Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Pre-64 Versus Today's Model 70?

I mostly agree with the above... the post 64 CT made Model 70 SA is a real gem. Love it in a 300 WSM. The Pre-64 trigger, to me, is totally KISS, which the SC MOA trigger is not.

Pre-64's really fall down on the ability to mount a scope in a low mount. Other than that, they're awesome in an 06' based round.

dj,

All I said about the new M70 trigger was that it was easier to adjust to a clean, light pull than the old trigger. I didn't say it was a superior mechanism.

This, of course, is what often happens on the Internet. Somebody "summarizes" what's been stated by somebody else, and leaves out many details. Yet many people believe they can learn more from a 50-word post by a stranger on the Internet than they can from a 2000-word article in a gun magazine by a person who isn't shy about their identity.

I have owned a bunch of pre-'64's, and it's rare to find a trigger on one that can be adjusted to less than 4 pounds, and 4-1/2 pounds is average. The pull is crisp, but unless the trigger is torn down and worked over (best done by a gunsmith) then the pull ain't gonna be any lighter in the majority of pre-'64 triggers.

The post-'64's can often be adjusted lighter, but the engagement surfaces aren't nearly as sharp, so the pull ends up somewhat mushy--unless, of course, the trigger is torn apart and stoned.

The new trigger can easily be adjusted down to 3 to 3-1/2 pounds, and is much crisper than the pull on any post-'64 trigger that I've ever encountered.

Bullschit.

The new SC m70 trigger is no more complicated than ANY other fully adjustable,enclose sporting bolt trigger design.


As to the "easy adjustabity " of the old model 70, I guess it depends on your definition of a "fine pull". The only M70s were only moderately adjustable for pull weight only. Given the factory rigger return spring, is was virtually impossible to get them down to less than 3.5Lbs. without replacing or modifying it. Also, creep could not be reduced without grinding out some of the trigger sear engagement which had to be done by a competent smith.

One of the reasons why the Remington m700 licked the Winchester m70's ass in sales post 1962 was the easily adjustable Remington m700 triggers compared to the old m70 design.

The last two Post 64 trigger's I adjusted were fantastic breaking at 3.5 lbs ,very crisp too. I think the newer model 70's are a more refined rifle than than the pre-64's. Pre-64's are a cool rifle but I would use a Model 70 classic.

I've never NOT been able to adjust a pre-64 or post-64 trigger to 3lbs or a bit less.... I'm sure the SC trigger is perfectly fine. But the Pre-64 was a masterpiece of simplicity that could mostly be gotten to a reasonable pull, and certainly could be stoned to perfection in competent hands...

It IS more complicated than the original M70 trigger though.


Jim

I just weighed the trigger pulls on some old M70's that I have had for a long time.

My M70 'varmint' rifle was a 243 that I bought new in 1957. Its s/n is 39x,xxx. I used that rifle for match shooting and of course pests. I did change the spring in it trigger. Its pull weight is 2.0 lbs. It tests safe. It now has a 220 Swift M70 barrel on it.

Others: 264 3# 8oz., 300 H&H 3# 8oz., 308 4# 2oz., 358 3# 3oz.

All these rifles test safe.

Well I own both, personnally I like the pre 64 best. New Model 70 trigger is not near as good. Action is not as smooth (this could be because the pre 64 is a '55) The fit and finish is better on the pre 64. Scope mounting to me is the same, buy the right mounts and all is good, can't see one is better than the other. The pre 64 is more accurate, could be an example of one. I do know that the pre 64 will not be worth any less as the years go by.

Well said and accurate, It takes a competent smith that knows pre 64 triggers to get them down to ideal pull weights, But, once accomplished, IMO their isn't any other trigger design that is better, simpler, or more reliable
My pre's all sport 3 to 3 1/2 lb pulls and break like a winter icicle

The biggest argument against the new trigger seems to be that you can't adjust it below 3lbs. I don't think you will find too many commercial triggers that can be done due to law suits. The model 700 has its followers but so are the potential law suits right or wrong. The other thing is every that riles against the new trigger how many of you have actually shot one? I understand the bias and that the old trigger was nice and simple but into days liability age I think this as about as good as it gets on a commercial trigger.

Yes it is. And one caveat to my statement about the limited adaptability of the old m70 design is that the guns made pre 64 did have triggers that can be adjusted lighter than most post 64 units.The reason is not just the trigger return springs but also the tighter tolerance to which the pre 64 triggers were fitted.

I've done trigger jobs on at least a dozen post 64 m70s made from the mid 1970s to the early 2000s. Using the factory trigger return spring(and checking with an accurate trigger pull gauge), I was never able to get SAFE sub 3.5lb on any of them

Which is the reason I haven't been able to understand why Winchester ever went away from the original design and workmanship regarding the trigger. One would think that in the day of CNC machining and equipment that has the ability to mass produce parts with fine tolerances that used to take back in the day, infinitely more time to produce, that the original trigger would have made its debut return and satisfied the 70 aficionado's instead of a "New Enclosed Trigger" that has more parts. It seems to me a Rube Goldberg approach to "modern technology"
JMO

I agree.

Jim

All that means is that you need to change out the heavy lawyer spring when you are doing the trigger job. Replacing the spring is childs play.

If you want a Browning trigger buy a Browning, if you want a Remington trigger buy a Remington. Model 70's should have the classic model 70 trigger (just do a better job of making it than some of the late Conn. guns!)......................DJ

This is getting good. More popcorn and beer, please.

In general I'll take the pre 64.I have owned and shot a great many of all of them.IME the accuracy is on average far better than an out of box Classic. The pre 64 will work,rifle to rifle,better than the Classics across the board.The old trigger in either model is "plus".

I have no idea how many Classics I have owned, shot, and hunted with. I used to nickname them the "Projects in a Box" rifles.Sloppy safeties, barrels screwed on crooked, safeties that fell out,chambering problems,MIM extractors that dropped rounds, barrel swith sections of rifling missing,floorplates that would not close or needed screw drivers to pry open,mediocre accuracy,mushy triggers,sloppy bedding,indifferent accuracy,2 piece bolt handles(here and there known to come detached).....overall widely variable QC.I could go on....they never, to me, felt like,sounded like, norfunctioned and shot like, a pre 64 across the board.It could be argued that if it wasn't a pre 64, it wasn't a Winchester...

Custom shop rifles during the Classic era? i would never pay the price forthem, but to me a custom rifle was something people like Dale Goens put together...I had one Custom Shop 270 FW Classic,and compared to what I was used to it was a POS.

OTOH, the Classic has the design to be a great rifle,and after coddling and improvement by a good smith they are a fabulous hunting rifle....after you spend money on them to make them "right".How many have I used to come to this conclusion? I dunno, maybe 40-50 of them as well....

I have never, out of maybe 40-50 pre 64's(the number could be far higher)experienced ANY of the same problems cited above.Out of all the rifles I have shot and hunted with, they are the only ones' that I would pick up, blind,never having used and shot it,that I would completely trust to do two things.....function flawlessly and hit where I aimed them, every single time with no exceptions. This is no small trick and their record in my own hands is unmatched in this regard by anything else, made by any manufacturer.

The reason? Even though they were not made on CNC machinery,maybe do not have the tolernces in the manufacture of individual parts, they were hand coddled by skilled workers,guys who walked them back and forth to the range,and through QC to be certain they shot and functioned properly before they left the factory.They were assembled in such a manner that minor issues were overcome in the entire package,so that they "worked".They were not slapped together by union workers, and flung out the door.

On a pre 64 the parts are all machined steel, no castings anywhere;even the small trigger and other springs were made/tested in house. Feed rails are machined to the receiver,contoured along with mag follower,and dimensions to the individual cartridges,one of the little secrets as to how/why they function properly.Unlike the Classic with no feed rails and feeding controlled by lips in a stamped out generic mag box,sometimes ill fitted to the cartridges.

This is what many do not "get"...the difference between good rifles and great rifles is skilled hands,not CNC machinery...

I hear idiots moan about finish to the receivers and smooth machining....this is cosmetic fluff for armchair hunters incapable or inexperienced in good workmanship and great function...the pre 64 was not designed and manufactured to satisfy aesthetic taste;they were made to hunt with...but if you think a pre 64 is not well finished, pick up a pre war, or hold the barrel of any of them to the light....no ripples on the blue job, straight lines,deep,lustrous, muted blueing,,unlike the shiny attention grabbing but highly impractical dip blueing common on later rifles.

Pre 64 stocks?Some great and some not so good....I have had a few I did not want to change but not many.That said,they feel "gunny", point well,etc,and certainly function.

Got a friend, one of those old codgers that Cumminscowboy likes to make fun of,a hunter and match shooter(even in his mid 70's would likely shoot Cummins under the table)who has a pair of Palma match rifles made on pre 64 actions.He has competed nationwide and in Canada.I forget for certain but the last time I asked Bernie,one rifle had fired over 100,000 rounds, the other"newer" rifle had only 40,000 to 50,000 rounds through it.Triggers are factory,tuned by him;the only parts he has replaced is the firing pin spring,which he swaps out every 10-20,000 rounds to ensure proper ignition.

He is concerned with function because it sucks to drop shots due to malfunction on the line...this does not happen.

He is a mechanical engineer,a forensic expert in firearms and qualifies as an expert witness in court...in short he "knows rifles",unlike some on here who think they do....I doubt that aguy with his credentials,shooting the volumes of rounds he does, would use a pre 64 action if he felt there was any danger from gas handling, mostly a trumped up charge.

Like Battue has stated....all those with personal experience regarding pre 64 gas handling, raise your hands!Likely far fewer than those having real issue and accidental discharges with Reminton triggers and safeties,' I'll bet...

I challeneged many here to demonstrate how a Kimber action was superior in gas handling to a pre 64 M70 a few weeks back....I got no real answers, and few "takers".......

The SC rifles? Far better overall in assembly, fit, bedding, function and general accuracy IME than the Classics;better attention to detail in the final assembly and it shows at the range.I have now shot 6;all have stayed MOA or better with almost no fiddling at all.The trigger "feels" swell out of the box,and IMO requires no tuning,unless you are the hyper sensitive type who can't shoot with anything over 2 pounds.....that said I like the old trigger better than any enclosed trigger made by anyone. I wish they had kept it on the new rifles.So I won't be spending any real money building any rifles on the new actions for that reason.

I tell friends, you want something in a reasonable caliber that will shoot sub MOA, work every time, on about anything,anywhere,and not want to spend a fortune? Go buy a pre 64 M70 FW in 270 or 30/06 and put it in a Brown Precision,Bansner, or McMillan stock.You will not kill it, it will not, ever let you down,and it will shoot tiny groups with a reasonable array of loads,and people will try to buy it from you no matter where you go. Ignore the infidels and naysayers....you can pay a lot more for a hunting rifle.You will not get anything better.....

In the end, to me,the Classic and the SC rifles are what they are as stated above....good rifles....but to me, they haven't really made M70's....since 1964.JMHO and YMMV.

I went and measured the pulls on my 2 favorite M-70's. One a Pre-64 and the other a newer model "Classic" claw feed.

Both will not go off dropped from waist height onto a carpeted surface, both will withstand any amount of hard bolt movement without going off. They pass the safety tests I can reasonably do.

Neither has had the springs replaced.

The Pre-64 was 3.0lbs and the Classic was 2lbs 14oz's.


Not to make too fine a point here but if Brad, Savage99, Blackdog1 and others all can get theirs easily adjusted to 3lbs or less and you can't, maybe the triggers aren't the problem............................dj

A quite well-known biologist up here almost lost the eyesight in his right eye when a pre-64 model 70 in 7X57 had a case rupture, right at the extractor cutout in the barrel.

He spent some time in the hospital, and a long time recovering. I know both him and the gunsmith who inspected the rifle, and we discussed the incident at the time, and several other occasions since.

The stock, a gorgeous piece of highly figured walnut, was wrecked, but the barrelled action was unscathed. The 'smith removed the barrel, and determined that the extractor cut was machined too deeply into the chamber. It worked just fine for a while, but eventually a case wall let go.

Evidently, the gas was so freely released that no damage was done to any of the metal parts at all. He had the rifle rebarrelled and restocked and continues to use it to this day.

Ted

Not seen it mentioned, but isn't the availablity of modern M70's in stainless steel potentially a big plus over a pre 64?

A friend had a very early (pre war) pre '64 in .270win and while it was a nice rifle, the fit and finish wasn't up to a post war Sako or even a Brno he had...The stock in particular was quite clubby and the chequering "crude"...

Even Finn Aargard commented that people tend to look back at pre-64's with rose tinted glasses when in fact many were quite rough and needed quite a bit of TLC to get them up to standard...

Pre-64 IMO.