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

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.

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".

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.

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....

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

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".

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

Yes some of them are very pretty.