I have two pre-64 Winchesters that I'm thinking about here. One is a .264 and the other a .300 Magnum. Both are unmolested currently and wear their original stocks. Both shoot well enough to keep and use but as you know the stocks are big and heavy, as are the rifles themselves.

I took a Kimber Montana in .270 on my horseback elk hunt last week. Gay I know but it worked great. I felt like I wished I could bring my Winchesters more into line with the Kimber. I am well aware that the rifles couldn't and shouldn't be made into the exact same thing but I was thinking about purchasing a McMillan stock, maybe two, for use with these rifles in the field. Goals are to have lighter rigs in a more durable stock, less affected by weather and moisture.

Am I nuts? What should I expect from putting them in a McMillan? Should I be thinking about something else? Or just leave them as they are?

If you go with a standard fill McMillan the weight difference isn't that much, if at all. At least with most modern rifles. The standard McMillan stock is about 32 oz. I'd weigh the ones on your rifles 1st to know how much weight reduction you'd get. Even if the weight reduction is only 2-3 oz you'd still ave a more durable weather resistant stock.

The Edge stocks are about 22-24 oz depending and save about 1/2 lb over most wood stocks. Sometimes more. But they don't recommend them for anything with more recoil than 300 WM. But there is no way you'll approach the weight of the Kimber.

There are other less expensive options, but few if any for pre-64's.

I'm a big fan of quality synthetic stocks and have McMillan's on my go-to rifles. But in this case I believe I'd leave those as is. You already have a synthetic Kimber for those times when you really need a durable light weight rifle.

You can get a fwt in a quality synthetic down to about 7lb (scoped, or just over 6lb bare rifle). Not much you can do to get a pre 64 lighter than that. For myself, they are worth the extra ounces!

Gotta say I agree with JMR. A good option that you didnt mention is to pick up a used, not abused Pre-64 Fwt and order up an edge fill McMillan for it. Depending on your choice of optics, you could be right around 7 lbs which is a good number for lightweight yet shootable IMO.

Think I owe Mr Brennan a beer!

An Echols Legend, EDGE fill is what I’ve used. Got one on my 7 Mashburn and P64 338. Got a 3rd one ready to go on my P64 300 soon.

Do you still have to go through D'Arcy Echols to get a Legend stock?


Okie John

I got mine through Kevin Weaver.

I liked the Echol's Shrike that D'Arcy entrusted me to "field test" on a good old fashioned hand shake. Except, I despise cheek welds, so I couldn't roll with it. If you are not off-put by cheek pieces I think it is the best hands down.

He told me the stock has some cast off in it & it seemed quite comfortable and on point.

Don't really care too much for McMillan's.

I don't like cheek pieces either, that's why I'd suggest a Mcmillan hunters compact or a Brown Precision Brown PoundR...

Been waiting for my next one since Feb, hope your patient. Great stocks, but I think I'm going to try a LAW next time.

I'd leave unmolested pre-64 Winchesters unmolested.




Dave

I have to agree with that.

He is. He's just using a lighter stock for hunting.

Wrong.

How so? Did he say he was ditching the original stock?

I had a McMillan for a Colt Sauer 375. Switched it back and forth between the Mickey and the OEM wood a few times. Didn't realized I'd molested it....

Oh yeh. Just TOUCHING those screws. Regular Weinstein you were ...

I have a walnut-stocked Kimber 8400 that shoots well, I'm thinking about getting a Montana stock for it. Walnut is nice but heavy.

Damn cool stocks that fit and look fantastic on your rifle...., but the sting of what you paid far transcends the "cool factor".



...but there's nothing wrong with using one as a pattern.





Oh, and goodbye to that crappy ugly cheek piece.





DMc

What's wrong with the cheek piece thingies? All of my synthetics have one incl a couple Browns.

I used to like them till now when I found out they wernt cool.

Just my 2 cents worth: You might have another option: I've used various pre-64s for almost all my hunting for many years. You can reduce a fair amount of weight with careful selection of mounts, rings and scopes. McMillan stocks are quite expensive and the wait time is quite long I understand. Purchase a decent factory shooter grade. There are a good number of used factory pre-64 stocks around and some are not all that expensive: certainly much cheaper than the McMillans: probably no more than $150. or so. I've reduced a noticable amount of weight by drilling 2 holes, the diameter that the factory used in the featherweights, into the rear of the butts. Then select a light buttplate option to the steel factory ones which weighted 1/4 lb. If you properly seal the inside of the stock, I doubt you'll have any problems with movement of the wood, even in wet conditions. I've hunted Alaska several times with such a stock with no problems. Another option would be to find a factory featherweight floorplate and trigger guard. With all such changes you should be able to end up with a rifle at about 8 1/2 lbs. or so and maybe a bit less, depending on the density of the wood. Good luck.

I agree with smokepole. There's not a damn thing wrong with saving the original stock and keeping it in primo condition, while you hunt with a lighter stronger synthetic stock. Not a damn thing...


Like usual, Deflave/"clark", doesn't know what the hell he's talking about...