Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Magnum vs Standard M70 Action Weights

Got to thinking, does anybody here have data on the weight of a pre 64 H&H action vs a standard length action? Since the magnum action is a milled out version of the standard, I'm thinking it should be a good bit lighter. Curious how much weight is removed if anyone knows?

It is lighter. Something that goes over some guys' heads:


My 300WBY^^^


My 338wm:


Building a lightweight magnum off of this action makes the most sense. Why? For a couple reasons. Something guys also don't realize, is you can stuff 4 magnum cartridges in the magazine, vs. 3 in the standard receiver. Literally win win IMHO...

Thanks BSA, what makes it possible to get that 4th round down in the magazine? I'm curious exactly how much the weight difference is receiver to receiver with no barrel and no bottom metal. Purely the weight difference from the milled out "magnum" action.

The weight of the ‘milled out’ metal would be 2 maybe 3 oz. at the most, difference would be negligible and would be more than offset by the weight of the magnum cartridges.

I can't really see any 'net-net' significant advantage to reinventing the wheel as re-engineering the classic pre '64 H&H chambering to a Short Mag package. Maybe if so vastly Bubba re-engineered as DOA anyway... The considerable changes, the profound nature, the costs involved and the "questionable product achieved... Barrel, bolt, magazine assembly. Then what about receiver feed rails and cartridge ramp??? Functionally leaving an original product in a shambles... Perhaps some fractional, likely imperceptible field weight differences, but the most graphic weight savings, "WALLET" and product "cash value parted".

Simply to increase magazine capacity, going to the "belly of the beast"! New stock with opportunity to craft to taste, stronger mag spring and 'elective styling requiring' extended trigger length. Possibilities of a nifty project if to me questionable beyond context of carrying the spare tire in dangerous game regions!

Last, re this subject the "definitional differences between "magazine capacity" as referenced here and "rifle capacity" which would presumably include mag + one 'up your tube'!

Just a 'off top of head' take!
Best!
John

Someone probably has an exact weight of each receiver type, but I'd imagine it to be more around a 4oz. difference. Keep in mind, it's not just the top of the receiver that gets milled out for the longer cartridges. It's also the bottom where the magazine goes. Also, the magazines are lighter because they have no spacer. I'll show a pic of the bottom of the receiver:


Top of receiver:


You are also saving weight on the smaller rear base:


And, if you really want, you can run a fwt bottom metal to save a few extra oz's.

John, you don't know what you are talking about. I have 1 338wm built on an H&H receiver (shown above). It works great, with no mods. The rifle weighs 7 pounds with scope mounts (as shown above). The rifle holds 4 down and 1 up. When you have a rifle as such, right in front of you, then maybe you can change your above assessment. As of now, you don't, so I stand by my first sentence.

Thanks BSA! I've got the twin to your 338 also in a brown Poundr but it's on a standard action. Comes in at 7 pounds 6 ounces so I'm suspicious that there is a decent weight difference at play. Granted barrel length and profile could be partly to blame as well. Mines a 26 inch barrel and somewhere around a #3 profile.

Could you explain further about how the H&H receiver lets you get an extra round fitting down below? I'm not seeing offhand how that would happen, but I'm not doubting it.

I have a 7 Mashburn Super built in an H&H receiver as well. Works well for me.





I’d dare say it’s my favorite killer next to my plain old 338.. I did use Featherweight BM as well to trim a little weight as well.

Good question. The H&H magnums hold 4 in the mag box. As does my H&H receiver 338wm and 300wby. Love both rifles and they function just like any pre 64 model 70. Without flaw.


Now, does the H&H receiver make enough sense to go that route over a standard receiver? I remember saying something to the affect, why do guys make such a big deal over Talley lightweights? And I remember Brad saying "every ounce counts". I would not kick a std receiver 338wm out of bed though, and your rifle weighing 7 pounds and 6 oz's is not bad. It seems like the older I get, I understand what he was saying. An 8 pound all up 300wby or 338wm works awesome for elk hunting, where you are packing the dang thing all day long. I don't typically use a sling either. So it's in the hand all day long. There's a huge difference between a 10 pounder and an 8 pounder. Also keep in mind a well balanced rifle can weigh a little more than a poorly balanced one. The ones pictured above are about perfect for balance and weight. They carry very well, IMHO..

Going back to your comment about the barrel profile. The 338wm I have is a medium contour and is 24" long. The 300wby has the factory barrel on it. I know where another one is that is exactly like that one, but in a factory stock. It's had a recoil pad added, but is priced at $1,000.00. Which is pretty reasonable for what it is. I may swing by and take another look at that rifle today. I'll also be looking at a 1940 30-06 for $650. Should be a fun day.. Oh, and Scotty's rifle is a beauty there.. Love that 7 mashy!!