Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Winchester Model 70 Questions

Allen,

I might could buy the argument about adjusting for the hole spacing, but the argument that 2 piece bottom metal is stronger, and that it "lends support to the action" is just absolute hogwash.

Try this: Take just the action, so stock or barrel needed. Instal two piece bottom metal, and then explain to me how it "lends support to the action", when if the floorplate is not closed, and latched tightly over the mag box, the whole thing flops around and falls apart. Do you think that would happen with a 1 piece unit?

In conclusion, a 2 piece unit is a compromise, required only with an out of spec receiver. Me, I'd much rather pick a true receiver and run the superior one piece bottom metal.

Oh, and not that Matt needs my defending, but he makes BOTH the one piece and two piece designs, so he has a vested interest in BOTH designs.

I would never hesitate to change out the Winchester MIM extractor to one of Matt Williams' spring steel units, which is exactly what I did and I never looked back. Took less than five minutes to install and works perfectly. I also changed out a pot metal trigger guard for one of his steel trigger guards and it is beautiful. To my way of thinking, it enhances the rifle's value. Thanks...Bill.

CAS, just about all Model 70 receivers are off just a little bit, and to me it's simply incomprehensible that a one-piece bottommetal unit is going to match-up perfectly by any means other than sheer, blind, random, pot-luck. And I owned one extreme example that had screw holes that were drilled so crooked that it was unusable altogether.

I don't believe in the "one-size-fits-all" bottommetal any more than I believe in "drop-in" replacement extractors or triggers that are supposed to unfailingly work perfectly without any adjustment. Bolt and cartridge case dimensions vary a lot as well........... as do sear and cocking-piece dimensions, etc.

The middle guard screw CAN be used as a solid anchoring point in the three-screw design. Miller adds a massive middle pillar on his rifles that is machined perfectly after installation, in conjuntion with the front and rear pillars, and his instruction is to tighten all three screws the same. It's stress-free, and it absolutely lends great support and rigidity to the receiver.

I've seen one-piece setups that were not perfect in form and function, either. Unless the inletting is carried out perfectly, the frame will stick out below the stockline, look ugly, etc.

At the end of the day, and I think this is a fair statement, the experience, intelligence, and skill of the individual gunsmith and his ability to properly evaluate, then modify and finish a specific reciever, counts for more than anything else...........

AD

Allen, I'd say you have had some of the worst luck of anyone I've ever seen on guard screw holes being out of position. Scope bases holes....yes, but I've yet to see them get there guard screws out enough to cause a failure on installing a one-piece bottom metal.

Truth is, we manufactured at one time, nearly 10,000 one-piece bottom metals a year for USRAC. Do you want to know how many didn't fit their rifles????? NONE.

If I was in a position that I couldn't do my own inletting, or didn't have the money to pay someone to do it for me, but wanted good quality steel, I'd opt for a floorplate and hinge assembly coupled with a steel trigger guard.

The two-piece system is a compromise, but one that many people who are trying to save money or lack the expertise to inlet their stock are willing to use.....that's really it's market, not for an upgrade over a one-piece design.

I've had many conversations with D'arcy Echols and yes he prefers the two-piece design for the reasons that you mentioned here. His reasons or opinions, as they are, are simply that.....opinions of what he prefers. No doubt he builds some nice rifles and I'm surely not going to tell him that he can't buy anymore trigger guards from us because he's not using a one-piece design.

It would do you well to analyze the engineering end of the problem at hand and draw your own conclusions, rather than taking a builders word as gospel on the subject.

RE: Williams products.
I recently acquired two USRAC M 70's I put a Williams steel trigger guard on .30-06 FWT and it fits better than the original. Holds the floorplate more secure, no slop, no binding.
Great product.
Mike Fletcher

Did you have to do any trimming? I've been thinking about replacing the bottom metal on my M70 but was worried about ahving to trim the stock.

Absolutely no fitting needed. Opened the floor plate. Removed the two trigger guard screws. swapped trigger guards and replaced screws. Took less time than typing this!
Mike Fletcher

PS Based on this I am going to get the new Williams bottom metal for a couple three short action Remington 700's!

Thanks for the info, i'll be swapping both my M70's by years end!

so, is there a link to win serial numbers, and dates of manufacture?

Only one I know of is this one. http://oldguns.net/sn_php/winmods.htm

Nothing personal, but I'm not buying it.

I cannot afford rich rifles, but, my issue M40 is probably worth six grand or so civilian retail. If I took the above statement to the shop at Quantico and tried to get the bottom metal changed out for a 2pc "improvement", I'd be laughed at. A 2pc system would degrade the M40.

I agree that M70 QC went down the tubes and I've been the owner of a Supergrade '06 that had about everything out of square. But, saying the 2pc-system is superior as it better accomodates slop doesn't cut it. To me that's like saying a 2pc scope mounting system w/ windage is superior to a one piece solid system because it better fits a receiver w/ off axis mount holes.

As far as guild smiths and their prefered systems go. Many of their specialized systems may be superior for them and there customers, but it certainly doesn't make them universally superior across the board. As example; I'm no Phil Shoemaker but I've followed up on a few bears and had my share of experiences. I for one prefer my bear rifle to have a field removeable scope to access fixed sights. I find this superior to permanent mounts. There are famous guild smiths who refuse to use such mounts and claim their systems are superior. But to me their systems are worthless. This also applies to the bottom metal.

GVA