Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors pre 64 Winchester 70 Featherweight

Roger Rules book says the barrel was floated on the Featherweights. I have two and they both are partial floating. They don't have clearance near the receiver, and both also appear to have pressure points at the end of the stock; a little over one inch non-floating on each end on both of these guns.

Is this how they came from Winchester or what was the amount of floating as originally made?

They were't really "floated" as they came from the factory.Neutral bedded without pressure on the fore end,maybe...sort of laying there flat....but not floated.

That's how mine have been, but I didn't know the answer either. I wasn't around then...

I have always had success full length bedding standard weight pre 64 Wins; most will cloverleaf or better. I have one Featherweight that is untouched and is as I stated. I have another Featherweight assembled from parts that fits the exact same way.

I want to give the best looking and best shooting to my grandson for his 12th birthday later this year. I want the untampered with stock to be as it came from Winchester and will also supply a good looking glass bedded stock with a pad for shooting/hunting. I am sure there has been some crush or shrinkages since 1955 and 1956 on these stocks.

Lucky kid to have you as his grandfather!

Please don't put a pad on another model 70. Teach the kids to use a 1907 style sling and there is no need for a pad.

The pad seems appropriate for a 12 year old... and for the very old... me, in .30-06.

They are much more pleasant to shoot with a recoil pad installed...

BSA, I have become reluctantly agreeable with that statement. It hurts as a purist, but you're just plain right..
And I will flat azz not mess with a FWT unless I find that it just will not shoot.
BTW- Z3 Swaro now fully funded and winging its way for the 30'06 FWT

I don't think I could make myself cut an original stock. But since there are so many out there where someone has already cut the stock, and those are cheaper to boot, I don't have to face that issue.

My Standard rifles are all heavy enough that I don't feel the need for a recoil pad. Of course mine are all 30-06 or smaller.
I guess the .264's have more powder capacity, but the 30-06 kicks the hardest.

I'm not a big fan of shooting my FWT 06 off a bench. My 375 kicks less. I shoot a lot of older SXS shotguns and most of these have a short LOP. I use a slip on recoil pad to add length to the stock. I would recommend one of these long before I'd advocate the cutting of the stock.

They also stick in the shoulder more securely with less tendency to slide around when mounting quick or under recoil.

No where did I say I was cutting off an original stock and putting on a pad. I did say I was giving him the original stock plus a bedded stock with a pad.

There are loads of pre 64 stocks in about any configuration (except the one you need at the time) on eBay; Classic low comb or Monte Carlo, pads added in a myriad of LOP's, mid 50's with nice checkering, and later uglies with plastic buttplates and tiny machine cut checkering patterns, and of course unmolested aluminum buttplate jewels from the mid 50's, but you have to want one of them, as they are awfully proud of them.

Years ago, before the internet, pre 64 Win parts were hard to find. Now they are everywhere, but there are countless M70's being disassembled and parted out; many for no good reason except the mighty dollar. It used to be you would buy a badly butchered example to rob parts to fix a more valuable one. I do my best to reassemble pre 64 model 70's.

I do want to know just how they, the featherweights, did come from Winchester in 1955 and 1956. I know there was quite a gap on the first post 64's to facilitate floating of the then new hammer forged barrels. I never noticed a gap on the featherweights, but did check them with a sliver of thin cellophane upon reading that in Roger Rules book. I am not recoil shy, but a good pad does reduce felt recoil for sure.

Yes sir. I just put the original stock back on my '56 fwt and will probably keep it that way. I love the rifle in it's original shape, but don't like shooting it as much as my newer classic sporter in the Tupperware with a pachmayr decelerator. The fwt is much nicer to pack around though and it handles better..

Exactly...

Show me a 12-year old who would be embarrassed to hunt with a pre-'64 that had been padded.

I'm far from 12 but I would hunt with that rifle in a heart beat.

pal, Isn't that the gun you bought off the rack at a GS in Cali. for around $800? That paticular rifle is what I aspire all 3 of my pre-64 fwts. to look like. Well, except for the original alum. buttplate on 2 of them. That gun is in some ways the best of both worlds- about as good-looking as most things in the safe AND all that a pre-64 embodies at a reasonable price!
John

Yeah, it was $700 plus tax and BS Calif fees. And someone already put a pad on it for me, just the way i'd want it.

well, it sure looks worth more than that.

I think pal's rifle is very nice and extremely usable the way it is. I'm sure it's a lot more gentle on the shoulder than an aluminum butt plate fwt..

A cushion is always better than none.

I don't mind hunting with the factory buttplate, but then a recoil pad is nice for target practice.

pal, that's a beautiful rifle, pad and all.

Thanks. It's close enough for me.

I had a swirly on my 30-06 fwt, but it just didn't make the cut. I put it on my 375 H&H and it's much better there. The fwt 30-06 got it's old original stock thrown back on. Not that I'm bothered by that

If it gets to bothering you send it my way. Looks great to me!

BSA I like it just the way it is. Wood stocks and rifles go together (most of the time) like peanut butter and jelly

Thanks, it's one of my favorites. Just the way it came from the factory...

I have closely examined mint sample in caliber .30-06 and I do not remember the barrel being floated. It had shorter barrel of lighter than standard contour and no front bottom screw through the stock. Excellent light rifle though recoil would be noticeable with that metal butt plate. It is sad to realize that shooters today are such softies requiring rubber recoil pads. I insist on NO recoil pads.

I have all the FWT's and all have the metal butt plate. None have objectionable recoil in the field. The only one that's somewhat objectionable after a while is the 06 off a bench.

I'm not a fan of recoil pads either.

I just got back from the range shooting a 30/06 FW with one of those hard butt plates. I was wearing a wool cruiser jacket and I'm not crippled.Or even in any pain

Not my idea of the kind of rifle I'd want to run 50-100 rounds through in an afternoon. Better stuff for that.

But to be honest I was more bothered by the guy at the next bench shooting a 22-250 with a muzzle brake on an AR platform......that damned brake was loud and annoying. I never noticed the recoil of the 30/06.