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.

Metal fit is great, triggers are great, most are very accurate.

The stock ergos suck and get worse with a scope. They are heavy.

Spot on, although they did improve the scope issue somewhat during the post war transition and into the 50s.

When folks that run them, say they are very accurate. Are we saying a gun from the 60s or earlier is more accurate than those produced today on average?

What made that so?

Kimber Montana owners are the only ones that care about ergonomics. We don't need no stinkin ergonomics.

Because they ain't making them anymore...

(Tell us she goes 'bang' more reliably than a Model 70 just to keep the thread on track.)

I don't intend to charge any rhinos, but if I did, I would certainly do so in an upright position.

Better than what?

Jack O'Connor had a few choice things to say about the post-'64 Winchesters, none of them good.

The hell with pre 64 rifles, I generally prefer pre-64 people.

My dad had had one deer rifle got the past 40 years, A pre-64 featherweight. When I work the bolt, I can tell why I'd prefer one. Just smooth and solid st the same time. The only rifle I have that compares is a husqvarna made about the same time.

A Pre-64 vs a current rifle.

Mostly it's the feed lips on the action. How often do you encounter a pre-64 with feeding issues? Unless it's been mucked with, NEVER! Post 64, the feed lips are built into the magazine body (which is how everyone builds rifles these days).

The pre-64's are just uber-reliable, absolute foolproof reliable.

I think the pre-64 action was a degradation of the Mauser action IMO, but it's still a straight up world class rifle.

Regarding the stock...Ergonomically I like it very much, it feels great. But visually it's hideous.

Unless of course, it's from the Custom Shop

Nice rifle, Jorge. What's the chambering?

Evidence that the pre-64 is the best rifle out there to re-stock. Notice Jack O'Connor had Al Biesen re-stock most of his model 70's. I don't know if that's a Biesen, but it sure looks to be heavily influenced by Biesen. VERY nice Jorge.

Because all the cool kids have one.

Winchester Custom Shop...

Because the gun writers who couldn't think of anything else to write about, said so.

I will say, however, I do have a SC M70 Super Grade, that I recently bought from a relative. That's a slick rifle, well finished, and buttery smooth action.

Nostalgia

If you can live with a Ruger American or a modern Savage, there is no way you could grasp the love for pre 64 model 70's.
A fellow can't know what he don't know.

Some people will take their beat up pickup that is broken down half the time over a new one.

Some people say they like their flip phones and wouldn't trade it for a newer model.

Some people...

Spotshooter: If you have to ask then you aren't smart enough to understand any of the reasons!
You deserve a 1966 vintage Model 70!
Sheesh!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Huh? So that isn't a part of the allure for you?

I have a thing for custom Mausers, Springfields, and would love a pre-64 Model 70 someday. In addition to the list offered by the OP I'd be lying if I said it has nothing to do w/ nostagia.

Did I touch a nerve there?

The old guns had soul. Most newer ones, not so much.
If that doesn't make a difference to you, you can't understand.

That sounds like nostalgia to me?

Yes, the key to a successful line of rifles is to make a decent rifle for several years then stop production and follow it up with a POS.

YOU SUCK!

(Unless you will the rifle to me...)

270~snicker

Couldn't this same argument be made against the pre-64 crowd in favor of a MRC or Kimber 84 action?

Seems to me those have all of the features that make the pre-64 M70 desireable plus a couple more?

I've always thought a pre-64 rifle (complete with enough "done to it" to make it less costly collector-wise) in 264 WM, 30-06, 338 WM, or 375 H&H would be FANTASTIC as a work-every-season rifle.

I don't collect rifles I hunt 'em so maybe some of this pre-64 stuff is lost on me.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a post 64. All I have had were better shooters the the pre 64s. Unbelievable that guys will pay more for a rem 700 and turn their nose up at a push feed mod 70.
I do love the pre 64 more for the image than function.. And they are just plain worth more...

Until they start milling the feed lips into the receiver, they will never be the equal of a pre-64 model 70; I don't care what "features" they have.

one time at a band camp hunt in Rhodesia there was this girl with a crf flute

How'd that work out when the tuba line charged?

Well put.

Perhaps an in depth discussion of the manufacturing techniques would be more beneficial to the tire kickers here. Much like with S&W you can loosely map, chronologically speaking, manufacturing changes.

Lists are meaningless.....I know you want it laid out in print, but you can't have it.

Run (shoot and hunt and abuse if you want) 30-40 of them,and 30-40 of anything else you want that came from a factory, comparably priced. Shoot 20-30,000 rounds through them all (a good start). You'll answer your own question.

I'vehad and hunted a pre64 model 70 in 30-06. wasn't impressed by anything more than what I was offered for it. I sold it to the sucker for a grand and laughed all the way to the bank. he even let me keep the scope

sure it was a nice rifle, but no better than my ruger m77mk2. the ruger is smoother, more accurate and the trigger is nicer.
not poo-pooing the pre 64's at all, they are fine, I just don't get why folks drool over em and fall over themselves to hold one.

So reading between the lines -

Are you guys saying the design of the action changed in 64 ?

YES GOD PLEASE..

The one I had did nothing better than any other rifle.

I crack up at the guys that praise the dependability but leave them home whenever the weather turns a little sour. A friend of the family is one of those that get wood if you even say the words "pre 64", but admits it's mostly a nostalgia thing.

What do YOU think ?

GTC

I think they must have but NO ONE ever details what they were.

This is easy, some guys can't cycle a bolt correctly, so the CRF helps prevent double feeds.

Despite all the posts...

In order to reduce manufacturing costs in the face of higher labour rates, rifles manufactured from 1964 to 1992 differed from early Model 70s in the following ways:

The bolt was changed significantly. The bolt face was enclosed so that it fully surrounded the cartridge rim, in a similar way to the Remington 700 bolt. While cheaper to manufacture than the undercut bolt face needed for controlled feed actions, it is also stronger, providing more support to the cartridge case head, and better contains escaping gases in the event of a case rupture. The new bolt also differed from the old in that it was manufactured in 2 pieces (bolt-handle/collar and the bolt body[7]) and then brazed together.

The Mauser-inspired, non-rotating claw extractor (incompatible with a fully enclosed bolt head) was eliminated, and replaced with a small wedge-shaped extractor located within a lug of the bolt head. This type of extractor does not engage the cartridge rim as it rises from the magazine into the action, but rather clips over the cartridge rim after the cartridge has been pushed into the chamber and the bolt handle is turned down. This system is more vulnerable than the old system to jamming or being inadvertently closed on an empty breech (i.e. failing to load a new round) if operated under duress, especially if the rifle is held upside down or on its side. In addition, the old extractor design served to stabilize the bolt while the action was open; without it, the new bolt did not have any such stabilization, and wobbled while fully open. This has since been fixed in later rifles, but it was nevertheless an obvious departure and certainly less elegant in function than the earlier models, which allowed the rifle to chamber cartidges smoothly from any position.

Barrels were now rifled by hammer forging, rather than the more costly process of being cut by hand.

The machined steel trigger guard and floor plate were replaced with parts stamped from an aluminium alloy to reduce weight using the assembly from the pre-1964 Featherweight version.
Some earlier models featured walnut stocks with checkering that was impressed onto the wood rather than cut into it as on the early Model 70s, further reducing manufacturing costs at the expense of a less positive grip on the rifle, particularly if the shooter is wearing gloves.

As I remember it from the time, it wasn't a matter of the earlier being somehow "better" than the later, but a matter of relative values to collectors.

Then shooters saw only that the earliers were being sought, and prices rising, and assumed that the issue was quality.

Fixed it for ya'

Nice goin', Ace.

GTC

It is excellent knockabout rifle. Very tough and reliable. Most Americans should stay away from them because they want tiny groups from rifles that don't weigh anything. My recommendation would be pile of hex screws and plastic called Tikka or if saving money is not important Sako. Nothing exemplifies modern quality like plastic stock held to action by hex screws with exception of phillips head screws.

Silicone vs real. First great bolt repeater.

GTC -

The one in material yet significant thing is that they wanted to save money to compete with Remington.. so the Quality investment in the manufacturing process definitely changed to easier methods and very, very likely lower quality.

So Merry Christmas... don't be such a grumpy old fart... pull my finger out...

The old M70's look and operate in a quality manner that's obvious.

I still use my M70 I bought new in 1957 and I have all of them I want.

Of late some of the Kimbers filled in for an lightweight SS Syn stocked rifle.

Here is the last 'pre-64' that I got. It's been restocked and rebarreled to 300 Win. Mag. It's accurate and the best part is that sweet action.

U suk uber

Havent reached those numbers..Took much less to figure out if I wanted CRF to cut to the chase and get a Mauser.If I'm going to perform trick moves (dont act like you dont), I may as well start with the superior action.

I've had a handful come and go,it was kinda like my AR's in 2008, cant believe fools would pay that much for them, and for what,honestly WHY? Cuz it was made in blah blah year, has this and that unchanged, yet you can get an FN or custom MRC for half the price and have more rifle. Nostalgia I suppose,and thats fine but they sure as chit aint better.

I'll keep my old mans pre-64 270. I've read so much about soul and "if they could talk"and such about these rifles, and I've sat quietly while reloading, with my dads rifle stood in the corner, I've never heard the damn thing make a peep.I have pictures of him with the game he's taken with it, but I've seen him hunt with a 700 and 721 just as much, he never claimed mystical powers of the M70..I guess thats why I dont either.

I'm sure i just dont get it tho..

one odd thought here.

Winchester simplifies there design to go cheaper.

But didn't Ruger start up right after that, and make the same claw extractor configuration that Winchester just dropped.

My Old Man had a Winchester and I wanted one too. Hunting is a pretty nostalgic past time and I think a lot of us look at old rifles like pre-64's or pre-Garcia's or pre-war (or whatever) and remember a better time.

I still don't understand why guys will hate on a Winny and brag on a Rem 700. And I don't get why anyone would pose that question in this section either.

Cuz these are the good old days for us?

Better in terms of what?

There are more Whitetails,more elk,sheep,goat..pretty much everything is more plentiful NOW besides Mule Deer.

Granted Leasing land has shut out most of us from good private, but thats hardly a rifle issue.

I found myself in possession of a nice win classic action and I thought what should I build on such a nice classic action. So spun a stainless 338/06 AI barrel on it, cerakoated it all black and dropped it in McMillan WinLite stock that I spraypainted brown. Looks about right now.

We live in the golden age for firearms, I'll never get the fascination for some classic firearms..

rosco I like Mausers , too....press me hard enough, I'll tell you they are a better CRF than a pre 64.

Yes I do trick moves to a pre 64 M70....two....that's all. I replace the stock,mostly with a good synthetic. I have the trigger tuned....That's it. Cause that's all they need

Should add that I have not seen a factory stock on anything, in 40+ years I thought was worth spit,except a Kimber and a Rem 700 MR. If I plan to keep rifle,it gets restocked.

But I have hunted them with the original stocks,too...mostly the FW's but standards in 300,338, and 375,the weights of which are pretty much in line with what's made today in those cartridges.

Then I hunt and shoot with them until the barrel pukes, and put on another one. Or I get bored.

It's the M70's made after 1964 that require most of the trick moves.

It isn't about nostalgia at all for me...I'm not that sentimental. It's pure utilitarian. Every one I have picked up, bought,shot, hunted with,has worked exactly the way it is suppose to....every one,every time, no exceptions. I can't say that about many other rifles.

The rifle is more than the sum of its parts because it got that "Final 10%" that Phil Shoemaker wrote about. Someone tweaked every one to be sure it worked right before it left the factory.All the parts work in sync and were tuned that way.No factory rifle I know of in the same category got as much hands on treatment as the pre 64....which is why many of todays rifles frequently don't work as they should,and guys complain.

Have to disagree with anyone who says they aren't as accurate as others, don't shoot.It isn't true. They are fully as accurate, on average, as most anything made today. Bed them properly, the barrels will shoot...but bedding is something we do with all rifles. When folks say "I owned one of this or that and it didn't shoot"....sorry I don't call that experience.

Yes they are more expensive than they were...people collect them. If you sold a pre 64 FW for a grand,and snickered, bought a Ruger or Remington,thinking you are ahead, you got snookered....the Ruger/Remington is worth shidt,and the pre 64 is now worth $1500-$1800..and the action alone is worth more than the Ruger/Remington. Congratulations? Don't trade stock or real estate.



The OP wants to read about this stuff,so suggest he get a copy of Robert Rule's book to get a feel for how they were made. He covers the post 64 as well,and what the differences were.

He also might do a search on here, and elsewhere,about problems with pre 64's. What he won't find, except only rarely if at all, are threads about failure to feed fire, extract,and cycle,bolt handles that fall off, safeties that stop working, accidental discharges when the safeties are released, broken clip extractors,jammed plunger ejectors, firing pins that back out from slipped set screws,triggers that quit from ice and debris,barrels that don't shoot, empty cases that get ejected into scopes and bounce back into loading ports,connector triggers,extractors that don't extract,MIM parts that break, barrels installed crooked, bulged chambers,and a host of other maladies too numerous to mention.

What he will read about, are guys like Harry Manners and Fin Aggard, Pinnel& Talifson,and Ralph Young who lived entire careers among dangerous game with pre 64's pretty much the way they came...likely because the rifles worked right all the time. It isn't sentiment or nostalgia...it's function.

The other thing he won't see, is concerns about "warranties" because,mostly, they were not needed. Pre 64 users regard them as a curious necessity of a generation raised on stuff that is gonna break. Generally there are no warranties needed on almost anything New Haven built before 1964.

He might read about durability,like with my match shooting pal who fired close to 200,000 rounds through a pre 64 M70 match rifle in practice and competition, that wore several barrels...original trigger and extractor. Never a bauble.


They ain't perfect ( never said they were) but they were good. There are a lot of good rifles out there today. But they have not made anything truly "better" since in a hunting rifle Depending of course, on what you call "hunting".

Pre-'64's were hand fitted.

So were Model A Fords, but I ain't driving across country with one.

Cold & Forboding?

spotshooter the Ruger M77 was not a CRF,and the extractor was not the same as a pre 64. The receiver(and likely other parts,too) were an investment casting(think that's the term). The extractor on the M77 does not function the same as a pre 64; the M77 was a PF rifle.

OTOH, pre 64's receivers were machined from a billet of 4140 CM. Far as I know, there were no castings on the pre 64.

IMHO most of the pre-64's are over rated and over priced. The pre-WW-2 rifles are some nice guns if you base your opinion entirely on craftsmanship rather than performance, but that is true of most any rifle of the era. I'd not be interested in any model 70 made after the war up to about 1980, CRF or PF because of quality concerns.

In 1964 a lot of shooters went crazy when CRF was no longer offered and prices on ANY pre-64 skyrocketed simply because it was CRF. A great many of those guns were not left stock, but used as the basis for customs. Compared to the early PF's made in 1964 up through the 1970's the pre-64's looked pretty good. But by about 1980 that changed.

With Ruger, Winchester, Kimber and Interarms rifles available now with CRF actions the 70's made after the war up to 1963 are just another 50+ year old rifle as far as I'm concerned. Most of them shouldn't sell for a premium although some buyers will pay the price. There are a lot of folks still under the impression that any pre-64 is worth a premium. That is simply no longer true.

I think the PF model 70's made in the 80's and 90's are as good as any rifle ever made by anyone. As a shooter and hunting rifle I'd prefer one of the Classics to any of the pre-64's. Some of the older guns might be better made, but are too valuable to actually use anymore. The post war pre-64's aren't any better than the Classics. The jury is still out on current production FN made rifles. Mine is a good one, but I'm hearing mixed reports.

CRF vs PF isn't a deal breaker for me, although I do have a slight preference for CRF. I've never noted a bit of difference in feeding reliability. I do think the extraction and ejection on CRF is a stronger, more bullet proof system and generally prefer it. The way I see it it doesn't hurt a thing, rifles don't cost a dime more with the feature and it might come in handy.

You are correct Bob, no castings.

How about a pre-pre-64? I have a model 54 in 220 swift.
I know very little about it except it's in great condition and most Winny fans drool over it when they see it.

This is precisely what makes me sentimental and nostalgic.

I also have a model 54 in captivity... It was my uncles and I treasure it for that reason...

I was young, but recall some of the talk when winchester remade the model 70 in 1964. I simply do not remember any fascination with the CRF action, but remember well all the bitching about the newer stock, and the quality of machining and fitting...
I don't recall hearing much about the loss of CRF until a few writers in the late 70s or early 80s stirred that pot. And not that shooters were unaware of the difference. I had a double feed incident with a push fed rifle in the early 70s. My dad didn't wring has hands over the lack of crf. He put me on dry fire action drills til the cows came home. Literally, til the cows came home... I killed the thermometer on our light pole a bajillion times, I suppose...

And... It may mark me as old, but I own a number of winchester rifles... None of them are a "winnie".
My only winnie is a model 700 remington that I rebarreled in 1978 to the winnie (.300 winchester)...
That is, admittedly, being a little picky, and maybe snotty too... I do remember the winnie cartidge and it's rise to fame very well, though...
Things change, I'll deal with it...

For all of the talk of the pre-64 model 70, I have heard very little about how poor the stocks were, on them. Never known anyone to shoot one, for very long, with an unaltered factory stock...
Until the advent of the internet, I do not recall even seeing one with an unaltered factory stock...

But back to the model 54... It was both custom stocked and rebarreled to .257 Robts. And it was the first CF rifle that I ever fired. The uncle who owned it bought a model 700 bdl in the late 70s. That is the rifle that he went to his grave shooting.
He was aware of the differences, but being a pragmatic individual, he went with what he felt was the best rifle of his day...

Pre-64 70's are nice in ways I just don't appreciate. The things they are "better" at, are things I don't care about. I am happy they give so many people joy...really. To me, though, "better" guns are the most accurate, most rugged and most economical ones.

Of course, I feel that way about pretty much everything in life.

Any Model 70 CRF made today is superior to a Pre 64 in wood, metal and finish

Except trigger, and bolt handle...

I have one of each. My new 70 (USA built) is VERY nice. My P64 is much smoother - probably because it was hand fitted and its been shot a lot. Both are nice rifles - neither lives in it's factory stock anymore.

That is a great post - Thank you sir

Yes some of them are very pretty.

Indeed Bob. However, beauty, perfect bluing and excellent stock to metal fit doesn't guarantee it's going to function or operate perfectly. That's the true beauty in a pre 64. They will function like a well oiled machine, day in and day out. They've pretty much proven that they are the true "rifleman's rifle". Not really much to debate here.

bsa that's true.

Rifles "working right" is something the average shooter sort of takes for granted. The way rifles are made today that isn't true;witness the Forbes thread. I'd never fork over $1500 bucks for a rifle that works the way those things seem to be going.

I looked at a SC 375 M70 the other day,which seems very well made and I liked the rifle. My own experience with SC rifles has been quite good and they actually functioned very well,and were nicely finished.

Wish I could fight my way past that trigger.