I was reading the article,"RETURN OF THE KING" by Dick Metcalf in the May/June Rifleshooter magazine,and the article was well written, providing some good info on the new rifle.The pictures presented a nice looking rifle,and the article was favorable.A couple of statements bugged me.

The first was the above quote, which I found sort of silly ,especially in light of his later statements wherein he says,"........I've never before been interested in the Winchester M70 all that much because, as legendary firearms authority Col. Townsend Whelan famously put it,"Only accurate rifles are interesting"....."

He then goes on to describe how he chose a Remington over a winchester because the finish and trigger were better,and subsequent M70's he tried never shot that well, etc apparently because QC was lacking.

So, based on a lack of extensive experience with the rifles either at the range or in the game fields,Metcalf trashes a trigger design that's been proven field worthy and reliable for 71 years,and that we've been waiting with bated breath for this miraculous new design(which MAY prove to be very good; we'll see in 71 years.)

I was also surprised to hear that the model 70 has not cut it from the accuracy standpoint,which sort of surprised me....

This sort of stuff is the reason I cannot take much gunwriter evaluation articles very seriously at all.......

maybe we oughta invite him to post here.


lack of experience with something is nor a precursor to offering "the" definitive opinion of such at the campfire! (grin)

They don't seem to be fooling you Bob.

"Keep the wheat and throw the chafe away".

AK/Savage:

Bob,

I read Metcalf's article on triggers in Shooting Times while I was waiting for my car that was in scheduled maintenance yesterday.
I like the design of the new Browning and Winchester triggers, both designed by the same design team and they are three lever designs. They should be as good as the Savage AccuTriggers, maybe better.

Hmmm... Wasnt Whelen one of the first biggest proponents of the M70? Glad I already have all the rifles I need.

All the rifles you need, maybe. How many do you want?
As for triggers, my M70s are just fine, thank you.

I am always puzzled when somebody suggests the Model 70's of any era won't shoot. I have owned a pile of them made anywhere from the late 1940's onward, and while there is always some variation in factory rifles, I have owned 70's from every period that would shoot EXTREMELY well.

One I have in my safe right now is a pre-'64 .30-06 that, with all the screws tightened down (including the barrel screw), will shoot cloverleaves at 100 yards with most ammo, factory or handloads.

It sounds like Metcalf's got a whole lot more to learn about the Model 70 than he has to teach.......

AD

MD: Been my experience exactly. Actually,sometimes removing the screw works well,too.

Don: I seriously doubt that FN would release a bad trigger on the public in this litigious age. In all probability the design team objective was a safer trigger as well. I don't know.Is it more durable, and able to withstand rough use? Only time in the field and millions of rounds will tell.

What cracked me up was the audacity of the statement, (that we've all been waiting for the change),and the inference that the rifle and its' design was sort of half-baked and inferior until now.

This is from a fellow who did an article on handgun rounds we should drop. I don't recall all of the cartridges, but he dismissed the 45 Colt (and tried to justify it).

I'm waiting to hear John Browning was a poor designer.

Perhaps I am thin skinned and he is just doing his job, but I take his work half-hearted.

Every change that has been introduced to the Model 70 over the last 45 years has been introduced under the guise that the change in question has actually been an "improvement".

In some cases, those changes HAVE been improvements, but many of them have been instigated simply to reduce manufacturing costs, reduce the necessity of labor-intensive hand-fitting, and to decrease the odds of product liability litigation.

In every case, a gunwriter has been recruited to herald and embrace the changes. In some cases, those writers have been knowlegable and sincere, and in other cases they have had only superficial experience with the Model 70, and they've served as little more than PR men.

It all follows a familiar pattern, and the new Model 70 trigger and the latest published comments about the Model 70 in general follow well-trodden, familiar trail.....

AD

I've always liked the M70's over the Remingtons even though I've owned and still own more Remingtons than Winchesters.
Winchesters won't shoot ? That's funny. My factory Winchester Fwt. .308 has shot the smallest group I've ever shot. Better than either of my Pac-Nor barreled custom rifles. Even the infamous Barsnes X, in the old XLC form, shot well under MOA for me.
I've always appreciated the M70 safety and the much easier to keep clean trigger over the Remingtons. My custom 660 Remington has a custom M70 safety. BTW, the trigger on my M70 Fwt. is a creep free, 2.5 lbs. It doesn't get any better than that as far as I'm concerned. While the fancy Savage trigger is nice, it isn't in the same company. E

Of all the rifles I own, one of the very best triggers is on a transition period pre'64 M70 action.
Take a look at one sometime- it's just elegant simplicity.

ah heck Bob, I opened this thinking that they had actually put Jewells in them.....

Dober

Winchester Fwt. .308 - Possibly my most beloved!

Got to get this resolved someday, before tragedy strikes: Housefire: My Fwt. .308 or the woman. Boy, life throws hard decisions in your way, .

I have never had a M70, either pre or post 64 with a bad trigger.......some required a little tweaking but all were good in the end.

And I've had more than a few............

MM

MM/Eremicus:...I thought there was something wrong with me .....I sure have not been sitting around waiting 30+ years for a better M70 trigger. Judging from responses, I am not alone.........

Methinks that Dick Metcalfe is, as J'OC once put it,...toiling in the lower bowel of the gunwriting industry... I have learned to expect this sort of BS from most gunwriters and seldom even pickup "Rifleshooter" when shopping at the supermarket where I buy my groceries and "Rifle" and "Handloader" which are the only mags. worth purchasing.

All in all, who gives a rat's patoot WHAT Dick Metcalfe thinks, anyway?

As far as I am concerned, most of the best bolt actions I have had, have been model 70s or FNs , now that is in charge of the model 70 !
I might actuly buy a rifle of the new rack instead of looking for one on the used rack.
But there are lots of good sounding new products comming out soon,
that new sako that will sell for considerably less that the model 70s (I think) has a 5 shot 1 inch guarenty.
If I can hold it and it feels right, and like a real rifle, not a plastic & pot metel kids toy, I might have one or two of those.
...tj3006

I hope Mr. Metcalfs handle is a pseudonym, there's laws against that kinda stuff. Worse yet, he's talking about my M70.

Well, the original M70 trigger is a marvel of simplicity that can easily be tweaked to literal perfection. How in the world anyone can call a more complicated system an improvment is beyoud me.
Regarding Dick Metcalf; maybe he should stick to the handguns he seems to know so well. IIRC, all he ever worked with was handguns for way too many years in Shooting Times. he didn't impress me then and he does not impress me now.
Paul B.

Have you seen him blazing away with AR's on the Outdoor Channel? Why should anyone regard what he propounds? The word 'tool' is one of his favorites: "... defense tool ..." Tool, indeed.

For my part I would have kept the old trigger ... at least the new gun should have been made so cranks like me could put one of the old triggers into it. The bean counters simply cannot credit the power of tradition.

I don't because I have found most of his writing does not align with even my limited experience....BUT here is why I do care--he has great influence, simply by being a long-published writer, upon those who do not have the experience to discern his errors.