Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors This price fishy on a AS New Pre 64

Came across this on GB. Looks like price is too low...Anyone have thoughts? 😎

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/798832884

Yes I saw that too, if it's legit it's a good deal, he does have 78 dealings/good rating ...?

It is the end of an era, extremely clean gun, but is a 1963!

This one was for sale in a forum more local for a while, apparently didn't sell. It is priced lower than it was. It did look good however. I would guess being a '63 hurts some.

That is a good deal but not a giveaway. The aluminum butts with wide hand cut checkering panels fetch the money. Buy it if you like it.

A lot can change in the last half hour of the auction...

If there isn't a "10 minute rule", or 15, or whatever, a lot can change in the last thirty seconds!

Beaver10: In compiling my extensive collection of pre-64 Winchester Model 70's the 270 Featherweights (in MINT original condition!) were/are VERY hard to find!
Whether that be with aluminum buttplate or hard plastic!
Reason - they were rather rare to begin with and most that got sold back in the day got Hunted with, long and hard. They were (are!) outstanding Hunting Rifles and very few exist in MINT condition.
I would LOVE to handle that 270 Featherweight in person - if it met my criterion (and it appears it does!) I would buy it, at that asking price, instantly!
Pictures are gushy - I wish they were sharper.
I have a plethora of 270's in Supergrades and Standard Rifles BUT only one, mint, Featherweight 270!
Long live the Riflemans Rifle.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

YOU SUCK!!!
Just kidding. But I am a touch envious.

You folks realize that it has a Buy it Now price of $1299.00

VG...I would have owned it already. Unfortunately, I fall under the spell of the “WSM” requirement for my liking in a 270

You have my blessing to buy her to add to your collection. I agree, it’s a nice featherweight. 😎

I just PM’d the seller about the buttplate. If it’s not plastic, I may throw a number at it. If won, I will give it a once over with a cloth and put it away for another 10 years. Seems like a nice rifle in a popular caliber for some. 😎

If it's NOT plastic then it's not correct.

1963 models had plastic buttplates?

I was searching Google for a date Winchester changed from aluminum to plastic...Didn’t see anything. Appreciate your knowledge on this

sbrmike: That "asking price" was the price I was referring to when I wrote "I would buy it, at that ASKING PRICE, instantly" (if it met my criterion)!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I was surprised that the seller set the buy it now price so low, the buyer got a real deal there. During the last year or so Winchester stopped using metal buttplates and changed to plastic or as some call it "composite". Everything on that rifle looked correct to me and the seller described it accurately.

They made the change to the composite butt plate in 1959. So for something like the last 4 or 5 years, they had the inferior butt plate. A lot of which I've seen crack. For other reasons, Including the larger checkered panels and quality of black walnut used, the Aluminum butt plate models were more popular and bring more money. With that being said, the rifle the OP posted would have been a good deal at the buy it now price. Hopefully he bought it, if it was something he truly desired..

The composite buttplate with its phillips head screws and the small narrow checkering panels never appealed to me, never bought any of the models with those features.

Darn it! 63 or not, I wished I would have opened this sooner. I would have scooped that sucker up for that price all day long. To me, the 270 Featherweight is the epitome of a solid killing rifle.. I already have one, but I know they aren't making more and I'd bet my son wouldn't have minded hunting that one on his trips home from Oki!

I have seen some featherweights that dated to late ‘58 with the plastic plate. I suspect like many things Winchester, there was a bit of a transition.

It is the end of an era. The era where pre-64's brought good money very easily! The number of Model 70 collector's isn't increasing and the number of pre-64 Model 70 shooters decreases every year. Collectors are more discerning (skeptical) than ever and new hunters don't consider these Featherweights "lightweight" anymore. Having said that, I'm never getting rid of my 1963-built FWT in .270 until I'm too infirm to carry anything. It's 100% original, but, not quite nice enough to collect.

I'll disagree with you there a little bit. I consider them "lightweight". My featherweight rifles are 6.5 pounds in their factory wood stocks. My Tikka "superlite" is 5.9 pounds. Since when does half a pound constitute a whole hell of a lot? A lightweight rifle is a lightweight rifle and the featherweight is still considered a "lightweight" for many... Its actually extremely lightweight, if you want to compare them to what I normally pack when I'm hunting... Also, the 63 I had was very light, as the wood wasn't as dense as the older denser black walnut stocked rifles. I've seen some of the 63 fwt's weigh in at less than 6.5 pounds. More like 6.2 and 6.3 pounds. Maybe in Canada, they were heavier??

Fwt pre 64 Win 70's are plenty light and a joy to carry. They bite on the bench! I will take one with a pad for a hunter any day. As was stated by another, minty Fwt's are a bit hard to find. Many were bought to carry and hunt with and many of those saw hard use. And a lot of those had pads installed!

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but, I guess I was referring to the popularity of the Kimbers, Fieldcraft and others of this ilk. I agree that the pre-64 FWT is much lighter than the standard rifles of this generation or even a current production M700BDL. Up here in Canada, we're usually wearing a lot of cold weather clothing by the time hunting season rolls around and the change in that weight has been more dramatic than the change in rifle weights since 1963. Unfortunately, the change in the weight behind my belt has more than made up for the carbon fiber stocks, man-made fiber clothing and compact optics!

Here’s an interesting (and nice) example of a 308 fw that I believe dates to early 1960, yet it has an aluminum plate. I suppose the stock could have been switched out but looks pretty original.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/799588790

AKwolverine: January 10th 1960 is my extrapolated exact date of manufacture of that 308 Featherweight.
With that little of wear on the bolt face, the muzzle, the barrel the action and it appears to never have had a scope on it - I would say it is original with that stock.
I have duplicates of 308 pre-64 Featherweights already or I would be a "playah" for that one.
Thanks for the link.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Well, someone really wanted that 308! Went higher than I expected.

FWIW: More than forty years of buying, selling, trading, collecting pre '64 M-70's, I have never seen a 16B original rear sight with vertical sides. Gunbroker #799588790 Fwt .308 Maybe my eyes are not as sharp as they used to be, but that rear sight looks "different" to me.

Pic 13 and a couple after show it is the proper rear sight. Super Clean metal. I am not buying the butt plate as original though.

Sbrmike: I think the aluminum buttplate is INDEED original to that stock.
The absolute lack of wear, damage or modification to the metal on that Rifles (ESPECIALLY the bolts face!) leads me to believe that this Rifle, which has a date of manufacture of January 8th 1960 ,just happened to come from the factory with the style of Featherweight stock that was recently discontinued, sometime in the middle of 1959.
I would be hard pressed to somehow rationalize why and how a MINT 1959'ish stock Featherweight stock found its way onto a MINT January 1960 featherweight - other than the factory did it!
Which, in fact, the factory did use up various left over vintage parts and stocks at latter dates than the norm.
The sight is correct also IMO.
Regardless of my opinions, MANY people bid on this Rifle after viewing the same pictures as we did - and apparently they bid the Rifle up to $2,325.00 (two thousand three hundred and twenty five dollars!)!
Keeping that bit of information in mind I am going to have to "upgrade" my evaluations on my master inventories!
I am also taken by the fact the Rifle apparently sold for $300.00 or $400.00 more than I thought it would?
It is just a fact of life (reality!) that MINT collectible guns (especially old Winchesters, old Colt revolvers, old Smith & Wesson revolvers and the like!) COMMAND top dollar!
I realize that many folks deride the "market" in guns as being soft - well there is a difference in "guns" and "COLLECTOR grade guns"!
I am invigorated by this sale, and other sales I have seen first hand of collector Winchesters, of late.
Long live the Riflemans Rifle!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

...OK, so you all agree the rear sight in said .308 is correct. Well, yes, sort of. Examine the 16B rear sight on your rifles and tell me what the base looks like. If the base is rounded, then Winchester installed it. If it has flat sides it is after market. The pictured rear sight is, in fact, a 16B. But, IMO it is after market. In any case, it is academic, since the rifle was sold.

TSIBINDI, I have to change my mind and agree with you. My reading comprehension is not what it should be. I failed to read "Base" being curved. That rear sight is indeed a very current aftermarket addition. I was looking at the ears.

Link: https://pre64win.com/products/lyman-16b-folding-leaf-rear-sight

TSBINDI: Indeed the Rifle sold!
And sold for a very handsome price, in my opinion, after 36 bids.
So.... you are contending that someone, for some reason, beat the original sight out of that mint condition (appears virtually unfired to me - bolt face pristine - and never had a scope on it - pictures #7, #13, #18, #20 and others) barrel and replaced it for some reason!
I find it hard to understand/believe that contention.
I also see NO evidence, while enlarging the photos of the Lyman sight, that it has been "replaced" - most "replacement sights" on pre-64 Model 70's do SHOW signs of being replaced - often times the barrels ALSO show "evidence" of the sights being replaced as well!
I am certain that barrel, goes with that action and that BOLT - and that bolt face shows NO wear!
Would it not be reasonable to "contend" this then?
Mint barrel, mint action, mint bolt, mint stock - what on earth would cause someone somewhere down the line to remove the "original" sight and then replace it.
The only remote possibility would be that an owner of the Rifle changed from a "low comb" Featherweight stock to a Monte Carlo Featherweight stock - but alas the low comb 308 Featherweight (which used a Lyman 16A sight!) had been there in 1960!
Like TSBINDI rightfully concludes, the Rifle sold and sold for a hefty price - that fact does not prove the Rifle to be factory original BUT it is evidence of such, that must be considered.
I have updated the "values" of my Featherweights on all copies of my inventory though.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Pics 8 and 13 clearly show the current production powder metal, aftermarket Lyman 16a replacement sight with flat sided base.

VarmintGuy look at it and then look at the link you provided for the "Used" original Lyman 16B as used on pre 64 Win 70's with Convex base. The sight on that gun is clearly the current production sight. They may have used a nylon tipped drift or perhaps it went in easily.

I will say that the guy who put the "close but no cigar" rear sight on the gun also put the "close but no cigar" stock on that gun. Perhaps the original stock was cut with a pad installed. Look at the finish wear on the swivels; not nearly as minty as the rest of the metal.

I have never seen an aluminum buttplate on a 1959 much less a 1960. That was a big time cost and time saving modification that was not phased in. I have personally owned 63 pre 64 Win 70's according to my BoundBook and probably had at least 20 others that weren't on the books, plus all of the time I used to spend drooling over Randy Shuman's collection. I have seen a model 70 or two.

That gun went for ridiculous money. I will also say that there are routinely not many honest model 70's on GunBroker. The honest ones are on Guns International and not in an auction, generally speaking. When I say honest I mean represented honestly, not meaning totally original.

That gun is a little late for an aluminum plate.

While I truly appreciate the enthusiasm and knowledge many of you bring to this forum, and while I also truly enjoy reading these threads, I must say I'm glad my interest tends toward used for but cared for "shooters grade" guns!
I'm just way too OCD to shoot bench rest . . . or be into collector grade guns!
But again, I really enjoy all y'all and these discussions.

I too am a user of vintage guns. The gun in question asks more than it answers. The barreled action is pristine, looking nearly unfired? There are no wear marks visible from scope base installation; why did they remove the rear sight? A lot of the issues just don't make sense or add up. If only these guns could talk! But seriously I would take a hard look at a lot of pre 64 Win 70's on GunBroker. I see too many "100% Original, untouched" descriptions and then there being no rear sight or a poorly fit aftermarket pad on them. I have seen some with the checkering sanded off that were "100% original, mint".

...something I was taught forty years ago if you are a Model 70 collector: IF YOU HAVE TO DEFEND THE RIFLE, IT IS NOT WORTH OWNING.