Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Winchester 70 - any pre64 experts?

Wow! I have a mil spec flip phone and it will not come close, I will charge my wifes smart phone and give it a try. Those are sharp gun photos! thanks WinPoor

Very nice Gus! Here is the best I have, not instructions, but a little info.

Hey WinPoor,

I have 2 cameras, an older Canon 7D with a few "prime (read - no zoom)" lenses and a new iPhone 6.

BSA is correct, some of the previous photos were an iPhone 5s, the new iPhone 6 has an even better camera. The iPhone cameras can do amazing stuff (considering their size, etc.) but it's still all about setup and what you do with what you have. These shots of the Lyman 48 were the Canon with a low-end 50mm macro lens. The Winchester is sitting on the sling balanced on the edge of my desk. The camera is on a tripod just using the available light. IMHO - stay away from flash, unless you have a bunch of fancy external stuff (and know how to use it). Find a window with some nice light, etc.

Any decent point/shoot or entry-level SLR... Nikon, Canon, etc. is probably a good camera these days. There's a story about an encounter between Ernest Hemingway and Ansel Adams, Hemingway saying, "You take the most amazing pictures. What kind of camera do you use?" Adams reply, "You write the most amazing stories. What kind of typewriter do you use?"

Look forward to seeing all those Winchesters

Thanks,
Gus

Edit: One more point I think I made in an earlier post, the iPhone is a fixed aperture (f/2.2). This can be limiting. There are a few apps that will let the phone kinda act like a real camera on manual. Might make sense to grab an entry level Canon/Nikon with an economical macro lens and tripod if you�re really serious about results.

Interesting page - thanks Odessa.

Thanks Gus, I have a tripod for my spotting scope, Im charging up my late wife's smartphone ,Ive been using a Nikon Cool Pix S 30 that rolled out under the seat of a rental car, Rental folks said there was no way to return phone ,they even tried tracking last 5 renters all across USA and I left all phone nos and address so as to return to owner. I finally ordered cable to download to computer and new battery. Its just OK. Those last shots of iron Lyman are off the chart sharp! That is what I am looking for vis gun photos.

I think your smart to be concerned if you�re selling all those 70s. A �good� honest photo can either bring out the best on a used product or a �crappy� honest photo can bring out worst. The Lyman 48 in the photos I almost didn�t bid on (eBay) because the photos were so out of focus I could hardly tell what it was - only one other guy bid on it (I think because of the photos). Allowed me to get it for a reasonable amount - decided to take a chance and it worked out.

You sure are full of good info. Great pictures as winpoor said too.

I sell Winchester rifles just like I do cattle and airplanes,I let them sell themselves... A good photo goes a long way to that end.. very best WinPoor

Amen..

Finally got a short trip to the range with the Lyman 48WJS. Went to the 50 yd with all sight adjustments set on zero. Using a 16 inch square Redfield target the first shots were 8 inches up at the edge of the paper and maybe 1 inch to the right. Everything grouped well so I started moving the shots/sight down into the center. A click or two to the left got rid of the inch to the right. All the shots moved down as expected until the site bottomed out on the receiver. So now if I hold the bead right under the bull (at 50 yards) it hit dead nuts - if I put the bead dead on the shots are a little high. So maybe a new/modified (higher/lower) front sight is in order?

I know this gun probably never had a 48WJS on it before and I think the current front sight is more or less correct, although it did come from eBay. The good news is I can't believe how well the gun groups with the peep. Any opinions on how to procede (new front sight, etc.) to get some height adjustability/flexibility back at the 48WJS?

Higher front sight... Looks good Gus..

All the old timers taught me the 6 o'clock hold from day one , sounds like yours is set perfect ..... Granted Ive not read the whole thread!!! very best Winpor

Gusb,

Not sure where you are hitting relative to the bead, but most hunters sight in such that the impact is at the top of the bead. This is because the bead can cover up too much of an animal or other unspecific field target (as opposed to a big, fat, NRA target meant to be aimed at.) Many serious iron sight users opt for a flat topped post, but this would not be "correct" for your Model 70, and you may want to keep it correct. Some other serious iron sight users opt for a small globe front like the Lyman 17A. You would be surprised what can be done with an aperture rear, a globe front, and the right insert. It is a paradigm shift using a front sight you can look "through" rather than "at." But again, not "correct" if you care about that.

Just my opinion, but I think a nice Model 70 like your with a Monte Carlo deserves a scope about like the one that came on yours.

Nice thread, great craftsmanship, good advice, not so good advice, nice job overall. I didn't see this post until today. I saved all my replies for now.

1. I think it was a solid $750 purchase; folks may find steals but not everyday.

2. The stock was the biggest detractor. My initial thoughts on it were redo it and make a nice glass bedded shooter; you did that and very well! The Decelerator could NOT have been installed better! The previous owners did the stock mods/repairs/butchers/etc.

3. Don't buy a new Williams extractor. They are a great upgrade to the pressed metal extractors on the Classics, but are no better than an original pre 64 and would be un original. There are plenty of used extractors on eBay. I have a few and may part with one if we can come to a deal on your Lyman 6W.

4. You recouped a good deal of your investment with that Lyman 6W if you didn't pay too much for it; They are pricey!

5. I agree that the Monte Carlo comb, flip 16a or b, whichever is correct, and that Leupold make a nice hunting rifle. Find yourself a low comb stock with a steel buttplate to match up with that Lyman 48.

Randy Shuman, one of the contributors on Roger Rules books told me that Winchester did offer different front sight heights to get the guns zeroed(factory original installation). I have seen the gold bead Redfield front sights, that were on Supergrades in various heights. Lyman front sights were used on the very early guns.

The M70 came out predawn of optics for everyday use. Guys didn't fully trust optics until the mid 50's, hence the various detachable scope mounts. I think you should shop around for a vintage Lyman front sight of the proper height for your application. Find a vintage blank for that rear sight dovetail while you are at it. I think I would scope that gun up again and find a steel butt wearing low comb standard gun to wear that Lyman 48! I am serious, not joking, I would buy another gun to match that sight! The gun you have looks like a solid hunter!

Good post Mike. Glad to have you aboard..

Thanks sbrmike for the kind words and experienced feedback. I especially appreciate the "Decelerator" comment, I fabricated/welded together a base to mount my belt sander just to grind that pad. At least now I can do another at some point if the need comes up.

You have, I think, kind of hit the nail on the head. I'm always lusting after an old .375 H&H with a straight stock and aperture sight and that kinda skews my better judgment sometimes. I'm really beginning to like shooting the 30-06 and may put the Leupold back on and put the Lyman 48 in it's box for a collectable paper weight for a while. I think there have been a few negative comments about the Weaver mounts, I kind of like the look (reminds me of being a kid). Any advice on mounts (appropriate old, new Leupold, etc.)?

I wanted the Lyman 6W for that special ".375 H&H down the road" that may or may not ever happen. Maybe we can work out some kind of trade at some point. It seems in really good shape - what do you think "ball-park" value would be? Would one of your used extractors fit/function correctly without special work? My original still seems to function well enough, just looks like it's been messed with a little.

I will say this Weaver bases hold zero, period! There are some Weaver or Weaver style out there with rounded cross slots instead of the squared slots; I can't vouch for those, but the square cross slots are tough and hold zero/repeatable zero.
There are lots of rings out there that are easier to install than the Weaver banded style.

A nice Lyman 6W recently sold for $175 on eBay. If they are complete on a 375 base they sell for $250 all day long. There is a 458 sight on ebay that started at #250 and has been reduced/relisted numerous times with no takers. I almost think about getting it and putting it on my 375 but I think the hole spacing is different. I also think that the guys who own Africans don't mess with them much, hence no need for a replacement sight to replace one that had been removed by the previous owner. 75% of the 375's for sale are missing the rear sight; I lucked out and at least have the base on mine.

As far as extractors go on pre 64's is if undamaged/unaltered it should work just fine as a drop-in. The extractor collar has a function in this operation as well. The collars do need to fit the bolt properly and exert tension on the extractor. You extractor looks damaged and/or altered.

Something to always consider on pre 64's is they were hand fit and finished by gunsmiths; they were not put together by laborers off of the street. Things like stocks and buttplates are less than 50% chance of going together and fitting as the stocks were hand sanded and then the buttplates fit and married to that stock. The barrels were also hand polished by a human and they vary in diameter.

I do not think you could go wrong with a low comb 375 with a Lyman 48 on it. There are tons of them out there with no rear sight! I once had a 375 with a Lyman 48 WJS mounted that could be left on while using a scope. I used Leupold QR bases. I had a friend mill down the top surface of the base and the torx heads a bit to where the slide from the Lyman 48 went low enough to zero and clear the scope tube.

There is a Lyman 37FA front sight on eBay right now. The 103C and Lyman 31W were both .310" high; that 37FA will be .370" high. Here is the formula:

Inches error times the sight radius in inches then divide the result by the distance to the target in inches equals the height difference for the sight.

ETA: I am not looking too hard for a Lyman 6W. My gun is reblued plus they are calibrated for 200 and 500 yards! I like my irons @ 50-75 yards!

I went back and did the math that will only get you halfway there assuming the installed front sight is .310" high; you need .120" taller than .310 or .430 high and that probably won't fit with a hood.

FWIIW about Weaver base and rings . . . One of the more famous .375 M70s in the world is the one owned for years by Finn Aagaard. I believe it is still in his family, and I hope it remains so. In every picture of it I have ever seen, it wears Weaver bases and ring. Finn did his share of minor gunsmithing on his rifles, adding cross bolts to the stock and other such things. I believe he fit a new M70 stock to that very rifle. I'd bet Mr. Aagaard was aware of other mounts, could get them if he wanted, and certainly had the ability to mount them. He USED his rifles, and he expected them to work.

One of my projects is a 9.3x62 on a commercial FN action from a Higgins M50. The rear scope mount holes are non-standard spacing (for Mauser) on some M50s, and this is the case with mine. This particular rifle will probably cause me to settle on Weaver style bases from Warne. Since I would like quick detach and return to zero, I am seriously considering the "ugly" Weaver rings as a tip of the hat to Mr. Aagaard. I know there are nicer looking rings that will also return to zero, but I am considering homage to a great hunter.

Gus, Great job bringing the old girl back from the dark side. That is truly a piece to be proud of now, and as Mike said, the pad job looks particularly good- better than on a lot of factory rifles you see nowadays. With minimal TLC it should be good for a couple more lifetimes. Very Best, John