Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Anyone Else Have Pre 64 "itis"??

It is my feeling that the newly manufactured Winchester Model 70's (the ones made by Browning in South Carolina), will be good, well made actions based on the plant having an ISO 9001 Quality Plan that assures meeting specifications and reducing scrap and manufacturing shrinkage. Browning may be having a few quality hiccups as they tune and certify the production line for the new Model 70. However, I am pretty certain that the product Browning turns out will be high quality and as dimensionally repeatable as they can make them.

No, I think newer rifles are made much better.

could that not be, at least in part due to the fact that one (i.e. clients) can consistently obtain a Classic action faster, easier, and cheaper than a pre-64? Especially in the 375 h&h lengths?

I suppose another way to say that is, if any one of the above builders were building say, a 270 for themselves, and there was a pre-64, a post-64, a post 64 Classic, and a post-64 FN sitting on a table, which one would they grab first?

The 'new' FN or SC or whatever you call the M70's that I have seen have unacceptable defects. One is a very difficult bolt lift with the firing pin down. This is when you need an easy bolt lift that the M70's used to be famous for, when your working the bolt from your shoulder at arms length. Perhaps the cam is wrong, the metal is soft on the cam, or what? In any case its unacceptable.

Also the safeties are abominable. They are very stiff and noisy when pushed off but worse are very sharp on the top edge and cut into your thumb. Unacceptable.

Give the customer a sloppy bolt and listen to the complaints. Give them a sloppy safety and listen some more. Letting a Model 70 style safety off quietly-when necessary, and that is definitely not always the case-does not take extreme athletic ability. Cutting your thumb, please. Shoot it some and let it wear in is the enjoyable part. Those original pre 64s have experienced considerable wear.

Hoping to get my hands on one of the new ones in the not too distant future.

For the price of a new Echols Legend, 14 thousand bucks, I would hope it would be very different.

The problem is it is not $13,000+ different.

Addition: To me anyway.

I think few could argue that as well.

Battue,

What are you saying? Are you saying that the top of the safety wing where our thumb works on it is not sharp? How do you know this when indeed I could see and feel that its sharp?

How can you say that the bolt lift was not hard on the rifle that I tried? Did you try it? Do you even know where that new rifle is?

I have handled approx: 10 of the new ones and all were acceptable, at least with regards to appearance and function, and the accuracy reports here of those who bought one are almost universally positive.

You, on the other hand are bashing the entire line because of the ONE you handled. Remember your quote: "Do you even know where that new rifle is? Now I expect you have seen more than one, but it seems that you are one of the few here on the fire that find them unacceptable and abominable.

A couple months ago I had a pin fall out on the bolt stop of a pre64 FWT when I took it out of the stock. Didn't make it abominable.

I have seen two of them. One has a hard bolt lift and a very sharp and difficult safety. The others bolt lift is ok and the safety is also sharp and difficult.

Perfection is difficult to find and a hard master.

savage is never happy, he also thinks his old brnos suck too, but still hunts with them all the time, even though he could loose his bolt. the new model 70's I saw looked better and tighter and functioned better than pre 64's I have messed with

My custom pre64 in 264 Win mag, and also have a 1957 Featherweight in 270. Both have served me well.

If I bought just one, then I would expect that one to not have such defects as described and I would not hesitate to tell all it was junk! On the other hand most guns, including the old pre 64s get better with age and use and all of them need a bit of tinkering..I go through all of them with a fine tooth comb and I tweek the crap out of any rifle I own, and I still come up with a flaw from time to time, so when that happens I fix it..I have tweeked a few of my custom rifles to death, tested the to th point that I may put a couple of hundred rounds through one then have some little something like the follower pop up and plug the bolt, even after all that firing, so I have to file and hone a new follower or solder a sliver of metal on the old one that I apparantly took down a little to far, its a touchy process.

guns are like a fine wine, a good women, and a good horse they get better as they age and wear, well wine and horses do!

With both eyes firmly above ground...... .................I have likely owned and shot enough Classics that the number exceeds my fingers and toes in the aggragate . I suspect I have had more pre 64's...and my total count of the new FN stops at a paltry "one".......

Sorry but there is just no way I can agree with the above statement,at least insofar as the metal is concerned.There are good Classics;I've had them...but in my view they were (there will be exceptions to this of course)a more precisely made,but sloppily assembled,rifle,and I've had my share of indifferent grouping,lousy bedding, crooked barrels,loose extractors,funky followers,indifferent function,bolts that would not go into "battery" and a host of other maladies too numerous to mention.....

I had a Classic stainless 375H&H at the range this afternoon.I mounted a scope,got it zeroed,and due to limited ammo,just rapped off hand with it.It functioned great...Gene Simmillion had gone over the gun,so I am not surprised.

At the same time,I cannot recall a single pre 64 of many that required anywhere near the amount of tweaking that has been necessary before I'd even consider taking a Classic afield on a hunt.

I picked up a Classic as a donor recently...it'll work when I'm done with it,but it's going to someone who knows what they are doing with it,will be rebarreled and restocked,and then I'll hunt with it...not before.

The FN? Great little rifle,so far.Is it a pre 64?............uh.....no...they stopped making those awhile ago

I have often said the Classic is a better design. It just is not put toegther wich as much quality (IE, receivers being .003" out of true) as the pre 64s.

BTW, was there in drop off in quality in the 60s with pre 64s?[/quote]
Again, I always want to know just what aspect of the Classic makes it a better design than the pre-64. The two piece bolt? The sloppy bolt stop and spring? The thicker, heavier floorplate and trigger guard? Or is it just the longer mag box? Maybe the partial thread in the receiver ring is the major improvement.
There did seem to be a significant drop in quality as the pre-64's neared the end. Checkering panels got smaller and smaller and looked as if they were done with a knife and fork. Machining on bolt and receiver got sloppier. Heat treating errors seemed more prevalent. GD

After owning a Pre'64 M70 in 300 Win Mag,1963 of course..:-).. and a '61 Featherweight in 270 a few years back I got thinking I should have another one...made a deal on a 1950 standard rifle in 30-06 and before I got it a 1959 Featherweight 30-06 popped up,...so I bought it too....can't decide what to do with the 1950 but I don't know if I can bring myself to tear it apart and build something on it.....

The Fwt shoots Federal 165 TSX factory ammo in an inch...probably won't bother to load for it....

I have the itis bad. Most of mine have never been shot by me but I do have the ones that I like to shoot and hunt with. My 1948's in 300 and 375 are my favorites. They came special ordered without rear sights which makes them kind of special. Then there's the 243 varmint that I like to take to the range and on nice days I will take my 250 super grade carbine out in the woods hunting. I have also hunted with my 257 carbine but for some reason the 257 round just doesn't do anything for me.

I handled a 25/35 a couple years ago but just don't have that kind of money.