt handle looks 'different'. Handles were subject to considerable machinations in respect of scopes... Where the hell the bell locates... More than humor, the scope type and linear placement, sometimes mandating handle alterations. The subject bolr handle looking to me perhaps such possibility. The coloration, also looking 'different'. Otherwisse, from factory itself with 'off the shelf' poupouri small assembly detail mix n match. Factory folks, blatantly unconcerned with the analytic sensitivities of expert collectors decades later, studying apparent contradictions; musing, speculating, comparing, critiquing! How rude of those insensitive Winchester workers of old!
Seens to me other than perhaps full view, centerfold pix, the material here has been pretty well massaged and analysed. The net, a great Win Standard Model by any other name!

Just adding 'my take'!
Best & Stay Safe!
John