24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: KEVIN_JAY] #15905218 03/16/21
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,518
H
horse1 Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
H
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,518
Originally Posted by KEVIN_JAY
Try finding a drop in synthetic stock for a Win 670 blind mag w/ 3 pos safety. Don't know, maybe they never made one.


Should be any blind mag post-64 model 70 stock will fit that. Many of the WinLights were blind....

Or, nab some bottom metal and convert it.

Last edited by horse1; 03/16/21.

I can walk on water.......................but I do stagger a bit on alcohol.
BP-B2

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15905227 03/16/21
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,169
mjbgalt Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,169
Marlin xl7 stocks will fit. Or call boyds

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15905262 03/16/21
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 837
K
KEVIN_JAY Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
K
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 837
Two good leads! Thanks gents.

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: KEVIN_JAY] #15905617 03/16/21
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,709
260Remguy Online Content
Campfire Oracle
Online Content
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,709
Originally Posted by KEVIN_JAY
Originally Posted by Uncas
It took two years of semi serious searching to find a stock I liked for the M-70...Still looking for a silver steel Pick type base set for a standard pattern M-70...I have 3/8' hole space for the 375 /Safari receivers in blue. A shoe box full of M700 silver bases and rings all kinds. Just not finding bases for that BOSS gun.



Try finding a drop in synthetic stock for a Win 670 blind mag w/ 3 pos safety.
Don't know, maybe they never made one.



70 Super Shadow long action stocks should work.

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: 260Remguy] #15905748 03/16/21
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,704
Clarkm Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,704
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
I think that the Winchester, Remington, Ruger debate is analogous to the Chevy, Dodge, Ford debate over which is the better pickup truck.

I've owned well over 100 Winchester 70s and a like number of Remington 700s, never had, or have personally seen, any of the problems with the Remington 700s that are repeatedly brought up. There have been over 5,000,000 Remington 700s sold, so it is logical to expect that as in any high volume production environment there will be a small, less than 1%, error rate. In high volume production, perfect is the enemy of good.

Buy whatever product appeals to you. Use it as is, or modify is to better suit your specific wants and needs. Personally, I have modified hundreds of firearms to suit my specific wants and needs better than they did in their original factory specs. I've cared enough to buy 70 or so McMillan stocks to replace perfectly useable original factory stocks because they fit my wants better. Most people don't care enough to spend much extra money to close the gap between good and better.


I can make any safety fire when taken off safety, if I can adjust it.... M70 type included.
But I leave the M70 triggers stock, and always replace the Rem700 triggers.

I own:
9 M70s
11 R700s


So far I have rebarrelled:
3 M70s : 270, 280ai, 25-06
9 R700s, 6mmBR, 6mmBR, 250sav, 6.5-06, 6.5-06. 7mmRM, 7mmRM, 7mmRM, 7mmSTW

I like Rem 700s and M70s the best for rebarreling, restocking, and hunting.
I like Mosins and Mausers next for rebarreling,
Arisakas are ok
Sav 110 designs, I think I am done rebarreling.


There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
IC-A

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15906947 03/17/21
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,479
R
rj308 Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
R
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,479
Originally Posted by Uncas
It took two years of semi serious searching to find a stock I liked for the M-70...Still looking for a silver steel Pick type base set for a standard pattern M-70...I have 3/8' hole space for the 375 /Safari receivers in blue. A shoe box full of M700 silver bases and rings all kinds. Just not finding bases for that BOSS gun.




Call Cameron Murphy at Murphy Precision and get a stainless base for your rifle. If he doesn't list the hole spacing for your rifle, me will specially make it at no additional charge. RJ

https://www.murphyprecision.com/Products/Cat/135

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15908147 03/17/21
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,523
U
Uncas Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
U
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,523
Nice stuff from Cameron.


Watch 'Yer Topknot!
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15912747 03/18/21
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 828
B
Blackbrush Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 828
700's are what fellas bought back in the day when they were too cheap to buy 70's.

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15913270 03/18/21
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,704
Clarkm Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,704
Back in the 1990s when I was reading the few gun forums, Bart Bobbitt was pro M70 and Gale McMillian was pro R700.

Bart acknowledged that Rem700s were so cheaply made, that Remington could afford to put better barrels on them than Win70s got at the factory. Bart always rebarrelled his M70s..

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.guns/iL7zv-cktJc

5/10/97
Leafing through my copy of the May 1997 issue of Precision Shooting, I encountered an ad for Krieger Barrels, Inc. that showed an actual-size copy of a 20-shot group shot at 800 yards by "Bert Bobbit [sic] with his Krieger Barrelled PALMA rifle." Now this group has a .942" mean radius, with an extreme spread of 3.325. If it were a 5-shot group, you'd say, "Somebody else has shot that well at 1,000 yards." But a 20-shot group? God!!
At first I wondered if this was rec.guns's own BartB because of the spelling in the ad. Then I realized the odds against having two superb riflemen with such similar names were almost as great as having obtained a 20-shot group that small through chance and chance alone.
All I can say is, if BartB and any other poster ever disagree about anything having to do with shooting, I'll know whom to believe.


When I read this thread in 1997, I was still trying to get my first 1" 5 shot group at 100 yards.
In 2002 I got my first 1" group and even a 0.45" (5) shot group at 100m with a surplus VZ24 Mauser I rebarrelled with a Loather Walther light varmint barrel in 257 Roberts Ackley.


There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Blackbrush] #15913935 03/18/21
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 52,165
M
Mule Deer Online Content
Campfire Oracle
Online Content
Campfire Oracle
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 52,165
Originally Posted by Blackbrush
700's are what fellas bought back in the day when they were too cheap to buy 70's.


You got that backward, in a way.

The pre-'64 Model 70 essentially died even before the Remington 700 appeared in 1962. Why?

Winchester switched to the push-feed Model 70 in 1963--so there was almost no overlap in buying a pre-'64 Model 70 versus a 700. The push-feed M70 eventually turned into a pretty good rifle, but there were definitely growing pains.

In the meantime the pre-'64 faded because Winchester had never modernized the manufacturing process, whether machining the massive receiver, or making stocks or barrels. Consequently it was a LOT more expensive to produce, and since it required more hand-work to make, quality started declining in the 1950s--partly because Winchester's comprehension of what worked to make an accurate, out-f-the-box rifle also declined.

It improved at Remington, partly because the guy in charge, Mike Walker, was a benchrest shooter. Consequently the post-war, pre-'64 wasn't nearly as precisely made as the 700--which was the eventual refinement of the Model 721/722, which appeared in 1947. I know this partly from owning a bunch of pre-64's and 721/722/700 Remingtons.

Pre-'64s will usually shoot well--once the bedding and other factors are dinked with. But the Remingtons normally shot very well out of the box, which by the 1950s meant a LOT more to the average customer--more than sloppy hand-checkering, or the legendary pre-'64 trigger that could rarely be adjusted below a 4-pound pull--WHEN the average owner was competent enough to do so.

Probably one of the biggest reasons the pre--64 M70 lost out was the Featherweight model. It was great in most respects--but Winchester didn't comprehend free-floated barrels. The Featherweights barrels were supposedly free-floated, but in reality were slightly loose around the barrel. As a result most didn't shoot well at all, because the barrel banged around inside the barrel channel, unlike the barrels on the standard-weight, with their tighter bedding and forend screw. Again, I know this partly due to owning pre-'64 Featherweights that were all original--plus reading many of the reviews of Featherweights from the 1950s.

But if you believe the 700 won out back then ONLY because shooters were cheap, then you don't have any comprehension of what happened--and why.


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
IC-B

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Mule Deer] #15913973 03/18/21
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,397
S
SLM Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
S
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,397
You just sent a few in to a tail spin.

Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Originally Posted by Blackbrush
700's are what fellas bought back in the day when they were too cheap to buy 70's.


You got that backward, in a way.

The pre-'64 Model 70 essentially died even before the Remington 700 appeared in 1962. Why?

Winchester switched to the push-feed Model 70 in 1963--so there was almost no overlap in buying a pre-'64 Model 70 versus a 700. The push-feed M70 eventually turned into a pretty good rifle, but there were definitely growing pains.

In the meantime the pre-'64 faded because Winchester had never modernized the manufacturing process, whether machining the massive receiver, or making stocks or barrels. Consequently it was a LOT more expensive to produce, and since it required more hand-work to make, quality started declining in the 1950s--partly because Winchester's comprehension of what worked to make an accurate, out-f-the-box rifle also declined.

It improved at Remington, partly because the guy in charge, Mike Walker, was a benchrest shooter. Consequently the post-war, pre-'64 wasn't nearly as precisely made as the 700--which was the eventual refinement of the Model 721/722, which appeared in 1947. I know this partly from owning a bunch of pre-64's and 721/722/700 Remingtons.

Pre-'64s will usually shoot well--once the bedding and other factors are dinked with. But the Remingtons normally shot very well out of the box, which by the 1950s meant a LOT more to the average customer--more than sloppy hand-checkering, or the legendary pre-'64 trigger that could rarely be adjusted below a 4-pound pull--WHEN the average owner was competent enough to do so.

Probably one of the biggest reasons the pre--64 M70 lost out was the Featherweight model. It was great in most respects--but Winchester didn't comprehend free-floated barrels. The Featherweights barrels were supposedly free-floated, but in reality were slightly loose around the barrel. As a result most didn't shoot well at all, because the barrel banged around inside the barrel channel, unlike the barrels on the standard-weight, with their tighter bedding and forend screw. Again, I know this partly due to owning pre-'64 Featherweights that were all original--plus reading many of the reviews of Featherweights from the 1950s.

But if you believe the 700 won out back then ONLY because shooters were cheap, then you don't have any comprehension of what happened--and why.





Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15914262 03/18/21
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 36,265
S
Seafire Offline
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
S
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 36,265
I have had a lot of different brands of rifles that I have liked over the years....

but my favorite always has been and always will be the Model 70 Winchester...



"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC

“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Mule Deer] #15914582 03/19/21
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 39,289
jorgeI Offline
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
[ Remingtons.

Pre-'64s will usually shoot well--once the bedding and other factors are dinked with.

Probably one of the biggest reasons the pre--64 M70 lost out was the Featherweight model. It was great in most respects--but Winchester didn't comprehend free-floated barrels. The Featherweights barrels were supposedly free-floated, but in reality were slightly loose around the barrel. As a result most didn't shoot well at all, because the barrel banged around inside the barrel channel, unlike the barrels on the standard-weight, with their tighter bedding and forend screw. Again, I know this partly due to owning pre-'64 Featherweights that were all original--plus reading many of the reviews of Featherweights from the 1950s.

But if you believe the 700 won out back then ONLY because shooters were cheap, then you don't have any comprehension of what happened--and why.






I must be lucky. In my lifetime, I must have owned at least a couple of dozen pre-64s (I only have five now) including FWs and ALL were sub MOA including the FWs. When the post-64s came out they were absolutely horrible in fit and finish (I have no issue with PF rifles). The 700s looked GOOD, were well-finished and shot extremely well which served to hide all the flaws that are now common knowledge and helped foster the cottage industry built around "improving" 700s. But yes the Winchester machinery was in bad shape, the rifles did require a lot more man hours and hindsight is always 20/20, but in my view Winchester should have found a way to either upgrade the manufacturing process (albeit increasing prices) or slowly introduce the post 64 variant whilst taking the time to apply quality control measures to same. Those first few years were HORRIBLE and they never recovered.


Teddy Roosevelt, John Wayne, Winston Churchill paid to hunt....
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15914760 03/19/21
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,704
Clarkm Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,704
In my 1963 Shooter's Bible, which cost $2.95 when I got 50 cents a week allowance, but I bought it with money made from mowing neighbor's lawns.

M70 was $139.00, worth $800 beat up but original today. =3% per year appreciation compounded annually. = average for a gun, Gold, or a guitar
R700 was $139.95. worth $400 beat up but original today. = 1.8% per year appreciation compounded annually. = very poor for a gun

I am buying them both. The Rem 700 cost more to buy and build, as I put on a new scope, barrel, stock, trigger, bolt, extractor, and I have have to make pillars and bolt knobs.
The M70s only get a new scope, barrel, and stock. I do have to make an extractor cut on the breech.
The R700 trigger, bolt, and extractor, cost more than the $400 gun purchase difference.

[Linked Image]
1949 M70 30-06 cost me $775 in 2018, is now a 280AI

[Linked Image]
2000 R700 270 cost me $400 in 2014, is now a 6.5-06


There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15914798 03/19/21
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 477
wahoo Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 477
the first decent rifle i owned was a post 64 i got in 1966. the stock didn't look so bad to me at the time. few rifles fit, as i am tall with long arms. the solution was to make a stock the way you wanted it. a locksmith/gunsmith i met showed me how to inlet a stock. i just whittled tie outside away 'til it fitted. it's still my favorite rifle and the one i usually hunt with. i have 700s and 70s. a pre 64 featherweight was the only 308 i have owned that i couldn't get to shoot. about 2'' was the best.

the thing i have noticed is that the 70s cycle easier and slicker than the 700s. don't know why, it's just my impression.

one thing i have wondered about is that most everyone on this site buys a 700; strips all the parts off, remachines the action, and builds a new rifle. are the standard 700s so bad? can't remington machine a square receiver?

Last edited by wahoo; 03/19/21.

If you're not having fun; you're not doing it right!
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15915166 03/19/21
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,271
G
greydog Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,271
The pre-64 Model 70 is a refined military action which made the basis for a fine sporting rifle but, as MD pointed out, by the end of it's run, quality was poor at best. The post-63 model 70 was the result of Winchester's attempt to produce their rifles using new techniques. In many technical aspects, they were successful but they failed aesthetically. In addition, they were not as supported as was the 700 which (once again pointed out by MD) had Mike Walker behind it. One area where the new Winchester did at least as well as Remington and that was in barrel production. The Winchester hammer-forged barrels were excellent. Remington also produced excellent hammer-forged barrels but they also produced barrels which had ripples in the bore from end to end. I never saw this from Winchester until they moved their manufacturing from New Haven. I also did not see the eccentric chambers which Remington produced often or the very crooked barrels. Nonetheless, the most accurate standard factory rifles I saw were Remingtons. I think it is safe to say that no custom gunmaker even thought of building a fine rifle based on the push-feed Model 70. When we started building glass-stocked hunting rifles, the Remington was the easy choice. It was alot easier to mold a stock to fit a 700 than a model 70. The 700 had a better trigger. It was lighter and it was just easy to work with. In the 1970's Winchester just couldn't get it going while Remington had momentum. Of course, it was in the late '70's that Remington started to see some problems with their triggers (related to QC, in my opinion) but that only served to boost the aftermarket suppliers.
I have always liked the Model 70 just because it was made by Winchester (my grandfather always said, "A rifle is a Winchester and a pistol is a Colt"). I made some nice shooting high power target rifles on Model 70's, as did a lot of makers, but if I wanted to build a seriously accurate varmint or BR rifle, the choice was always a Remington. When customs actions started to be in common use, a large percentage of them looked a lot like a Remington. In fact, Hart actions simply used Remington bolts in their actions for years.
Winchester never has been able to find their place in the rifle landscape after the pre-64.
As a gunsmith, I have never been bothered by the lack of drop-in options for stocks. Custom fitting of stocks or making stocks is part of what gunsmithing is. GD

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Mule Deer] #15915983 03/19/21
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,350
rickt300 Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,350
Actually the 700 back in the early days was a much nicer rifle than the early push feed model 70's. The first of the push feeds were roughly finished, the stocks had a huge gap around the barrels and were also finished not so pretty. The early 700's were nice looking rifles which means a lot more to most than super tight groups. I remember when I bought my first 700 BDL in 270 back in 1972, the contrast between the two was incredible and the push feed 70 cost ten bucks more. Both rifles shot pretty good as I bought on in 30-06 a few years later but the only plus the 70 really had was it seemed to feed more smoothly than that 700. When Winchester came back out with the controlled round feed model 70 it was a much better rifle in many ways that the Remington 700 comparing stock rifles. I have had several that shot really well in particular a stainless and wood Featherweight classic in 22-250. Today if I had the choice between a Remington 700 and one of the controlled round model 70's of today the 70 would be my choice.

Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: greydog] #15916020 03/19/21
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,637
7
79S Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by greydog

Winchester never has been able to find their place in the rifle landscape after the pre-64.
GD


What rock you been living under. Winchester can’t even keep up with demands, right now..


Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15916032 03/19/21
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,637
7
79S Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,637
The 79-84 Winchester’s are some of the nicest model 70’s around. Yeah they are pushfeeds but they have a better safety, better trigger than the 700. The Portuguese made model 70’s are some of the best produced. For the guy saying Winchester hasn’t found their place after the pre64. I remember 2006 when Winchester announce the model 70 was ceasing production. New Haven plant shutting down, it was a sad day. Then 2008-2009 FN announced the model 70 was coming back out made at the South Carolina plant. Those model 70’s are extremely well made, and guys could not buy them fast enough. So to say Winchester can’t find their way is complete bull chit.


Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.
Re: M-70 Why so few... [Re: Uncas] #15916208 03/19/21
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,419
1
1Akshooter Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
1
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,419
I think I am "smarter" when it comes to rifles then I was 65 years ago when I started pulling triggers. I have also been down sizing my collection and giving guns away to kids and grandkids. I have kept my custom Mod. 70 .338 that I had made up about 25 years ago, based on the "Classic Stainless" Mod. 70 with the Bansners stock and Blackburn bottom metal, also had the bolt collar welded on it. A local gun smith managed to get a crisp 3 lb. trigger pull on it and the other Winchester I am keeping for now. It puts 225 grain TTSX bullets into tidy groups and wears a Nightforce 3-9 SHV with illuminated duplex. and that ballistic tape from Kenton Industries that is good out past 600 yards, which is further then I will ever shoot.

My other one is a Pre-64 Featherweight 30-06 made in 1958. I put Williams one piece bottom metal on it and the Brockman's Talley Peep Sight on the rear that pops up when the scope is removed. I pull the scope in the summer if I take the rifle on a hike or ATV ride. The scope is a Leupold "gasp" 3.5-10x40 with a B&C reticle, I don't dial this scope. A guy down the road a few minutes from the house cleaned up the checkering and refinished the stock and it likes Barnes 175 grain LRX bullets.

I expanded my horizons a few years ago and picked up a Tikka T3X Superlite in 6.5 Creed and put a SWFA 3-9x42 Mil scope on it. It is a far cry from the old mod. 70's and Springfield 03A3's I grew up with, but I like it. I will always have my Dad's old Mod. 99 in .300 Savage. That is all of the "big game" magazine bolt rifles I have left. But, I do have four peep sighted lever guns suitable for Alaskan critters.

Five buddies all have Remington 700's in .35 Whelen and I doubt they will ever change as they work so well for them. How many 700's have been put to the test in the "sand box wars" the last 20 years, a bunch I think. I probably know more guys that use a 700 then any thing else or a Ruger, but the ones I think know more about rifles use a Mod. 70 for what ever reason. I just like the CRF Mod. 70 with the simple old trigger and the easy field stripping bolt that locks down when on safe. At my age I doubt I will ever change my ideas much on what I want a rifle to be like.

Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

RR1b
Who's Online Now
593 registered members (10gaugemag, 222ND, 12savage, 1moredeer, 1lessdog, 160user, 76 invisible), 1,810 guests, and 1,088 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RR2/3










Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2020 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 7.3.28 Page Time: 0.058s Queries: 15 (0.006s) Memory: 0.9023 MB (Peak: 1.0901 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2021-05-14 23:07:17 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS