|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,091
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,091 |
I have two Winchester model 70 “BACO” rifles: a blued Featherweight, and a blued Sporter. Both are 30-06. Nothing wrong with the triggers.
I’ve owned pre-64 version sporter ( early 1950’s vintage). I like the BACO rifles much better. They are very well made, and made/assembled in the USA.
Price of a stainless BACO? If it is $700-800, grab it. You’ll love it.
Can anyone name another rifle with the level of quality for the same price? I'd buy a Classic Stainless, pre '03. 5 digit, yup. I've owned at least eight of those or more over the years and it was no big thing to get it to shoot sub MOA.
Last edited by nyrifleman; 03/02/18.
“Factio democratica delenda est"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,098 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,098 Likes: 7 |
I have 3, 1 New Haven a 308 Win SS walnut featherweight and 2 BACO, SC produced SS Featherweights in 270 and 30-06. The BACO guns are FAR and AWAY better than the New haven gun in fit and finish, accuracy and trigger. And the New Haven gun is '94 production. I could not get that wonderful "pre-BACO" trigger on the New Haven gun below about 3.25 pounds and and still pass the butt bump test, where my BACO's are set at 2.5 pounds and the sears don't trip when given the same test. Technoman26, I am puzzled about the comment you made about the featherweight stocks gaining some weight/girth over the New Haven guns. My BACO stocks (both long action) weigh 1 and 1.5 ounces lighter than the New Haven guns (short action) stock. Maybe that difference is just wood density differences because all of thee stocks are factory hollowed out in the butt a'la featherweight style. I cannot tell any difference in the wrist and fore end girth when holding all three guns. Individual guns may vary, but this is my sample of three. RJ In this post, you describe your inabillity to finetune a very good trigger. Perhaps one of the best hunting rifle designs ever produced. You also show us a lack of good judgement and poor eyesight. Its blatently obvious that the baco stock is a fat pig. Anyone with eyeballs that work, can see that. Your whole post is laughable at best..
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,237
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,237 |
Glad I am not the only one who thinks the later fwt stocks are a bit bigger in the hands. I like the earlier ones better, just my personal preference. There's no thinking about it. Lean a New Haven and a BACO up against the wall and you can easily tell the difference without even touching them.
molɔ̀ːn labé skýla
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,738
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,738 |
Wow! You pre-BACO guys are a sensitive lot. BSA, I took another look at my rifles. One BACO and the New Haven stocks have been replaced with McMillan Edges, but I got the old stocks out and took a good look and feel of them. On that point you are right. The BACO does have a bit more girth in the wrist and fore end. However, the scales do not lie. My New haven stock is a bit heavier than my BACO stock. I suppose you could attribute that to more wood removed from the BACO because it is long action and the New Haven stock being short action. So, if you're judging by girth, I suppose the BACO is the "pig". If you are judging by weight, then the "pig", uh, that would be ,,,,,the New Haven.
Irreguardless of my good or poor ability to adjust a trigger, it is well known, due to trigger lever mass, that it is difficult to lighten the pull weight of a pre-BACO trigger below approximately 3 pounds and still pass the "bump test". Physics. I do not hate classic Winchester M70 triggers. If I did, I would have replaced it with a Timney. I owned an M70 in the 80's that I wanted a safe trigger pull weight of nor more than 2.5 lbs. I replaced the trigger with a Timney. I'm not slandering any ones preferences and opinions, I'm just stating mine. RJ
Last edited by rj308; 03/03/18.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 822
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 822 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,549
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,549 |
Glad I am not the only one who thinks the later fwt stocks are a bit bigger in the hands. I like the earlier ones better, just my personal preference. Count me as #3 or 4 or wherever I'm at in line in that category. It's not about weight, it's about how the rifle feels in your hands. I've got fairly large hands, typically a XXL glove so it's not like I can't manage the larger stock but I like a thin wrist and forearm designed stock for a hunting rifle I will shoot offhand at times. In Remington rifles I much prefer a Mountain Rifle pattern vs. BDL or Classic pattern for the same reason.
Last edited by horse1; 01/08/19.
I can walk on water.......................but I do stagger a bit on alcohol.
|
|
|
|
|
144 members (2UP, 470Evans, 44mc, 375TN, 35, 16 invisible),
1,586
guests, and
1,025
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,243
Posts18,485,957
Members73,967
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
