Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Winchester Collectors Information on pre '64 M70

A friend brought one over for me to evaluate as an 'expert', which I'm not though I do or have owned 7 or 8 M70's, all shooters.

The rifle has a serial number with date of manufacture listed by Winchester as 1946. In all outward appearance it is a Standard in 30-'06. It has a 22" barrel, standard configurations stock and weighs 8¼ lbs. However, the barrel is stamped "Featherweight" and the floor plate and trigger guard are blued aluminum. No burrs on stock screws to indicate novice disassembly, nor any clear evidence of 'customizing' or barrel swap. Though it's been fired, the bolt face was clean of pits and primer leakage marks.

My friend, not a gun nut, inherited the rifle from an uncle over 25 years ago and it's been in a case ever since. Excellent condition with the only bluing wear on the right side of the muzzle, obviously from being in a soft case. The gun is in otherwise almost factory condition, no stock scratches and only very minor and few very small dents on it.

Why would a '46 manufactured M70 have a barrel marked Featherweight and aluminum floor plate and trigger guard?

The 30.06 Fwt. was introduced in 1955....

The gun is a put together. Fwts came out in 1952 in 308 only. 30-06 and 270 joined in 1953 or 1954?

A 1946 would be a transition model with a Clam Shell Safety, low comb stock only with Cloverleaf tang, Steel triggerguard & floorplate, and 24 inch Standard configuration with a 24 inch barrel.

Are you sure about the date? What is the serial #?

No, I'm not sure of date. Owner checked it.

Markings on the rifle read:
Winchester Model 70 Featherweight 30-06 SPRG.
542707

Thnx.

That serial # indicates it is a 1961 gun....

That's about right off the top of my head.

Think the owner got his dates mixed up with wrong info. Sounds like a nice 30/06 FW!

Thanks Jack and Bob, and the rest, for your responses.

I agree that certainly it is a '61 manufacture. What I don't understand is the stock configuration. My printed resources indicate the stock was redesigned in '51 when they started producing the Featherweight, but this stock is clearly the old style Standard stock. I have one just like it.

I've had a couple of post '64 Featherweights and this stock is nothing like those. The stock is what seems to add to their estimated weight of the Featherweight which, per Winchester's own data, says "about 6½ lbs." for the Featherweight Sporter. Are there two Featherweights? A sporter and a plain vanilla featherweight?

In any case, thanks guys! Appreciate the input. Any idea as to value?

Seems pretty heavy for a "fwt". To answer your question, there was only one type of fwt, besides the supergrade fwt. No such thing as a "fwt sporter", to my knowledge.... It's also threads like this, that should require pictures. Pictures please.... Also, like someone else said, the 30-06 fwt was brought out in 1955. An original 1961 fwt 30-06 will have a plastic butt plate, aluminum btm. metal, hole drilled in bolt handle, 2 lightning holes drilled in stock (7/8 dia. drilled aprox 7" deep), montecarlo stock with lyman 16B rear sight. According to Rule, 1960 was the last year to use the low comb stock on the fwt's, but we know how things can get mixed up back in the hayday of Winchester. I believe it's possible to see a low comb fwt manufactured in 1961. The rifle sounds like a fwt, considering it's marked "featherweight" on the barrel. The only thing that makes me question the rifle is the OP's listed weight. Miscalibrated scale or what????

Absolutely no idea on value until you get us some good pictures or give us a much better description.... Even then, pictures are still a must...

Thanks. Understand the pictures. Just have to wait till after this weekend when I expect to see my friend and possibly get them.

No Monte Carlo on the stock. Bolt handle drilled. Did not and likely will not remove plastic butt pad to check drilled stock. Stock looked completely Standard and everything felt heavy. Scale accurate, weighing was rushed, but gun certainly over 8 lbs. I guessed nearer 10 lbs. on initial contact as it felt heavy, but then at the time I was quite tired from working!

I believe it did have the Lyman rear sight but I'm not totally familiar with them and didn't check closely. As I posted, I'm no expert, just a hunter and gun nut, which is why I posted my question here, for people like you! Thanks, if I get the pictures they will be posted after weekend.I don't think pictures will show much more than I've already described.

A Standard Rifle stock would be inlet for the barrel boss and also have an additional hole under the forearm for the barrel screw....

Indeed. That rifle sounds pretty water logged doesn't it? My fwt's are/were right around 6.5- 6 3/4 pounds...

Yep, according to the book, Nov. '61 DOM. You don't think your friend may have weighed it with a leather sling or some such on it do you? Like BSA said, just about everything but the nearly two extra lbs. can pretty much be explained.
John

Yeah, there was a sling and a small Weaver scope, but they don't account for almost 2#. What I think accounts for that is the stock that looks like a Standard stock except for absence of hole for the fore end screw.

I'll be seeing my friend Saturday, I'll look more closely at the rifle and take some pictures which I'll post.

When I looked at the gun it was more or less casually and as a favor in order to confirm his understanding it was a 'collector' piece. My curiosity went up with the absence of a Featherweight configuration stock. After we parted I got to checking and looking. My interest and curiosity increased and I posted initially as an afterthought knowing I'm no Winchester expert being only a fairly knowledgeable shooter. I've also learned from a recollection of the owner of the rifle, that the original owner, now deceased, may have changed the stock, which makes sense.But a standard stock with no hole for the fore end?

I'll photo, look more intensely and post findings for an expert opinion on it. Thanks for your interest!

A pre 64 Standard and Featherweight stock look identical in profile. The barrel channels are different and the Featherweight will have two large holes bored fron the back to lighten it up; these are covered by the butt plate. The standard's barrel channel will have the goos egg inletting with corresponding hole for the screw.

Post 64 Featherweights are a totally different stock.

ETA: A sling, Weaver Scope and mounts will add nearly 2 pounds as Weaver scopes are very heavy for their size.

You lost me at, " My curiosity went up with the absence of a Featherweight configuration stock". Little stumped on that one. Sounds like a fwt stock to me if it doesn't have the forend screw in it.... Scratching head and nuts.. Confused..

Not sure why I lost you. I did not know that Featherweights before '64 didn't have the slim stock as the post '64's. I thought ALL Featherweights from their inception ALL had the slimmed down stock. Why would THAT lose you?

They were no different in appearance than the std wt stocks. What is this "slimmed down" version you speak of????????

sbrmike and BSA pretty well summed it up. The ONLY difference in Pre '64 Standard and Fwt. stocks it the slim barrel channel, absence of hole for the fourth screw (these you can see) and the lightening holes under the butt plate (which you cannot see unless you remove the plate.)

Don't confuse Pre '64 Fwt. stocks with the slim stock and schauble fore end of the later Fwt. rifles.

That's what I think, too. Have a serial# 539xxx mfg'd 1961.

OH BSA stop being a smart ass and pre64 snob LOL.... He was unaware that Winchester didn't use the current featherweight style stocks on the pre64 featherweight's. As they say in the Army don't read into the question LOL...