[ Remingtons.
Pre-'64s will usually shoot well--once the bedding and other factors are dinked with.
Probably one of the biggest reasons the pre--64 M70 lost out was the Featherweight model. It was great in most respects--but Winchester didn't comprehend free-floated barrels. The Featherweights barrels were supposedly free-floated, but in reality were slightly loose around the barrel. As a result most didn't shoot well at all, because the barrel banged around inside the barrel channel, unlike the barrels on the standard-weight, with their tighter bedding and forend screw. Again, I know this partly due to owning pre-'64 Featherweights that were all original--plus reading many of the reviews of Featherweights from the 1950s.
But if you believe the 700 won out back then ONLY because shooters were cheap, then you don't have any comprehension of what happened--and why.
I must be lucky. In my lifetime, I must have owned at least a couple of dozen pre-64s (I only have five now) including FWs and ALL were sub MOA including the FWs. When the post-64s came out they were absolutely horrible in fit and finish (I have no issue with PF rifles). The 700s looked GOOD, were well-finished and shot extremely well which served to hide all the flaws that are now common knowledge and helped foster the cottage industry built around "improving" 700s. But yes the Winchester machinery was in bad shape, the rifles did require a lot more man hours and hindsight is always 20/20, but in my view Winchester should have found a way to either upgrade the manufacturing process (albeit increasing prices) or slowly introduce the post 64 variant whilst taking the time to apply quality control measures to same. Those first few years were HORRIBLE and they never recovered.
