Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors lets design ideal old 70 hunting rifle

Not old, but if you will allow a NH action and Bartlein barrel im .308W. 7lb 6.5oz and balances pretty nice. Shoots better than good also.

Excellent. You notice you, Bob and myself use the same front rest. Think that has an effect on our group shooting abilities?

Lately I've been using an old rolled up sleeping bag for a front rest. Jury is still out, but it may put this one into retirement.

Well, hell yes Eric. Mine is not my pre 64 model 70 fwt though. Need to change the swirly first and then it will make the cut. Sorry for bashing the stock, just not my favorite. For now this one fits in nicely with it's much older brethren:

I use that same rest as well! Lol

Ha ha, now I know how you shot that .17" group with my old rifle... Nothing like shooting $3,000.00 rifles on a $10.00 rest...

Believe it or not that group was shot off a sandbag!


Great lineup! I really like the way the last stock came out! The black you added in really looks nice!

Eric

Thanks buddy. You are just saying that because you want my more original 338 Alaskan... Don't worry, it's yours. I believe you shot the old 30-06 off a sand bag and got a .17" group. That rifle is a people pleaser for sure... I remember it just sank into the bags and it was steady like a rock. I found it hard to not shoot good groups with that thing...








It was cold that day and your rifle never skipped a beat.

I'd like to add EricM's 1951 std. to the list: "ideal old 70 hunting rifle". I built this one to be a shooter and it definitely does that. It's also well balanced. I pillar/glass bedded the action in tight and freefloated the original barrel. It took work freefloating the barrel since it has the dog knot (sight boss). I also omitted the forend screw and made a dummy screw to go in the hole so the rifle still appears somewhat original (besides the stock being from a newer(1962) rifle). I was always very happy with this model 70 and consider it a damn good build and a damn good hunting rifle. It's also a sleeper, so if you see Eric with it and he wants to shoot for money, don't do it!!!..
[img]http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x401/chiefbsa/007-6.jpg[/img]

Allen and I became friends around 1999. We often talked on the phone. As much as he liked the 300 WM, he absolutely loved the 270. I do miss him... shame he died so young.

Funny how I've really come around to the 270. Just does about everything well, and I'd not hesitate tackling a grizzly with one.

Anyway, my one and only complaint about the pre-64 is the bolt handle... it really needs to be scalloped to accommodate a lower mounted scope. Aside from that, hard to argue with them in 06-based stuff, where I think they are at their best. Nothing out of the box IME handles 06' cartridges as well as a pre-64. I like the Fwt's best off all.

I'd never checker the bolt handle... a smooth bolt is the absolute ideal for a hunting rifleman. It could be a smidge bigger, but that's ok. It's good enough.

Once upon a time I was a 338 WM guy. It's terrific on big elk, but I got sick of its recoil, and I grew to learn any good cartridge with a properly placed bullet does just fine on any elk that ever walked. I generally prefer a 375 H&H over the 338, and still think a 270 and 375 are about as good a "world pair" as exists.

Here's an unfired 1961 30-06 I picked up in 2008 or 09 and dropped in a Hunters Edge. Only thing I'd change now is make it a 270 with a 1" pad:

Good post Brad. I love that 30-06 fwt too. Nice rifle..

Agreed.....on about everything,right down to the smooth bolt handle.

I don't mind the bolt handles. They have never given me any grief. However, I shoot differently than you righties. I grew up shooting the m1917 and also heard that one will tear into your knuckle pretty good. I was at the LGS a couple months ago and the guy behind the counter told me that and I said, "hmmmm, I grew up using one and never had that problem"... He handed the rifle to me and I shouldered it on the left side and he said, "smart azz"...

BSA,

Not looking for a fight, but I find it curious that you seem to complain about "heavy, hard kicking .300s", but you are pretty partial to the .338 WM. I realize the .338 is "more gun"than the .300, but it is not that much more, and it does rock you, I think a bit more.

I also suspect a .30-06 Fwt. with 200 to 220 grain bullets will get your attention, but it would be easier to pack around.

Comparing a .300 to a 9.3x62 is, to me, comparing two different things altogether. For me to pick one over the other, I would really have to look at the task at hand.

Full disclosure. My hunting rifles are a light .270, a standard weight .300, and I am building a Mauser in 9.3x62, because I always wanted a Mauser action rifle and 9.3x62 is a classic Mauser chambering.

Every 300 I've had kicks like a fu cking mule. THIS is full disclosure. You may want to think a little more on this. Maybe shoot them side by side. That may be an eye opener for you. I've used and shot the 300 quite a lot and prefer the 338 for obvious reasons.. One of the last times I shot my 338 Alaskan (that I'm selling to EricM), I sent 40 rounds downrange with it, 40 rounds of 7mm rem mag and 35 rounds from my 30-06 fwt. I know what I can handle as far as recoil is concerned. I have fond memories of shooting one of my friends 300 win mag's 2 times and handing it back to him and told him it kicked too much. I didn't want to shoot it another time to get a 3 shot group. My other 300 win mags were given away because they kicked like mules. However, at one time I only owned 1 rifle and it was a 300 win mag. It was not pleasant to shoot. I later sold that one and gave my dad the other one I had. Kind of sworn them off because they suck. My dad still has the one I gave him and he doesn't shoot it. He says it kicks too hard. I'll tell you what, I'd love to make a bet with you that I can do anything you can do and do it better with my 9.3x62mm vs your 300 win mag. Want to shoot groups or make a kill shot? Care to make a wager? I never do this, but it should be fun. Are you up for it?? How about something easy like post a 10 shot group with your 300 win mag and I'll post mine.... . I'll even use blemished bullets..

BSA,

Honestly, when I said I wasn't looking for a fight, I meant it. I was simply making an observation for the sake of discussion, not a criticism.

As far as side by side, I did do that once, and more or less for the specific purpose of comparing recoil. Both rifles were Model 70s, both were in the same model of Brown Precision stock. My friend's .338 was a push feed rifle with a Shilen barrel. I don't know the contour, but it was not particularly light. If anything, it was a bit on the heavy side. When he re-barreled, he didn't go light as he didn't want anymore recoil than the rifle with the factory weight barrel. My .300 is a Classic Stainless BOSS gun, but I use the CR Conventional Recoil weight as I don't like the noise of the muzzle brake. I don't remember his scope, but it was not a heavy 50mm objective. I think it was a Leupold 3-9x40. Mine was a Leupold 3.5-10x40. I was shooting either 180 grain factory loads or 180 grain handloads at a measured 3000 fps. I don't remember what he had loaded up, but he had kind of sworn off the 250s, so I'm guessing 225. We had often remarked over the years how similar our two rifles were. Our specific purpose that day was he was curious about muzzle brakes. So we shot my .300 with the brake and with the CR weight, and we shot his .338. He shot all three configurations. I don't remember if I shot the muzzle brake or not, as I never use it, and never plan to use it. My hearing is screwed up enough already. He and I are both engineers with a good bit of shooting experience. Most of my professional career was in ballistics research, running a two-stage light gas gun. He worked for Tracking Point for a while. I offer this only to suggest we are not inexperienced and we try to be analytical and fair in our observations. Our consensus that day was the muzzle brake works well but is damn loud, too loud for either of us to like it if you weren't wearing ear protection. As far as recoil with the CR weight on the .300 compared to the .338, we thought the .338 had enough more recoil that you would say "Yeah, that's more." It wasn't a lot more, but it was more. Those two rifles weren't twins, but they were darn close. As you have pointed out, a lot of how a rile kicks you is in the stock design. These were stocked exactly alike. If they hadn't have been similar, we wouldn't have bothered doing what we did. Of course, one could mess with the loads to get a different result, but we were comparing our usual hunting loads.

I respect your opinions and posts on this forum, so if you say the .300 WM kicks you substantially harder than the .338 WM, I'm not going to argue. After all, you are the one behind the gun getting kicked. But I will say that your observations do not seem to match my observations. I can also trot out a bunch of math. The "doc" part of my screen name is legit. But nobody much cares about the math.

I'm more about liking one rifle compared to another, so I don't tend to get into "good cartridge, bad cartridge" arguments. I like the .270 because it works and I grew up reading JOC. A light one is easy to carry and doesn't kick the snot out of me. I like the .300 because to me it is a definite step up from the .270. But you have to be willing to go with a longer barrel to take advantage of the case volume. Otherwise, just use a .30-06. And a light .300 or a light .338 might get old quick. I wouldn't be building a 9.3x62 if I didn't think it was worthy. But if someone else loves the .280, .300 Norma, .338 WM, .35 Whelen or anything else, it's all good. We kill stuff by putting good bullets in the right place.

As for my comment that the .300 WM and the 9.3x62 are in different classes, I can offer that there are many more .300 WM long range target or sniper rifles than 9.3x62. On the flip side, while some say the 9.3x62 can in some situations be a pretty good substitute for .375 H&H, few would offer that complement/comparison to the .300 WM.

As for your offer to get into a contest, I'm not sure what it would prove. It sure wouldn't prove one cartridge is better than another. You do put together some very nice rifles and it is clear you can shoot. I ask you this. If you can do anything and do it better with your 9.3x62 compared to the .300 WM, what can you do with your .338 WM better than with your 9.3x62?

Again, not looking for a fight, just a gentlemanly discussion. I wasn't trying to call you out. On the rare occasion that I think someone is full of crap and I choose to call them on it, I'm pretty clear about it. Peace.

Gun Doc

That, is one of the best posts I have read here in a long time and my experience with the several .300 mags. and the dozen .338WM and six 9.3x62 rifles I have owned tends to mske me agree with the "kick" aspect of it.

I find my 9.3 and .338WM rifles to be very similar in felt recoil and my .375 H&H, owned seven since 1982, definitely boot me harder.

But, none of these are difficult to shoot small groups with or to use in the field, for overall BC conditions, I have found the .338WM-225 and 250-to be the best choice.

I am also a HUGE .270 and .280 fan and these do the business far beyond what one might expect, using good bullets.

I have never had the desire to shoot Grizzlies, but, have seen some killed and one was with a P-64 .270 many years ago. I also would not worry with one in hand loaded with 150 NPs and have used mine quite a lot in BC Grizzly country.

So, Brad, have you sold yet more rifles and left your usual .30-06 and .308Win. rigs for the siren song of JOC's favourite?

Badass man!

This thread is now reaching epic status. Tons of good info here!! I'm anxious to compare the pre-64 338 Alaskan's recoil to my BRNO 602 375 H&H.

Eric

you can't make this stuff up...

Good stuff guys: when I re-barreled my original .300 barrel I could have went with a .338 and did give it a tiny bit of thought. But for me, I was thinking of the mountain hunting application as well as being in a land with big critters so the .300 made more sense to me. The recoil issue for me hasn't been much of an issue with this particular rifle for 2 reasons I can think of. The first is, as I mentioned previously, the rifle comes in at 8# 12-13 ounces. Then, I wanted to use 180s but just could not get them to shoot in this barrel. After a lot of frustration, I tried some 150 Barnes TSX which did shoot very well. And I really noticed a decrease in felt recoil over the 180s. I know the 150s are not the preferred weight for the .300 but I went for accuracy over bullet weight. With the Barnes copper I did not really feel bad about penetration even at the .300 velocities. I did not chronograph the load but I believe it was right up there with the 25" barrel. The load was 75gr./imr 4350. Would my .270 have worked well on that goat. Sure, but remember this was an unguided hunt on Kodiak Island (my son is an Alaskan resident so I could hunt goats without a guide as long as he was with me) and we did see the big bears.

Most of the time you have to pay for comedy like this.