Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire List the reasons why a pre-64 winchester is better

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....

IMO, some of the later pre-64's were not so nice. The post 63's were not either. It took a while for Winchester to get it right, maybe it was due to a change of owners.The pre-64's were too expensive to make. The post 63's were made cheap.
(I own a classic 70 in 338 that has the extractor people coo about and that rifle is a work of art and I have no problems with it's accuracy. I don't hate Winchesters!)
To further answer your question. The wood to metal fit was poor during this period of time. The quality of finish went down after 63. the blueing went South, etc.
My cousin brought over a Model 94 30-30 bought in about 64. The best groups we could get with it would not be covered by a pie plate at 100 yards. It was sad days for Winchester.

Probably as big as anything is the pre-64 controlled round feed action, versus the later push feed. A reliability issue.

Can you show documented cases where the CRF actually saved someone's azz?

Look for pressed checkering instead of hand checkering. It really started earlier than 1964. They quit hand polishing the internal parts and replaced workers with machines.

It's the reason the pre's demand a premium.

Pre-64s have a one-piece bolt. I.E. Bolt handle and bolt body are forged out of one piece of steel.

I've had at least one bolt handle come off of a post-64 Model 70.

Because you can get a 22Hornet or 243 in a LONG ACTION and have one all up under 11 pounds.

Yeah...but they'll save you from charging rhinos upside down.

And the only rifles that beat them in the accuracy department are Remington, Ruger, Tikka, Savage, Browning, Marlin....

cause they're old like me


and people should appreciate old chit

Then I give you some real old chit to appreciate.

Never owned one, but I have family that treasure them.

The designs were unquestionably cheapened in 64, to please bean counters - which offended a lot of people of conservative values. i.e. if it works, don't mess with it. Prior to that, it was a reliable (if heavy), well made all-American rifle, from America's most famous Gunmaker, and many returning WWII vets sought them out as a matter of national pride, and also because they were a genuinely good rifle. O'Connor and others used them. I know of one .30-06 Featherweight that shoots very well, and supposedly spent time with a mercenary in Africa. I take the story with a grain of salt, but it does shoot well.

Some shot better than others, but most people say they never had one that wasn't decently accurate, or functioned correctly. Some guys point out that the flat bottomed, forged action is easier to bed than a round bar stock action, like a 700.

To me, they are a bit heavy for a deer rifle. I think they hit the sweet spot starting at .300 mag then .338 and .375, where the weight is not a bad thing.

Technically, there are better rifles today, but like the Savage 99, they were interesting and well made, and they aren't making any more of them.

The control round feed came back eventually. I think the biggest difference is the coned breech. I have never had a problem with accuracy or dependability with my pre or post 64s.

Scott is right about the long action thing. I had a pre-64 220 Swift and I got rid of it, who needs a 22 caliber sporter that weighs 9 lbs? If it had something tighter than a 14 1/2" twist I might have kept it but it wouldn't shoot 55 grain polymer tipped bullets or even a 60 grain Partition. It was strictly a varmint gun.

I bought a new 1968 Model 70 in 7 rem mag. In three shots it walked off the paper at 100yards from the barrel touching the stock. Then the ejector broke. Instead of plunger type it had a little clip. I have finished new stocks and refinished quite a few old ones and my worse ones were far better than the original finish on that 7 mag

can't wait to see you

and feed you a home cooked meal


Vienna sausages and lutefisk sound ok?


it's a lil early out my way to be showing horror films, but thanks for your offering


all's needed now is Travis to tell us "I'd hit it"

The term "need" keeps coming up. If need had anything to do with what people owned and hunted with, the world would be a boring place. I like a pre-64 for all the reasons Steelhead mentioned and a few more. I don't own a single one because I need it...

Speaking of old chit.....

One of those that if you have to ask...That and of course their safeties actually WORK, their extractors aren't made of sheet metal, their handles aren't glued on and they are extremely accurate. The CRF/PF, not that big of a deal in my book, but no question EXTRACTION is more reliable with a CRF, not to mention Professional Hunters, whose very lives depend on their rifle, almost to a man prefer the CRF. One thing is for sure though, if you are into smaller calibers that fit in short actions, then look elsewhere...anywhere besides a 700 that is...

Cause dad bought it new, in 1956.

The number one reason is that you can sell them for more money, since people will pay more for them.