Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Rebuilding a pre 64

I presume you are talking about using the Winchester Extreme action over the pre 64 with this comment.



bsa are you saying the pre 64 action would be a better choice than the Winchester Extreme?

I'd take a Pre-64 over a Classic, NH or SC, any day.

Not to say they aren't good actions, they are.

But, they're no Pre-64...

DF

Sorry, I've been out buddy. Been busy as hell. To answer your question, yes and that is what I did. However, this was after shooting them side by side and doing extensive testing with them. It's hard to imagine that the old rifle would be better, but to my own personal tastes it was and I ended up sending the EW down the road. I do know that these rifles were not set-up exactly the same way though and the pre 64 fwt was bone stock, except for the optics and my usual glass bedding and trigger work. I know I've posted pics of my rifles a thousand times and some get tired of it, but here goes again. The rifles I had compared side by side. Disclaimer, please do not take offense if you are stuck on newer rifles and won't accept the fact that the old rifles were just as good, and better in some ways:

Early (2008) 30-06 EW in Mcmillan hunters compact edge stock:


This rifle is a true blue campfire style rifle in every sense of the word: Leupold scope, talley lightweights, Mcmillan edge stock, yad yada yada...


Old 1956 30-06 fwt. Original stock, glass bedded by yours truly, trigger adjusted to 2.5 pounds:



This rifle is set-up to my own personal tastes: Burris FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle, Leupold dual dovetail mounts and rings (lows). Not trying to go with the flow of the fire with this rifle, just set up exactly how I like them....


The best rendition of the EW I have now is my 270 fwt and I prefer it over the EW as well. I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the edge filled stock. I much prefer the standard fill hunters compact over the edge fill. My 270 fwt has the same stock as the EW, but is the standard fill.

Also, please bear with me and keep in mind that when I say I did a side by side comparison, it was at the range, off the bench and in field positions. If there's a quirk in the rifle, I'm going to find it there first before it even goes to the hunting field. With this being said, the EW did have a bobble with the extractor. I had to replace the original one and was quite displeased with that. However, I've had to replace exactly 1 Pre 64 extractor too, when I found a problem with weak ejection (yes extractor was faulty, even though it was having hiccups with ejection). I get that a 60 year old rifle (this year) would have a worn extractor, but not a 3 year old rifle that was barely shot: Just sayin... However, I've heard of some instances where BACO has put on a wrong extractor too. This kind of stuff never left the factory back when the pre's were being built/"coddled at the factory" (old saying BobinNH used to use)... I too agree with dirtfarmer, the classics and Baco's are good rifles, but are not a pre 64...... Take that anyway you want....

I'm no expert, but here is my take.

First, I would much rather see someone take apart a modern M70 than a Pre '64. I don't even get tearing up non collector rifles that have been D&T for side mounts. Yah, it ruins collector value, but it takes nothing away from the RIFLE, especially if it is sound and accurate otherwise. Shot out barrels and badly butchered stocks are "fair game." But all that is just me, my opinion, and not my property.

I have lost track of the "generations" of modern M70's. It seems there are early and late New Haven Classics, the Carolina guns with the new triggers, and now the Portugal made ones with new triggers, correct? I have also lost track of where the Pre '64's are clearly better than the various modern guns, but I believe they are mostly about the bolt handle, extractor, and trigger. I believe there is also the difference of the feed rails being part of the receiver or the magazine. Depending on how "critical" the use, a fair question might be how important these various things are? For example, there are very few acceptable compromises on a dangerous game rifle or one that will be used on high dollar, "far away" hunts. (Although I believe Finn Aagaard's .458 was a push feed rifle, which goes against what many of us hold "sacred.") Finally, how hard are these issues are to correct and how expensive compared to taking apart a nice Pre '64? At the end of the day, it seems to me one can build a nice hunting rifle on a modern M70 action. How much better a rifle built on a Pre '64 truly is might be hard to prove by any objective measure.

D'Arcy Echols builds rifles on both, but I don't know his opinion on which is better or which modern M70 actions are acceptable.

Finally, as BSA said, what does Redneck have to say?

Sadly Redneck has not voiced any opinion on this thread.