Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#12130760 - 07/06/17 M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless  
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
test1328 Offline
Campfire Ranger
test1328  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
Colorado
Just a question to see if anyone knows the dates that the M70 Classic Featherweight in Stainless/Synthetic were made? I bought one new (270 WCF) sometime around 92, but had to give it up in my divorce. I've spent over 15 years looking for another one and finally found one here for sale on the fire. It is almost new and in .270 to boot. I seem to recall hearing they were only made from 92-94 or something like that but would like confirmation. Thanks for the help.

AIH 300 L
#12131005 - 07/06/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 883
AKwolverine Offline
Campfire Regular
AKwolverine  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 883
False on the 92-94 bit ... Produced from the re intro up to and into the BACO years

#12131293 - 07/06/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,250
bsa1917hunter Offline
Campfire Oracle
bsa1917hunter  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,250
Orygun
That rifle was called the "All Terrain" and was manufactured from '96-'98. Others here like Mudstud would have a better idea on exact manufacture dates, but that's what I remember. They are pretty rare and desirable...


Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.


BSA
#12131927 - 07/07/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 883
AKwolverine Offline
Campfire Regular
AKwolverine  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 883
My bad, skipped over the "synthetic" part! BSA is correct.

#12132538 - 07/07/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
test1328 Offline
Campfire Ranger
test1328  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
Colorado
Thanks for the info BSA! Now that I think about it, the first one I bought would have been in the '96 time frame, not '92 like I originally said, so your '96-'98 makes sense.

#12135593 - 07/08/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 92
Slope77 Offline
Member
Slope77  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 92
Bismarck, ND
There is a stainless synthetic 270 featherweight on gunbroker right now.

It has a boss, which I consider unfortunate, but you may not. It says 24" barrel, if that's the case, you could probably pop off the boss and still have enough barrel, if you wanted. Maybe 24" with boss though.

#12137751 - 07/10/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: Slope77]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 46,469
Redneck Offline
Campfire Oracle
Redneck  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 46,469
WI.
Originally Posted by Slope77
There is a stainless synthetic 270 featherweight on gunbroker right now.

It has a boss, which I consider unfortunate, but you may not. It says 24" barrel, if that's the case, you could probably pop off the boss and still have enough barrel, if you wanted. Maybe 24" with boss though.
Definitely 24" w/BOSS... Full removal and recrown leaves about a 21" barrel - a tad short IMHO for a 270, unless it'll be used mostly in moderately heavy woods/forest conditions...(ala NW WI where shots are typically under 100 yds.. )


I get a couple in every year with the owners wanting those GONE..


NRA Benefactor member.

Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69
#12138095 - 07/10/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
test1328 Offline
Campfire Ranger
test1328  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,920
Colorado
I didn't realize that Winchester ever put a BOSS on a featherweight. Not something I would wish on my worst enemy! The one that I originally bought and this new to me one that I just purchased were/are both Featherweights with the standard Featherweight barrel contour and 22" barrel.

#12141353 - 07/12/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 92
Slope77 Offline
Member
Slope77  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2017
Posts: 92
Bismarck, ND
Congratulations on your new rifle, I hope you enjoy it!

#12141563 - 07/12/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,082
southtexas Offline
Campfire Tracker
southtexas  Offline
Campfire Tracker

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,082
Texas
Originally Posted by test1328
I didn't realize that Winchester ever put a BOSS on a featherweight. Not something I would wish on my worst enemy!



I have one and love it. Yes, the BOSS is ugly but it works! Mine is a 280 FWT that I got from a LGS for $400 when Winchester was closing them out. It drives tacks with 120 BTips. Good for the grandkids as recoil is nothing. Just make sure they are wearing hearing protection! If I want to hunt with it, I screw on the BOSS conventional recoil. Different strokes...

#12141634 - 07/12/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 586
GunDoc7 Offline
Campfire Regular
GunDoc7  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 586
FWIW, I prefer to keep the conventional recoil weight on at all times, but that's just me.
As for the device, you can either tune the load to the barrel's vibration pattern/frequency, or you can tune the barrel to the load. You can get accuracy either way.
The advantage of the BOSS is you can load the bullet you like to the the velocity you want, and assuming the bullet is well enough made, you can tune the barrel to that load.
The disadvantage of the BOSS is you give up about 2 inches of bore as far as velocity.
So, depending on the velocity that happens to tune the load to the barrel (no BOSS, longer barrel), assuming a combination of velocity and accuracy is your goal, and assuming you can eventually get equal accuracy out of both, it is hard to say which will end up giving you more velocity.
The BOSS is especially useful for the man who, for whatever reason, wants to shoot a specific factory load.
The BOSS helps protect the muzzle crown, but it also acts a bit like a "funnel" with the rifle is vertical.
No, they are not pretty. But I have seen much uglier things on rifles.

#12146551 - 07/14/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,215
Gasman Offline
Campfire Regular
Gasman  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,215
Interestingly, the short action Classic Stainless Synthetics that Winchester was building in the late '90's had 22" Featherweight contour barrels, even though they came in sporter stocks.


Originally Posted by RED53
Some shooting knowledge: Don't stand in front of the muzzle. Some hunting knowledge: Too much noise ruins the hunt.
#12148133 - 07/15/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: Gasman]  
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 883
AKwolverine Offline
Campfire Regular
AKwolverine  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by Gasman
Interestingly, the short action Classic Stainless Synthetics that Winchester was building in the late '90's had 22" Featherweight contour barrels, even though they came in sporter stocks.


Yep, that is correct.
They were first cataloged in '94 in 223, 22-250, 243, and 308. The 223 was dropped from the catalog in '95 and the last year they were cataloged was '98.
Also, the sporter synthetic stock they used had the same ejection cutout as the long actions, so the ejection cutout did not match the actual ejection port. This was not the case on the walnut stocked stainless featherweights, which did have the appropriate length cutout.

Here is an example that shows this cutout (and the fw barrel profile) currently on GB from a proud seller.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/667571801

#12148475 - 07/15/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 677
Bobmar Offline
Campfire Regular
Bobmar  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 677
NOVA
That looks horrible! I have several stainless classics and they are among my favorites, but nothing that looks like that. If I saw that, prior to reading this, I'd swear the gun wasn't original to the stock. Guess we know how that and other similar decisions worked out.


Deadlines and commitments, what to leave in, what to leave out...
#12151300 - 07/17/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,382
rembo Offline
Campfire Ranger
rembo  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,382
Alberta, Canada
Speaking of stainless Fwts, search "winchester" on this page and you'll see one incorrectly described as an XTR.......open the pics and tell me if this is a "desirable" Model 70..:-)

https://gobles.ca/firearms/


"after the bullet leaves the barrel it doesn't care what headstamp was on the case"
"The 221 Fireball is what the Hornet could have been had it stayed in school"
#12151331 - 07/17/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,777
patbrennan Offline
Campfire Ranger
patbrennan  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,777
BC
IIRC the 5 digit serial #s were the most desireable. I think that one is a little optimistically priced for our market.

#12151336 - 07/17/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: patbrennan]  
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,382
rembo Offline
Campfire Ranger
rembo  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,382
Alberta, Canada
Originally Posted by patbrennan
I think that one is a little optimistically priced for our market.



My thoughts exactly. At $850-900 ish I'd likely have to have it,....why?...I don't know.


"after the bullet leaves the barrel it doesn't care what headstamp was on the case"
"The 221 Fireball is what the Hornet could have been had it stayed in school"
#12151453 - 07/17/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,777
patbrennan Offline
Campfire Ranger
patbrennan  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,777
BC
But then you would quickly remember how that action felt vs a pre 64 and be disappointed in it! (the voice of experience here!)

#12151979 - 07/17/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,587
TomM1 Offline
Campfire Ranger
TomM1  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,587
Fernandina Beach
Lol...been there too


Stuck in airports, Terrorized
Sent to meetings, Hypnotized
Over-exposed, Commercialized
Handle me with Care...
-Traveling Wilbury's
#12161766 - 07/22/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: patbrennan]  
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 586
GunDoc7 Offline
Campfire Regular
GunDoc7  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by patbrennan
But then you would quickly remember how that action felt vs a pre 64 and be disappointed in it! (the voice of experience here!)


I own both Stainless Classics and Pre '64 rifles. I am not disappointed in the way the Classic actions feel. Perhaps I am not discriminating enough and am missing something. Care to elaborate?

#12161788 - 07/22/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: test1328]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 758
Winchestermodel70 Offline
Campfire Regular
Winchestermodel70  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 758
I am a pre'64 M70 aficionado and own several. That said, last November I bought an M70 featherweight super grade 7x57 here on the 'Fire. It was made in 2014 by FN BACO. IMO, except for the "MOA" trigger, it is every bit the equal of a pre '64. The action is super slick.

The trigger pulll is crisp and was easily adjusted to 3lbs. I simply don't like the enclosed, "tamper proof" complex triggers that come on many modern rifles, this one included. IMO, the previous "classic" and pre '64 triggers are the best triggers ever put into a hunting rifle. If you can live with the current "MOA" trigger, they are a fine rifle, IMO, the equal of a 'pre '64.

#12162324 - 07/22/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: GunDoc7]  
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 541
winchester70 Offline
Campfire Regular
winchester70  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 541
The swamp
Originally Posted by GunDoc7
Originally Posted by patbrennan
But then you would quickly remember how that action felt vs a pre 64 and be disappointed in it! (the voice of experience here!)


I own both Stainless Classics and Pre '64 rifles. I am not disappointed in the way the Classic actions feel. Perhaps I am not discriminating enough and am missing something. Care to elaborate?


I agree GunDoc. I love all Model 70's, as long as they were made in the 50's or 90's

#12163604 - 07/23/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: GunDoc7]  
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,777
patbrennan Offline
Campfire Ranger
patbrennan  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,777
BC
Originally Posted by GunDoc7
Originally Posted by patbrennan
But then you would quickly remember how that action felt vs a pre 64 and be disappointed in it! (the voice of experience here!)


I own both Stainless Classics and Pre '64 rifles. I am not disappointed in the way the Classic actions feel. Perhaps I am not discriminating enough and am missing something. Care to elaborate?


For myself (others may choose to differ!) the pre 64s feed much better/smoother, the safeties have been smoother/quieter, and when the actions close they "feel" like a good mauser/fn/bank vault (as opposed to a bolt inside a piece of pipe!). I tried to like the FN manufactured model 70s also but never did warm up to them (though the couple I had shot very well).

#12163699 - 07/23/17 Re: M70 Classic Featherweight Stainless [Re: patbrennan]  
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 586
GunDoc7 Offline
Campfire Regular
GunDoc7  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 586
Originally Posted by patbrennan

For myself (others may choose to differ!) the pre 64s feed much better/smoother, the safeties have been smoother/quieter, and when the actions close they "feel" like a good mauser/fn/bank vault (as opposed to a bolt inside a piece of pipe!). I tried to like the FN manufactured model 70s also but never did warm up to them (though the couple I had shot very well).


My experience is a bit different.

I judge feeding by the most difficult test I can imagine. Specifically, rifle vertical, muzzle down, work the action as SLOW as possible, virtually pushing the bolt forward not with a specific force, but with a specific slow speed. If the feeding is not truly controlled, then when the magazine releases the cartridge it will fall away from the bolt and into the chamber. If the feeding is truly controlled, by the time the magazine releases the cartridge it is already held by the extractor. You must try this with a full magazine, feeding with different tensions and from both sides. I know my New Haven Classic .300 Win Mag is good, as is my Pre '64 .270. If I recall correctly, my New Haven Classic Featherweight .270 is fine too. Bottom line, they all feed well for me.

I have found Pre '64 safeties to behave all manner of different ways as far as smoothness, noise, and when/how they release. I don't know if this is due to hand fitting at the factory, or subsequent work after leaving the factory. The New Haven guns are a little louder than some, but plenty smooth, positive, and consistent. I attribute this to CNC machining, and (sigh!) MIM consistent parts.

Here is an interesting test. Cock the rifle, but the safety in the "middle" position, raise the bolt handle slightly, then see if you can flip the safety lever to fire. In my experience, some Pre '64 will allow this, some will not, and newer rifles almost never will. Older Winchester instructions were to put the safety in the middle position to make it easy to manipulate "when action was imminent." But as your trigger finger is outside the guard, your trigger finger knuckle nearest your hand might move the bolt handle up a bit. One might think this would lead to the dangerous condition of the rifle firing on a less than closed bolt. But you will find that if you can get that particular safety off and pull the trigger, as the firing pin moves forward, it closes the bolt. However, this might take enough energy from the firing pin to cause the primer to not ignite. Not good. One the other hand, there was a lady a few years ago how got beat up pretty badly by a Cape Buffalo. Her husband was using a newer M70, had the safety in the middle position, inadvertently raised the bolt a bit, and couldn't disengage the safety. (At least that seems to be what happened based on how the account read.) He eventually figured it out and shot the buff right between the eyes, but not before his wife took a beating. I don't remember where the PH was during all this. So, either way this test works on your rifle, it seems a poor idea to me to ever have the safety in the middle position "when action is imminent."

I don't notice much difference in "bank vault" closing, but maybe I am not discriminating enough.

So, I like all my M70's. But maybe I got lucky on the chambering choices, vintage, or individual rifles. I avoided the push feed rifles, so all of mine are controlled feed. Admittedly my sample size is small. But I tend to mess with the safety action and the "bolt handle test" on any M70 I handle, so I have more confidence in those comments. Obviously, I cannot test all of them for feeding.

Best,
Gun Doc

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

AIH 160 1
Who's Online Now
107 registered members (Bama_Rick, AKBunny, 35, 1OntarioJim, 300stw, andrews1958, 13 invisible), 548 guests, and 400 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod









Copyright © 2000-2017 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.078s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 1.0659 MB (Peak: 1.3994 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-09-24 10:28:35 UTC