Aftermarket stocks? Bases ect...... compared to 700s Savage 110s? Is there really such a small market for M-70 accessories? I have owned 25 or so Remington 700s but just a few 70s Sure 70s cost more, but even Weatherbys have a better selection of parts and pieces. OR
Are Winchesters just better overall and need no improvements?

I've never noticed. Seems to be enough out there for model 70's. Although, they don't need new triggers, extractors, and the bolt handles tend to stay attached...

Bordon Rimrock stock
Brown stock
stock stock
McMillian stock

Seems to me that 700s and savages are popular with a lot of different crowds. Hunters, target shooters, tactical wannabes etc.

Winchesters are popular with some hunters...and they have changed a bunch of times with model changes and ownership changes etc.

Thats my guess

Just my wild guess that the heavier and/or collector rifles are not hunted as much, therefore have no need for modern stocks.

Simple, really. Model 70s don't need an entire cottage industry like 700s to make them work....

+1 covers it in a nutshell.

For the same reason you don't see aftermarket
high-rise intakes for Yugos.......
All the good accessories are only available for Ford and Chevy.......
It's not because Fords and Chevys won't run without the "extras".......

It’s always funny watching those that suffer from 700 derangement syndrome come crawling out on these threads.

Use both 70/700 and a lot harder than shooting groups and “comps” and they both work well.

Have had 1 bolt come apart on a rifle, it wasn’t a 700.

That's the problem, they won't. Fail on fire safeties, bolt handles that might come off and flimsy, sheet metal extractors prone to failure....

Fixed it.

Edited to add perhaps the worst malady of them all: a safety that won't lock the bolt....

That makes sense. Rem 700 actions and all of the designer clones are commonly used for everything from deer rifles to tactical rifles to benchrest rifles. When I think of Win M70’s the niche is probably controlled round feed big game hunting rifles and so less need to swap out or order custom stocks ect for what is a generally narrower set of uses.

Not to mention they don't tend to fire at random times.

Here is an example of me evaluating a bolt action rifle design.

I have a Howa 270, Rem700 6mmBR, and lots of Mausers... comparing them...

The book to get is "Bolt Action Rifles" 4th edition by de Haas.
Modern Firearms + Amazon webstore - Bolt Action Rifles

The 98 Mauser/ pre 64 M70 has:
1) flat bottomed receiver to take torque from rifling
2) controlled feed
3) claw typed extractor
4) safety on firing pin, often modified to be 2 or 3 position M70 type
5) multi stage gas filter on firing pin hole for safety
6) bolt handle is integrally forged as part of bolt body
7) safety lug below rear bridge
8) integral recoil lug
9) knife ejector in bolt lug slot
10 an inner C ring to put the tenon threads in compression

The rem 700
1) receiver made from round tubing
2) push feed
3) little wimpy extractor
4) safety on trigger
5) simple bolt
6) bolt handle tacked on with screw and solder
7) nothing for safety if bolt lugs fail.
8) recoil lug is a modified washer that is captured by the receiver and barrel
9) plunger ejector
10) No inner C ring, so the only thing holding the barrel to the receiver is the tenon threads in tension

Of the ~100 bolt action covered in the above book, they seem to all be on the spectrum somewhere between the simple Rem700 and the complex 1898 Mauser design.

The Howa 1500:
1) flat bottom receiver
2) push feed
3) short claw extractor is bigger than rem, but smaller than M98
4) three position bolt safety
5) simple bolt
6) Integral bolt handle
7) nothing
8) integral recoil lug
9) plunger ejector

I would give the Howa Mauser scale = ~50% Mauser
I would give the Howa Rem700 scale = ~50% Rem700

That has come up before, but if you check your own reference you'll find:

Sorry I left that out. Another reason I dont buy the garbage anymore. Yes, I had a brand new one (back in 1996) do that and had to send it back to Remington. It was a beautiful BDL, but looks aren't everything.

I kinda like that part myself.

I am so disgusted.

Rem 700s are so cheap, they could not even afford a hole.

Truer words were never spoken.

This could morph into a discussion of the number of stars in the sky, grains of sand on the beach, Angels dancing on the head of a pin, or things that can be done with a Ruger 10-22.

When I hunt the Adirondacks I hunt mostly solo. When I do hunt in a group I do not allow anyone packing a 700 to walk behind me while on a trail.

Signature line there Jorge.

I may unabashedly steal that.

Not a bad practice.

Way more dangerous to drive to dinner...

The rifles I hunt with are primarily M70's and mostly because I got my 1st M70 @ 15 and the trigger just "feels right".

I've hunted plenty w/700's as well but I can't say I've ever felt unsafe doing so.

I mostly hunt afoot with a cold chamber regardless the rifle I'm carrying, maybe that's part of it??

Regarding the OP specifically, most of my Winchesters have had the stocks replaced w/McMillans either direct from McM or by nabbing Win-Lights, swapping stocks and getting rid of the push-feeds. I've got one Brown Precision I nabbed in the classifieds here, 2 HS Precision, and I've used at least one of the B&C Medalist stocks as well.

It's disappointing to me to see that McM has dropped the Fwt pattern as it's my favorite, probably mostly due to familiarity. I like a slim forend and pistol-grip.

True.

I don't take unnecessary risk with either.

I've sent more M-70s back to the factory for repairs than 700s.......

I will take a M98/M70 over a Remington 700 every time. That said for wearing out cheap barrels a M700 can't be beat.

I think that the Winchester, Remington, Ruger debate is analogous to the Chevy, Dodge, Ford debate over which is the better pickup truck.

I've owned well over 100 Winchester 70s and a like number of Remington 700s, never had, or have personally seen, any of the problems with the Remington 700s that are repeatedly brought up. There have been over 5,000,000 Remington 700s sold, so it is logical to expect that as in any high volume production environment there will be a small, less than 1%, error rate. In high volume production, perfect is the enemy of good.

Buy whatever product appeals to you. Use it as is, or modify is to better suit your specific wants and needs. Personally, I have modified hundreds of firearms to suit my specific wants and needs better than they did in their original factory specs. I've cared enough to buy 70 or so McMillan stocks to replace perfectly useable original factory stocks because they fit my wants better. Most people don't care enough to spend much extra money to close the gap between good and better.

So, I have been working over another M-70. About finished and to the range for testing. As a fowl weather gun I care about the easy bolt takedown. I do not have to guess that the striker is clean and in order to fire. I can really take or leave the three position safety. Twice I have ended up at the bottom of a slide with a bolt open M 700 round ejected, empty rifle in hand. Old 700s locked the bolt down with the safety on. Smarter now I do not chamber a round until about to shoot. So I guess that is less of an issue. While I have 19 years bear hunting in Alaska with mostly a .416 all of the Alaska animals taken by myself and friends have been with a glass stocked 30'06 700 Mountain gun. Light, handy,
unfailingly accurate. But most importantly lucky. It was always nearby when something needed shot. So much for the Mountain gun. This M-70 is a SS BOSS equipped 30,06. It has a 47-0 score on Kansas white tails. I check zero every 20 cartridges. The last group was 1.25" @ 300 paces... then we all got Lazers...so call that 285 yards very close to average range shooting deer over Winter Wheat in December.

Yeah that's a good point. 1/4 of one percent of 5 million is still 12,500.

I did have to have 1 pre 64 Mod 70s repaired. The firing pin would release when the safety was put on fire and cause the gun to fire. Luckily I found that out at the range. This is the only one I had problems with. I much prefer the action and safety on the Mod 70 than the 700. The triggers are better on my m70s than on the one Remington I have (Well not anymore since I put a Trigger Tech trigger in the 700.). The m70 bolt is much easier to disassemble and clean.

1/400th seems like pretty good odds of not getting a lemon. Who wouldn't bet big if you were going to win 399 time out of 400?

Of course, I took Winchester 70s to Africa and put together a pair Mauser for next time, if there ever is a next time.

Dunno. Lots of people still hiding from a virus that is 1/400th...not a lot of brains out there.

If it gives them peace of mind and they can afford to hibernate they aren't doing any harm except by the reduction of their use of the service and hospitality industries.

Just that they are unable to calculate odds and think they are somehow different than, and better than, everyone else.

It took two years of semi serious searching to find a stock I liked for the M-70...Still looking for a silver steel Pick type base set for a standard pattern M-70...I have 3/8' hole space for the 375 /Safari receivers in blue. A shoe box full of M700 silver bases and rings all kinds. Just not finding bases for that BOSS gun.

If they minimize contact with other people and aggressively use disinfectant on things that come into their home, don't they reduce their risk?

I’m pretty sure that his overall point is that for something with a 1/400th risk there sure are a lot of stupid people that can’t calculate risk. As compared to the hysteria and damage done to the economy and personal freedom over the last one year plus of silly lockdowns, school closings, mask mandates ect.

Yep

Try finding a drop in synthetic stock for a Win 670 blind mag w/ 3 pos safety.
Don't know, maybe they never made one.

Should be any blind mag post-64 model 70 stock will fit that. Many of the WinLights were blind....

Or, nab some bottom metal and convert it.

Marlin xl7 stocks will fit. Or call boyds

Two good leads! Thanks gents.

70 Super Shadow long action stocks should work.

I can make any safety fire when taken off safety, if I can adjust it.... M70 type included.
But I leave the M70 triggers stock, and always replace the Rem700 triggers.

I own:
9 M70s
11 R700s


So far I have rebarrelled:
3 M70s : 270, 280ai, 25-06
9 R700s, 6mmBR, 6mmBR, 250sav, 6.5-06, 6.5-06. 7mmRM, 7mmRM, 7mmRM, 7mmSTW

I like Rem 700s and M70s the best for rebarreling, restocking, and hunting.
I like Mosins and Mausers next for rebarreling,
Arisakas are ok
Sav 110 designs, I think I am done rebarreling.

Call Cameron Murphy at Murphy Precision and get a stainless base for your rifle. If he doesn't list the hole spacing for your rifle, me will specially make it at no additional charge. RJ

https://www.murphyprecision.com/Products/Cat/135

Nice stuff from Cameron.

700's are what fellas bought back in the day when they were too cheap to buy 70's.

Back in the 1990s when I was reading the few gun forums, Bart Bobbitt was pro M70 and Gale McMillian was pro R700.

Bart acknowledged that Rem700s were so cheaply made, that Remington could afford to put better barrels on them than Win70s got at the factory. Bart always rebarrelled his M70s..

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.guns/iL7zv-cktJc

5/10/97
Leafing through my copy of the May 1997 issue of Precision Shooting, I encountered an ad for Krieger Barrels, Inc. that showed an actual-size copy of a 20-shot group shot at 800 yards by "Bert Bobbit [sic] with his Krieger Barrelled PALMA rifle." Now this group has a .942" mean radius, with an extreme spread of 3.325. If it were a 5-shot group, you'd say, "Somebody else has shot that well at 1,000 yards." But a 20-shot group? God!!
At first I wondered if this was rec.guns's own BartB because of the spelling in the ad. Then I realized the odds against having two superb riflemen with such similar names were almost as great as having obtained a 20-shot group that small through chance and chance alone.
All I can say is, if BartB and any other poster ever disagree about anything having to do with shooting, I'll know whom to believe.

When I read this thread in 1997, I was still trying to get my first 1" 5 shot group at 100 yards.
In 2002 I got my first 1" group and even a 0.45" (5) shot group at 100m with a surplus VZ24 Mauser I rebarrelled with a Loather Walther light varmint barrel in 257 Roberts Ackley.

You got that backward, in a way.

The pre-'64 Model 70 essentially died even before the Remington 700 appeared in 1962. Why?

Winchester switched to the push-feed Model 70 in 1963--so there was almost no overlap in buying a pre-'64 Model 70 versus a 700. The push-feed M70 eventually turned into a pretty good rifle, but there were definitely growing pains.

In the meantime the pre-'64 faded because Winchester had never modernized the manufacturing process, whether machining the massive receiver, or making stocks or barrels. Consequently it was a LOT more expensive to produce, and since it required more hand-work to make, quality started declining in the 1950s--partly because Winchester's comprehension of what worked to make an accurate, out-f-the-box rifle also declined.

It improved at Remington, partly because the guy in charge, Mike Walker, was a benchrest shooter. Consequently the post-war, pre-'64 wasn't nearly as precisely made as the 700--which was the eventual refinement of the Model 721/722, which appeared in 1947. I know this partly from owning a bunch of pre-64's and 721/722/700 Remingtons.

Pre-'64s will usually shoot well--once the bedding and other factors are dinked with. But the Remingtons normally shot very well out of the box, which by the 1950s meant a LOT more to the average customer--more than sloppy hand-checkering, or the legendary pre-'64 trigger that could rarely be adjusted below a 4-pound pull--WHEN the average owner was competent enough to do so.

Probably one of the biggest reasons the pre--64 M70 lost out was the Featherweight model. It was great in most respects--but Winchester didn't comprehend free-floated barrels. The Featherweights barrels were supposedly free-floated, but in reality were slightly loose around the barrel. As a result most didn't shoot well at all, because the barrel banged around inside the barrel channel, unlike the barrels on the standard-weight, with their tighter bedding and forend screw. Again, I know this partly due to owning pre-'64 Featherweights that were all original--plus reading many of the reviews of Featherweights from the 1950s.

But if you believe the 700 won out back then ONLY because shooters were cheap, then you don't have any comprehension of what happened--and why.

You just sent a few in to a tail spin.

I have had a lot of different brands of rifles that I have liked over the years....

but my favorite always has been and always will be the Model 70 Winchester...

I must be lucky. In my lifetime, I must have owned at least a couple of dozen pre-64s (I only have five now) including FWs and ALL were sub MOA including the FWs. When the post-64s came out they were absolutely horrible in fit and finish (I have no issue with PF rifles). The 700s looked GOOD, were well-finished and shot extremely well which served to hide all the flaws that are now common knowledge and helped foster the cottage industry built around "improving" 700s. But yes the Winchester machinery was in bad shape, the rifles did require a lot more man hours and hindsight is always 20/20, but in my view Winchester should have found a way to either upgrade the manufacturing process (albeit increasing prices) or slowly introduce the post 64 variant whilst taking the time to apply quality control measures to same. Those first few years were HORRIBLE and they never recovered.

In my 1963 Shooter's Bible, which cost $2.95 when I got 50 cents a week allowance, but I bought it with money made from mowing neighbor's lawns.

M70 was $139.00, worth $800 beat up but original today. =3% per year appreciation compounded annually. = average for a gun, Gold, or a guitar
R700 was $139.95. worth $400 beat up but original today. = 1.8% per year appreciation compounded annually. = very poor for a gun

I am buying them both. The Rem 700 cost more to buy and build, as I put on a new scope, barrel, stock, trigger, bolt, extractor, and I have have to make pillars and bolt knobs.
The M70s only get a new scope, barrel, and stock. I do have to make an extractor cut on the breech.
The R700 trigger, bolt, and extractor, cost more than the $400 gun purchase difference.


1949 M70 30-06 cost me $775 in 2018, is now a 280AI


2000 R700 270 cost me $400 in 2014, is now a 6.5-06

the first decent rifle i owned was a post 64 i got in 1966. the stock didn't look so bad to me at the time. few rifles fit, as i am tall with long arms. the solution was to make a stock the way you wanted it. a locksmith/gunsmith i met showed me how to inlet a stock. i just whittled tie outside away 'til it fitted. it's still my favorite rifle and the one i usually hunt with. i have 700s and 70s. a pre 64 featherweight was the only 308 i have owned that i couldn't get to shoot. about 2'' was the best.

the thing i have noticed is that the 70s cycle easier and slicker than the 700s. don't know why, it's just my impression.

one thing i have wondered about is that most everyone on this site buys a 700; strips all the parts off, remachines the action, and builds a new rifle. are the standard 700s so bad? can't remington machine a square receiver?

The pre-64 Model 70 is a refined military action which made the basis for a fine sporting rifle but, as MD pointed out, by the end of it's run, quality was poor at best. The post-63 model 70 was the result of Winchester's attempt to produce their rifles using new techniques. In many technical aspects, they were successful but they failed aesthetically. In addition, they were not as supported as was the 700 which (once again pointed out by MD) had Mike Walker behind it. One area where the new Winchester did at least as well as Remington and that was in barrel production. The Winchester hammer-forged barrels were excellent. Remington also produced excellent hammer-forged barrels but they also produced barrels which had ripples in the bore from end to end. I never saw this from Winchester until they moved their manufacturing from New Haven. I also did not see the eccentric chambers which Remington produced often or the very crooked barrels. Nonetheless, the most accurate standard factory rifles I saw were Remingtons. I think it is safe to say that no custom gunmaker even thought of building a fine rifle based on the push-feed Model 70. When we started building glass-stocked hunting rifles, the Remington was the easy choice. It was alot easier to mold a stock to fit a 700 than a model 70. The 700 had a better trigger. It was lighter and it was just easy to work with. In the 1970's Winchester just couldn't get it going while Remington had momentum. Of course, it was in the late '70's that Remington started to see some problems with their triggers (related to QC, in my opinion) but that only served to boost the aftermarket suppliers.
I have always liked the Model 70 just because it was made by Winchester (my grandfather always said, "A rifle is a Winchester and a pistol is a Colt"). I made some nice shooting high power target rifles on Model 70's, as did a lot of makers, but if I wanted to build a seriously accurate varmint or BR rifle, the choice was always a Remington. When customs actions started to be in common use, a large percentage of them looked a lot like a Remington. In fact, Hart actions simply used Remington bolts in their actions for years.
Winchester never has been able to find their place in the rifle landscape after the pre-64.
As a gunsmith, I have never been bothered by the lack of drop-in options for stocks. Custom fitting of stocks or making stocks is part of what gunsmithing is. GD

Actually the 700 back in the early days was a much nicer rifle than the early push feed model 70's. The first of the push feeds were roughly finished, the stocks had a huge gap around the barrels and were also finished not so pretty. The early 700's were nice looking rifles which means a lot more to most than super tight groups. I remember when I bought my first 700 BDL in 270 back in 1972, the contrast between the two was incredible and the push feed 70 cost ten bucks more. Both rifles shot pretty good as I bought on in 30-06 a few years later but the only plus the 70 really had was it seemed to feed more smoothly than that 700. When Winchester came back out with the controlled round feed model 70 it was a much better rifle in many ways that the Remington 700 comparing stock rifles. I have had several that shot really well in particular a stainless and wood Featherweight classic in 22-250. Today if I had the choice between a Remington 700 and one of the controlled round model 70's of today the 70 would be my choice.

What rock you been living under. Winchester can’t even keep up with demands, right now..

The 79-84 Winchester’s are some of the nicest model 70’s around. Yeah they are pushfeeds but they have a better safety, better trigger than the 700. The Portuguese made model 70’s are some of the best produced. For the guy saying Winchester hasn’t found their place after the pre64. I remember 2006 when Winchester announce the model 70 was ceasing production. New Haven plant shutting down, it was a sad day. Then 2008-2009 FN announced the model 70 was coming back out made at the South Carolina plant. Those model 70’s are extremely well made, and guys could not buy them fast enough. So to say Winchester can’t find their way is complete bull chit.

I think I am "smarter" when it comes to rifles then I was 65 years ago when I started pulling triggers. I have also been down sizing my collection and giving guns away to kids and grandkids. I have kept my custom Mod. 70 .338 that I had made up about 25 years ago, based on the "Classic Stainless" Mod. 70 with the Bansners stock and Blackburn bottom metal, also had the bolt collar welded on it. A local gun smith managed to get a crisp 3 lb. trigger pull on it and the other Winchester I am keeping for now. It puts 225 grain TTSX bullets into tidy groups and wears a Nightforce 3-9 SHV with illuminated duplex. and that ballistic tape from Kenton Industries that is good out past 600 yards, which is further then I will ever shoot.

My other one is a Pre-64 Featherweight 30-06 made in 1958. I put Williams one piece bottom metal on it and the Brockman's Talley Peep Sight on the rear that pops up when the scope is removed. I pull the scope in the summer if I take the rifle on a hike or ATV ride. The scope is a Leupold "gasp" 3.5-10x40 with a B&C reticle, I don't dial this scope. A guy down the road a few minutes from the house cleaned up the checkering and refinished the stock and it likes Barnes 175 grain LRX bullets.

I expanded my horizons a few years ago and picked up a Tikka T3X Superlite in 6.5 Creed and put a SWFA 3-9x42 Mil scope on it. It is a far cry from the old mod. 70's and Springfield 03A3's I grew up with, but I like it. I will always have my Dad's old Mod. 99 in .300 Savage. That is all of the "big game" magazine bolt rifles I have left. But, I do have four peep sighted lever guns suitable for Alaskan critters.

Five buddies all have Remington 700's in .35 Whelen and I doubt they will ever change as they work so well for them. How many 700's have been put to the test in the "sand box wars" the last 20 years, a bunch I think. I probably know more guys that use a 700 then any thing else or a Ruger, but the ones I think know more about rifles use a Mod. 70 for what ever reason. I just like the CRF Mod. 70 with the simple old trigger and the easy field stripping bolt that locks down when on safe. At my age I doubt I will ever change my ideas much on what I want a rifle to be like.

I think I am "smarter" when it comes to rifles then I was 65 years ago when I started pulling triggers. I have also been down sizing my collection and giving guns away to kids and grandkids. I have kept my custom Mod. 70 .338 that I had made up about 25 years ago, based on the "Classic Stainless" Mod. 70 with the Bansners stock and Blackburn bottom metal, also had the bolt collar welded on it. A local gun smith managed to get a crisp 3 lb. trigger pull on it and the other Winchester I am keeping for now. It puts 225 grain TTSX bullets into tidy groups and wears a Nightforce 3-9 SHV with illuminated duplex. and that ballistic tape from Kenton Industries that is good out past 600 yards, which is further then I will ever shoot.

My other one is a Pre-64 Featherweight 30-06 made in 1958. I put Williams one piece bottom metal on it and the Brockman's Talley Peep Sight on the rear that pops up when the scope is removed. I pull the scope in the summer if I take the rifle on a hike or ATV ride. The scope is a Leupold "gasp" 3.5-10x40 with a B&C reticle, I don't dial this scope. A guy down the road a few minutes from the house cleaned up the checkering and refinished the stock and it likes Barnes 175 grain LRX bullets.

I expanded my horizons a few years ago and picked up a Tikka T3X Superlite in 6.5 Creed and put a SWFA 3-9x42 Mil scope on it. It is a far cry from the old mod. 70's and Springfield 03A3's I grew up with, but I like it. I will always have my Dad's old Mod. 99 in .300 Savage. That is all of the "big game" magazine bolt rifles I have left. But, I do have four peep sighted lever guns suitable for Alaskan critters.

Five buddies all have Remington 700's in .35 Whelen and I doubt they will ever change as they work so well for them. How many 700's have been put to the test in the "sand box wars" the last 20 years, a bunch I think. I probably know more guys that use a 700 then any thing else or a Ruger, but the ones I think know more about rifles use a Mod. 70 for what ever reason. I just like the CRF Mod. 70 with the simple old trigger and the easy field stripping bolt that locks down when on safe. At my age I doubt I will ever change my ideas much on what I want a rifle to be like.

That was my experience. My first Remington 70 was a BDL .243 purchased very slightly used in 1974--from co-worker whose ex-boyfriend bought it as a present, apparently partly because he believed the .243 was a better "women's cartridge" than the .308 she'd been using for years on everything up to elk--in a Winchester 88 lever-action. I got the .243 for $80, including 17 rounds of factory ammo. (She'd fired it 3 times.)

One of the other smart things Remington did back then was give the 700 BDL's stock a semi-Weatherby look, with a Monte Carlo comb, and white-line spacers between the black buttplate, grip-cap and forend tip. The Weatherby look was "in" then, but Remington's was enough of a compromise between Weatherby and "classic" that it sold very well (despite giving Jack O'Connor a case of his "vapors").

The rifle would group just about anything, whether factory or handloads, into less than an inch at 100 yards. I killed a lot of game with it, from prairie dogs to big mule deer. But a year or so later bought a 700 ADL .270. By then I "knew" something about bedding rifles, so-free-floated the barrel, It grouped three shots well under an inch at 100 yards before that, but afterward it would group tree into 1-1/2"--at 300 yards. And that was with a 4x scope. It's still perhaps the most accurate factory big game rifle I've ever owned.

In 2001 I purchased a new varmint weight 700, with a laminated stock, at a local sporting goods store. It didn't shoot all that well out of the box, with 5-shot groups going around 3/4" at 100, but after some minor accurizing and handloads put together with basic benchrest techniques, it consistently grouped 5 shots in 1/4" at 100 yards. (These days a few thousand rounds have gone through the barrel, but it will still consistently group five into less than 1/2".)

Have owned a bunch of 70s, including pre--64s, post-'64 push-feeds, and post-'90 controlled-feeds--which right now include a stainless-synthetic .223 WSSM "controlled push-feed," a Jack O'Connor Commemorative .270 Featherweight, and a "Portuguese" .300 WSM. All three shoot very well--but the .223 WSSM required rebarreling, because (as it turned out) the barrel threads were so loose that there was no way it would shoot. A properly installed Lilja barrel resulted in sub-half-inch 5-shot groups.

The one pre-'64 I now own is a Featherweight .308 Winchester made in 1953, when that was the only factory rifle in .308. As the early reviews of the Featherweight indicated, it shot very poorly until I free-floated the barrel by placing two bread-bag plastic shims behind the recoil lug. Now it groups just about any factory load under an inch at 100 yards, and it's best handloads will put 5 under an inch.)

The O'Connor rifle's first 3-shot group at 100 yards, with factory Norma ammo, was under 1/2": (It also has a very precisely bedded action and free-floated barrel, as have all the other O'Connor Featherweights that I've seen.) The .300 WSM shot most ammo under 3/4"--until Hill Country Rifles accurized it. Now it will shoot just about anything into smaller groups.

I wish the new M70s still had the original trigger, but apparently that's never going to happen.

Must also mention that I've fired over 100,000 rounds from Remington 700s (and 722/721s) and never had a bolt handle fall off, or an extractor break. I guess that's very damn lucky!

25 years ago I saw a big guy jump on an FAL action handle [like jumping on a pogo stick] to clear a stuck case. I was shocked the rifle survived and the case came out.

I have had a TIG welded military Mauser bolt handle fail at the weld with ordinary use.

Stuck cases in Mauser with forged over bolt handles... I have pounded out some very stuck cases,

Better buy a lottery ticket.

There’s a few that are going to need counseling after this.

700 derangement syndrome is real.

The real advantage of the 700 goes way back. 700's are easy to bed accurately. Now with epoxy bedding, not to mention pillars, bedding blocks and frames, kind of irrelevant. The Remington was advertised as having a faster lock time, which it generally does. But only by a standard .4ms.

The 700 gets bagged on for the safety issue, yet the model 700 rarely gets bagged on for having no gas handling ability.
FWIW I own both 700's and 70's.

God forbid if muledeer mentions using a leupold scope as well on said Remington 700’s

The 700 "handles" gas by containing it at the bolt's head. I have blown a few primers in 700s (and a 722) and never felt a trace of gas on my face.

Have also had primers blow (and a couple of cases) in 98 Mausers and Model 70s, including the latest 70s with the supposed gas-block on the left side of the bolt. Have felt a slight amount of gas on the left side of my face in 98's, but got quite a blast from the 70s.

About 25 years ago the head of the 2nd Amendment Foundation wrote a comedy piece about the typical attendee at the Puyallup WA gun show.
~~ "He carries in Rem700 30-06 with a Leopold 3x9 scope. He wants to get $400 for it."

Inflation has ravaged that comedy.

Those couple that have had every Leupold fail and “extraction” issues with every 700 would have to be put on suicide watch.

I’m tired of tripping over those dam bolt handles while I’m hunting.

I’ll take it!

I thing I have to disagree with... thrre aren't a lot of options for the older Savage 110. It was my first big game rifle I bought in 1987.. its worn several barrels since then. Currently rebuilding it again into a 6mm Rem.

The only stocks for them that I can find are the B&C and McMillan. Even then, McMillan requires you send it in to match the inletting. I looked into a chassis, but when talking to the manufacturers, they indicated I'd have trouble getting it to feed from a detachable mag in a chassis without machining the receiver.

The only reason I'm building off the old 110E is nostalgia, barely worth the headache.

I have had a Sav110E 30-06 since 1985 when I got it for $100.
I tried to update it in 2017, I put a Bartlein 280AI barrel on it, but the stock availability was the problem. The B&C Aluminum bed stock was too heavy.



The 280AI is on the bottom.

Looks cool!

The B&C is no lightweight, but serviceable. I'm modifying one and going to paint it.

You got me to do something.
I ordered one of these.
https://www.brownells.com/rifle-par...ge-arms-110-stock-sporter-prod73008.aspx

I will glass bed it, like this is 1985.

Nice! Post pics when you get it 😎

M700 is about a 1986. On its 3rd stock, 2nd bottom metal and don't know how many scopes and rings.Original barrel. Round count is approximately 3500. Still waiting for the bolt handle to fall off and the extractor to fail. Usually will run roughshod over the X-bolt at the range. Fortunately I have a BACO M70 as backup for the 700 when it fails. Still waiting and waiting......

My post should have read..
"The 700 gets bagged on for the safety issue, yet the model 70 rarely gets bagged on for having no gas handling ability.
FWIW I own both 700's and 70's."

BWalker,

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

John

I am almost ashamed to say I do not own either a model 70 or Model 700 among my bolt actions. I must admit I am looking for a model 70 featherweight in 7x57 caliber. My current bolt rifles are a CZ 550, a ruger M77 MKII, a Ruger American, and a Mannlicher Schoenauer 1905. I had a pre 64 Model 70 in 243 but did not care for the caliber as I developed a preference for medium bores.

From my experience, the R700 is far more accurate or can be made far more accurate. Both have “hunting” accuracy, but the R700 is more accurate. Thus they are more desirable to many people. And the push feed vs CRF is a non issue, unless you’re after dangerous game and then, how much of an issue is push feed, really?
And I like the R700 because there are more customizing options. Fire suit on.

My Model 7 blew a primer, sent me to the eye Dr, scratched cornea. My son felt the gas escape five feet behind me. I typically wear glasses to shoot at the range, I somehow didn't that day.

One reason I started to prefer CRF (I have others that aren't) is I was deer hunting with a PF Winchester and tried to load it silently behind a tree so the deer I was after wouldn't see or hear me. I had the rifle pointed straight up and when I started to push the round up into the chamber it fell out and hit the rocky ground scaring off the deer. So I figured it wasn't just dangerous game they were useful for.

I have had pierced primers with a 700 varmint rig and didn't even know it until I seen the empty case. Granted this isn't s full on blown primer.

257Bob,

That's no good!

I've blown primers in both 700s and one 722. They blew so much there wasn't any trace of the primer isefl, and once I got the bolt open the case had to be pried out of the bolt-face with pliers. Which makes me wonder if there's something different about the Model 7. Have only owned one--actually my wife did, but only briefly, so am not nearly as familiar with it as the 700/722.

Depending on how the rifle is oriented, all PF's I'm familiar with can't be loaded slowly. Work the bolt with authority, then a M700 can be cycled even with the rifle upside down.

You're killing me here Jorge.......




One of the strengths of the Walker trigger is that it's eminently adjustable. The downfall of the Walker trigger is that it's eminently adjustable by idjits. And it's also quite helpful to keep triggers clean, and with the M700's popularity there are plenty of owners out there who have never taken the stock off of their 50 year old M700 to clean it.

Bolt handles are prone to come off when beat on to open the action--again, because of it's popularity, there probably have been more overloads shot in M700's than there are M70's, period.

Of the 10's of thousands of rounds I have shot through M700's I've never had an extractor break, nor bolt handle come off, and the two used M700's that would follow down upon closing the bolt, both triggers had been messed with--in particular the sear engagement. One of those rifles I bought here on the 'fire. Needless to say I immediately adjusted the sear engagements back to factory specs.




Most of my M700's lock the bolt.

Of course, any M700 produced after 1999 would have to have the slot machined in the bolt to accept the old style safety lever. For M700's produced prior, all a guy needs is the correct safety lever.

Thank you JorgeI for your contributions - well said .

I must confess to being unaware of all the good features of the Pre 64 Model 70 and bought my 1953 M70 FWT .308 used on the recommendation of a hunting friend. I remember paying less than $100 then and adding a 4 power scope (still works) and being disappointed when I could shoot groups no smaller than 5/8 inch with factory or handloads. So, again based upon good advice, I forgot about little groups and went hunting. After 40+ years and untold critters, it still is my meat-in-the-pot rifle. Recent Pronghorn - one shot at 230 yards and - Bang flop!

Cannot argue with what you wrote. But Sub-MOA is easily attained with the 70s, it's good enough for me. No issues with non-CRF rifles either. But I simply cannot get past the notion one needs a rubber band to secure the bolt in place because the safety (which in and of itself is an issue) will not lock the bolt.

The most accurate rifle I have is a Winchester M70 Classic Stainless from circa 1992.
I do retain 2 Remington M700 safe queens because they are almost as accurate as my M70.
The tiny sheetmetal extractor that shaves brass and clogs up the tiny little plunger ejector is why I got rid of others and never give an M700 a second glance.

Near Manufacturing in Alberta Canada makes an outstanding Picatinny rail for M70 LA & SA,
they even have one for the 0.330" hole spacing on the rear of the .375 H&H-length "Express" action.

Here is an old site that will give you a good telephone number to call Richard Near.
He has a newer site, which I do not recall, but he can tell you Nearly anything you might want to know:

http://nearmfg.com/index.html

The recoil stop on the bottom of this M70 LA Picatinny is a super feature.
My NEAR deserves another .458 WM+ project.
This one has a 25-MOA tilt, they can be custom-ordered with up to 75-MOA tilt:









Matte stainless steel or nitride coated matte black stainless steel.
All the same steel, you pay 10 bucks more in USD for the black coating.

Near supplied 10,000 of those bases for the FN/SC/Portugal tactical-outfitted/police/military M70 Winchesters.

Don't feel too bad. My only Winchester bolt guns are 54s and the only Remy bolt gun I own is a sporterized 03A3.

Plenty of Mausers, though.

That and our current government using Covid to create needy sheeple and a national debt that will will create a tax burden that will crush those that actually work for a living.

Yep--and even the 98 Mauser, in many ways still the best CRF action, works best when worked briskly.

Dunno why somebody would expect a PF rifle to hold the cartridge in the chamber with the barrel pointed UP, without having the bolt close behind. I have loaded a lot of PF rifles more-or-less silently by pointing the muzzle DOWN, sliding a cartridge in the chamber, and slowly closing the bolt.

Your lack of experience with 700/721/722 rifles is showing again. The safeties DID lock the bolt down until 1982, when stupid people who apparently believed every round had to be run entirely into the chamber to empty the magazine started suing Remington--because they violated one of the basic rules of firearms safety, pointing a loaded rifle at objects they didn't want to shoot.

The Remington safety DID lock the bolt down for 35 years, from 1947 when the 721/722 appeared to 1982. I bought my first of several 700s in the 1970s--and half of the 700/722s I own lock the bolts down. So for approximately half the life of the 700/721/722 the safety DID lock the bolt..

Granted, the M70 safety allows the action to be opened with the safety on, by putting it in the middle position. But since the post-64 M70 was introduced both the PF and CRF versions have NOT allowed the rifle to fire when somebody put the safety in the middle position, anticipating having to push it forward when hunting dangerous game. This happens when the bolt-handle gets raised SLIGHTLY--and it can even happen with pre-64s. This is one disadvantage of the very long push-forward required with the pre-'64 type safety.

Which is why I prefer the 3-postion safety on CZ 550s (sadly discontinued) to the M70 type. The movement required is FAR less--and also locks the firing pin back, instead of just blocking the trigger. But so many hunters are convinced of the advantages of the pre-'64 safety they spend a lot of money converting 550s to pre-'64 safeties--when the factory safety was superior.

Nice rifle!

I also have a pre-'64 Featherweight .308 made in 1953. It shoot VERY well, about like yours does.

But it didn't until I modified the bedding. The bedding was unaltered from the factory when I bought it, and it grouped a lot like most of he early reviews reported, with groups averaging 2-3", and sometimes larger. But I free-floated the barrel by inserting thin spacers under the front end of the action, just behind the recoil lug--and then it started shooting!

The scope, by the way, is a steel El Paso K4 Weaver, which is found on the Campfire classifieds. It works very well.

John, everyone (or so I thought) knows this data point. But point being for the last forty years, they have not. Bottom line even the most inexperienced, know the PF action, be it a 700, 70, etc was designed as a cost cutting measure pure and simple to INCLUDE the bolt locking feature and even by today's standards, a side by side comparison on a 70 to a 700, even to a neophyte, shows a clear difference in the 70s superiority in form, fit AND function.

Blow a primer in each and get back to us on the superior function aspect. I’ve done it and have the Tshirts and the M70 sucks with a capital S when it comes to protecting the shooter.

I also had the pleasure of working in a shop for a decade that was a service center for Remington as well as Winchester. My experience says that the superior fit isn’t there either. I’ve seen horror stories from both brands as well as many others. 700s with no chamber and others with no rifling. M70s with 8” or more of the rifling galled and mashed so badly that it would shred bullet jackets and they’d never reach the target, others that the barrel threads were so undersized on the shank or crooked into the receiver that they couldn’t be salvaged and wouldn’t keep shots on a washtub at 50 yards. I’ve TIG welded or silver brazed bolt handles back on both makes. Seen scope base screw holes so far off there was little chance of them ever zeroing, both makers there too. Brand new M70 sears ground so crookedly that the much vaunted trigger was unsafe out of the box. I can go one but you get the idea.

Superior gas handling: advantage Remington, no doubt The other things you cite are anecdotal and while I do not doubt you at all, they are function of poor quality control and not design and overall the 70 is light years ahead . and of course you can use your internet engines and compare Remington to Winchester litigation. I can go on but you get the idea and in the end, the bolt STILL can't be locked.

I guess I’ve never noticed the lack of aftermarket parts for a M70. While it may not have the cottage industry that Remington does, stocks, bottom metal, bases, firing pins, triggers......all readily available.

My two most often used centerfires are a M70 and a 700.
Never had a failed extractor or bolt handle fall off, but have had the 700 fire when moved to safe. After I realized what happened, I was able to do it several more times. A thorough cleaning seemed to solve the issue. The gun was quite new and the trigger never touched. I simply don’t use the safety now. I should buy a new trigger just for peace of mind.

Also, my 3 thumbed azz much prefers top loading the M70. Been a few mornings fiddle fugging in the dark loading the Remington. That’s on me though 🤪!

Then there's another bolt action that's light-years ahead of the Model 70--the 1898 Mauser.

Except the Mauser safety (as designed) sucks. I have all three actions and without a doubt, I'll take the 70 over the M98 any day as a hunting rifle and as a military rifle, I'll take the Lee Enfield all day long. Besides everyone knows the 70 is just an "improved" 98.

Out of curiosity, what is your issue with a non locking bolt? Can’t say I have ever had an issue with this, nor do I know anyone that this was an issue.

I carry "hot" whilst hunting (don't tell SitkaDeer) and traipsing through the woods the bolt can catch on brush, limbs, etc and rounds spill out. Others have posted this occurrence, I think Pugs mentioned it a time or two. Besides, it's just a crappy cost cutting measure. I would have no problem with a 700 (other than I don't like the looks) if they would make a safe trigger (that locks the bolt of course ) and without that hideous looking "stick shift" of a safety lever and extractor that was more reliable (such as the Sako option)..

John, i've got a new FWt in 280. personally I think the FWT is about the ultimate in a wood stocked rifle, I just wish Winchester would get rid of that ugly schnabel forened and repalce it with awell proportioned piece of ebony.
I cant say anything as far as accuracy yet because I have only ahd it out once and the two factory loads I had were, well lets say all over the place with the bes "pattern" coming from the Winchester Supreme Ballistic Silvertips ( incidently that is a factory load I have never had much faith in as the several different chamberings I have trie them in never shot worth a damn) : the Second load, Federal's 140 Accubond "patterned" too. I was frustrated because I have neevr ahd a rifle not shoot federal accubonds well right out of the gate. when I got home i did what I should have done before setting out and put an allen wrench to the action screws. Both were loos, anywhere between 3/4 and 1-1/2 turns. I hope that corrects the accuracy issue

Back to the OP, Try being left handed! I have 2 "new" LH M70 classic sporters. Beautiful guns, that don't get used. Too pretty and a bit on the heavy side. After market stocks are on the thin side. I'm not a fan of M700 but that's because I pick nits! I like a safety that locks the bolt (I know, JB, but not the new ones) and am just not a fan of the trigger/safety arrangement and have personally witnessed them fail (an AD when the safety was disengaged and another when the bolt was closed with the safety was off, maybe due to tinkering but still) Also have seen the extractor fail. I digress. Any man made mechanism can fail and I don't hate on the M700, just don't choose to use it. I really like my Tikka!

I have a few post-'64 Winchester 70 Featherweights and think that the schnabel is the most attractive aspect of the rifle. I like the schabel shape forearm tip on Savage rifles too, but the Winchester schabel is more attractive to me. Among my favorites is a 70 Lightweight carbine in 250-3000 that is bedded in a featherweight stock. I view it as being sort of a modern version of what the Savage 1920 might have become. I've long wanted to find a reasonably priced Winchester/USRA 70 Win-Tuff featherweight stock for a 6.5x55 or 7x57.

To me, it's the 77's that need new stocks. I loath the thumbhole stocks and the huge handles some people want to put on 700's.
The 70's generally are not worth adding stuff too - they are still 70's. Sort of like putting lipstick on a pig.

Such a good thread.

A well respected, knowledgeable gunwriter & rifle looney setting the record straight on a number of subjects.

All the brands have pro's & con's. But whining or dislike can't take away the 700's success. There are good reasons for it.

The M-70, in whatever configuration might be great. But the numbers of them out there & their number of owners wanting custom stocks for them might not even justify the cost of a mold.
Simple supply & demand. The demand can't justify the cost of tooling.

Jorge,

Obviously you're as unfamiliar with the 98 Mauser as Remington 700s.

You may consider the original 98 military safety as a POS, but among other folks Finn Aagaard liked it--on his first .458 Winchester "stopping rifle," which was built on one of the .404 rifles the Kenya game department issued for a while. Partly he liked it because when shooting the rifle with iron sights, when the safety was fully "on" it blocked his view of the sights. If in a distressed moment, the safety blocked his vision, he knew instantly to flip the "flag" over.

Also, there is no SINGLE Mauser 98 safety. There have been a bunch, including some offered by various companies offering either classic 98 actions or very close approximations. Here are some examples






From the top, they're a typical low safety on a 100-year-old custom 8x57; a CZ 550's 3-position safety (which blocks the firing pin, just like a M70 safety), a Gentry 3-position safety on a .375 H&H Mark X Mauser, and current .275 Rigby. Yes, two of the four are similar to the M70 safety--but they ALL include a flange on the bolt sleeve to divert any gas that might escape the rear of the action--unlike any Model 70 ever made. (Apparently other companies can figure out how to do this, but not Winchester.)

This last image illustrates why the Mauser claw extractor actually grabs case-rims tighter during extraction, due to the angled undercut. Model 70s do not have this, along with most other CRF actions. I have yet to see a 98-design extractor "jump the rim" on a hard-to-extract case, but have seen it on a few occasions with Model 70s and similar designs. This may or may not be why Phil Shoemaker chose a Mark X barreled action when he made his .458, but it sure doesn't hurt. Oh, and if I recall correctly he's still using the original Mark X trigger, with its side-safety.

Was guessing that’s what it was.

Guess I’m lucky, never had all the 700 issues. Did have a 70 bolt come apart though.( piece of sh it)😂

Mule Deer,

Finn Aagaard's first .458 WinMag was built by rebarreling a .425 Westley Richards M98, not a .404 Jeffery.
I would hate to get misinformation about Saint Aagaard started.
If what you said about it gets repeated enough it might become the truth amongst the Democrats.

September 1992 AMERICAN RIFLEMAN:




Phil Shoemaker had his MkX side safety replaced with a wing safety similar to the M70, though IIRC, it was a 2-Pos. not 3-pos., on Old Ugly.

The undercut extractor tongue & groove is indeed Mauser genius.
Yes, the Yugo-MkX Whitworth has it, so does the Czech CZ 550 Magnum and forerunner BRNO ZKK 602.
Love that popup peep on the CZ and BRNO.
Hate vertically split rings of any kind.
There is no way they can be as strong as horizontally split rings like German Claw, Smithson, or Chinese-made Burris Xtreme Tactical.

I am glad to hear you like the CZ 550 Magnum side safety. I do too.
One of mine on a 9.3x62mm CZ 550 Medium is even 3-position instead of the usual two.
After replacing several CZ safeties and triggers I quit, realized the foolishness of it.
On the old BRNO ZKK 602 with the bassackward safety direction, replacement is a must, however.

The M98 Mauser is indeed tops.
Second best is a Winchester Model 70.
The Remington M700 is not even in the running, it is the Joe Biden of rifles.

I dont have anything against the M70 safety, but never understood its appeal over others. Especially ones like the 550 and 1917.

I love that big rocker safety.

Seriously John? I was referring to the original 98's safety which is rather cumbersome to operate (as is the 1903's but I "assumed" (bad word) you knew that) and of course the use of a scope makes it kinda hard, but forget the scope issue, it's still cumbersome.. As a result of that design,yet another "cottage industry" arose to improve on it and (amazingly) most 98s get the "Model 70 style safety" and others get the "reversed" CZ (now fixed) or the similar safety installed on Brownings and this is obvious, but just in case I get labeled as "unfamiliar", ALL the referenced safeties LOCK the bolt

Look, if you feel compelled to continue to defend the indefensible (I'm sure you have your reasons),the 700 action was a cost cutting measure and not to mention the post 80's trigger/safety, do carry on, but frankly 'cheery picking' one's statement in order belittle a counterpoint (it was also obvious I was referring to 700s over the last forty years when the trigger/safety was changed, yet you saw it fir to use the fact that prior to the 80s, the safety DID lock and used it to say I was "un-familliar"was disingeneous at best. And now this BS with the 98's safety.

Overestimation of an individual's ability to capture the obvious I suppose is one of my drawbacks. I'll make a note of that....Oh and keeping with the picture heavy illustrations, here you go:



And some enlightening reading, guess lots of "unlucky" people out there on You Tube, etc.:
The GREAT 700 extractor :non issue"

For the love of gawwwwd man - turn the phuggin' page aleady.

For me, nothing better than a well done sporterized 98. I've never owned a Pre-64 70, but my Mod 70 Featherweights have that Mauser feel. My absolute favorites to convert are 1909 Argentine models. Mine carry the side "flag" type safety as seen on the 70. Never been a Remington fan. They can bee accurate, and they have a faster lock time than the old Mausers, but otherwise aren't my cup of tea.

Same here actually, then again since I only own about a dozen, I'm unfamiliar....

Like both M70s and M700s and slew of others. I agree there are less options for M70s. I do not think it has anything to do with CRF, theoretical perfectness of design of M70 vs M700s. There is not a lot of mauser options for stocks out there either except cheap junk. I think the simple answer why is the trends over the last 30 years where hyper-optimization has become popular: light weight and super accuracy (whether tactical, LR, or beanfield, etc...). The M70 does not have the reputation as being tops for any of these. The 700 and savage 100 do. Look how popular Tikkas have become and I see lots of new after market stuff for them. I'm sure M70s do well in the super classic wood/blue custom rifles, but those are few compared to others.

Lou

Well thanks for your input, fellas. I thought some GUN WRIGHTER might just say something like
" With 55 bazillion 700s made to date and only a half bazillion M-70s... you should be well enough serviced with aftermarket parts and accessories...given so few were actually made..."

I had to cut,fit and glass in a pre'64 Brown Precision blank to that SS BOSS gun mentioned 13 pages back...

Good to know, but you missed a large part of my point, perhaps because I was unclear: Many factory 98 sporters have been produced with various safeties other than the military original--which, by the way, was not a POS as a safety for iron-sighted military rifles. It was good enough, in fact, to be one of the features of the 98 that the U.S. Army copied in the 1903 Springfield.

The switch to other factory-rifle 98 safeties occurred after WWII, when scopes became more the rule than the exception on hunting rifles. I only have nine custom 98s, but 5 of the actions they're built on came with non-military safeties, as Phil Shoemaker's famous .458 did.

Now I'm curious about the safeties on your custom 98s. Are they all M70-type?

Agreed , it was (is) a great safety for a military rifle, but that "over the top" motion on a hunting rifle is cumbersome , not to mention scope issues. I do have on MS (not a 98 obviously) but it does have a 98 style safety AND another on the side. My Sedgley (a Springfield, you know this I'm sure, but just in case) built on a Springfield action does have the 98 (military) type safety but that is an iron sighted rig. THe Rigby I had also the same. My Brownings all have the safety on the side, but the few sporterized 98s I had (have) had 70 type safeties. The CZs have the side safety as well. But you knew that. Lasthy and just to be clear, the "dozen" I own I include all of the above rifles. The custom 98s I had were all 1909 Argentines with combinations of all three safeties. Two were done by Mark Penrod and one Dwayne Wiebe.

The custom 98 I put together a few years ago wears a slightly reworked ( mildly reshaped and checkered) military safety because of the old Finn Aagaard article about his 458. I set it up to be used with aperture sights and liked the idea of the safety flag blocking the aperture when on safe. Not that I’m likely to be hunting dangerous game with it but I liked the article and the concept.

jorge,

Thanks for the details. Three of my 98 sporters have Gentry M70 type safeties, but they are all on commercial actions. By the way, the first of the four photos I posted is of the present .275 Rigby--which like the original uses a M98 barreled action made by Mauser. Apparently the present iterations of the Mauser and and Rigby companies have gotten the word about scope-friendly safeties!

Have had a couple of custom sporters made on 1909 Argentine actions, but at the moment my military-action 98 sporters have 1936 Mexican, G33/40 and German K98 actions.

Had a Sedgely myself once, but (as with many of the rifles I've written about) somebody else eventually wanted it more than I did. Right now my only two Springfields are an all-original Remington 1903A3, and a top-notch custom by Frank Pachmayr made in the 1930s--which also has the original military safety, though its been jewel polished. Its Lyman Alaskan scope is in a detachable Griffin & Howe side-mount--placed just far enough forward for the low scope to clear the bolt handle, and of course the safety. Have always been mildly fascinated by the various "solutions" used for scope-mounting before WWII.

Might also mention that the original Model 70 safety was kind of a POS. Just did an article partly about it, after acquiring a pre-'64 .257 Roberts made in 1936, as part of the build-up of inventory prior to the official announcement of the rifle on Jan. 1, 1937. My library contained a few reviews of the new rifle, including two from Elmer Keith and Townsend Whelen--who both firmly pointed out the safety wasn't suitable for use with a low-mounted scope, it's supposed purpose. To really be able to get at the safety, a scope had to be mounted almost as high as those that allowed the original 98 safety to be used.

Yep, I always found it interesting why Finn liked that safety on his .458. Of course, to block the sights the safety had to be in the middle position, which left the bolt unlocked--but it also allowed a sort, quick flip to take it off safe.

Excellent, gentlemen, we are all agreed then...the '98 Mauser continues to reign supreme (with the safety iteration you prefer, of course). The end.

[quote=jorgeI]

One of the strengths of the Walker trigger is that it's eminently adjustable. The downfall of the Walker trigger is that it's eminently adjustable by idjits. And it's also quite helpful to keep triggers clean, and with the M700's popularity there are plenty of owners out there who have never taken the stock off of their 50 year old M700 to clean it.

Bolt handles are prone to come off when beat on to open the action--again, because of it's popularity, there probably have been more overloads shot in M700's than there are M70's, period.

Of the 10's of thousands of rounds I have shot through M700's I've never had an extractor break, nor bolt handle come off, and the two used M700's that would follow down upon closing the bolt, both triggers had been messed with--in particular the sear engagement. One of those rifles I bought here on the 'fire. Needless to say I immediately adjusted the sear engagements back to factory specs.


[quote=jorgeI]


This is the best reply regarding the 700's! I'd like to see someone tell me to my face that they didn't beat the bolt handle open on a 700 when the handle came off.

I prefer that the safety does not lock the bolt. I still have a few that do. But mostly I've changed out the trigger on those that have the lock. I have to say, I never have had a 700 bolt open up unintentionally. The reason I like to be able to open the bolt with the safety on is clearing the chamber - while the safety is on; it just seems safer that way.

I have Mausers, Marlins, Brownings (none right now), Winchesters, Springfields, Garands, Mossbergs, Savages, Rugers, CZ's, SMLE's, Krags, and Remingtons besides a few off-brands . But most of my center fire rifles are 700's.

The only Mauser I have that has the 'swing over the top' safety is my iron sighted 375 Whelen AI. I'm toying with the idea of mounting a scope and if I do, The safety will likely be modified with a Buehler type safety handle.

I might add that if idiots were to adjust any trigger down to ounces (using any means possible to them i.e. file and/or light springs etc.) and neglected to keep them clean, they are likely to have problems.

Having said that I like the pre-64 Winchester trigger. But the Winchester has detractions too - therefore most of my Winchesters are lever action..

My most used hunting rifle is an old M70. It has the safety that swings back from the left side to fire.

Never had an issue with it. Granted, it's a bit awkward under the scope, which is mounted quite low for its 42mm objective, but has never been close to an issue.

All the talk of rifle safety familiarity is kinda lost on me. Maybe one day Ill be stymied by a safety, besides a malfunctioning 700, it just hasnt happened yet.

Seems this thread had badly drifted from the original question. So I thought I'd try to give a direct answer.


"Why so few aftermarket parts for a M-70"

For the same reason few aftermarket parts are offered for a '53 Plymouth?
Few are driving them these days.


I have my flame suit on, you cretins

MadMooner,

I've also rarely had any difficulty with any safety, I'd guess due to shooting a LOT of shotguns and rifles over the decades. In fact, don't have any trouble with "backward" safeties like those on some CZ rifles--I would guess because my first repeating rifle was a Marlin Model 81 .22 rimfire, which has safety that needed to be pulled back to fire. It felt a lot like the hammer on my father's Marlin .30-30--which I used to killed my first deer with a very quick shot at around 40 feet a LONG time ago.

My comments on the early M70 safety were a consensus from the noted firearms writers of the era. But also would like to ask about your typical hunting situation.

There are plenty of aftermarket parts available. You need to look around at times but they are there.

Have the same early Model 70, 17xxx, with what I think is that same safety. It now has irons, but with Leupold 4x scopes never had a problem getting it off quickly on Whitetails here in Pa.

In fact it seems to slide over on its own without conscious thought. Actually, I kind of like it tucked in there low and way to the left, instead of out more where it has a greater chance to catch on brush. However, same with the Ruger tang or shotgun trigger buttons. Or Nula 700 side type. They just get pulled, pushed or pressed without thinking about it.

Addition: Did have one incident with that rifle. Sitting in front of a house sized rock, heard crunch, crunch in the snow. Thinking a hunter was about to show up I turned to watch and a few seconds later a Black Bear came into view at about 15 yards. Put the dot on his shoulder and squeezed. Nothing happened, looked and bolt was raised. Dropped it, and squeezed again.

My typical deer hunting with that rifle has been spot and stalk, still hunting cover, or finding a vantage to sit and glass from, mostly in E WA.

You mentioned shotguns.
It seems many folks bird hunt with different style of shotguns. Pumps, doubles, autos... and rarely do you hear the complaints about safeties or familiarity with such.
While I understand some folks track and "jump shoot" big game, I can't see it being anymore pressing than a covey flush or ruff grouse blowing out. THAT is some fast shooting!

Just my opinion, but it seems like folks make a big to do out of rifle safeties. I just don't share the feeling.

I'm sure one day Ill flubb it, but it just hasn't been an issue.

As I said before. A big rocker safety like on the CZ is my preference. Some are more aesthetically pleasing than others.

A note in the same vein- I just picked up a newer Win 1885. Slipping my thumb under the scope to pull the hammer from half clock is pretty tight! We'll see if I screw that up!

Wow! A hell of a thought on safeties.

Rare a rifle shot ever happens as fast as a shotgun shot. Yet we manage.

I have been told by my hunting buddies to stop saying that we "skid and shoot", but instead we are going to say "spot and stalk".

Hah! That’s the truth.

I don’t think I fully understood road hunting until I moved out here. It’s a religion.

Depending on how one hunts, it is not all that rare or different than shooting a shotgun. When things are happening quick, taking the safety off is part of the mount, same as with a shotgun...But many think it is a separate event.

I have nothing of value to add to this thread, because I don't know squat about why there are so few aftermarket parts for Winchester 70s, nor Winchester or Remington's manufacturing woes, let alone those from the 60's.

I do however, like posting pictures of my great grandfather's Model 70 in .270 Win from 1937. I don't shoot it much anymore, but probably should. I believe this pic was taken the last time I pulled the trigger on it, in 2016, maybe earlier.

Having used the M-70 in Kansas deer hunting, for 15 years I seriously doubt I have ever chambered a cartridge and put the gun on SAFE. I just quietly chamber a round and kill a deer.
It is just better for all if I sneak around with an empty chamber.
99% of the time bird hunting my double barrels are loaded and action open, no big deal to close a double as you shoulder it.

Well designed from the start. Tough to improve on any of the Mauser copied/inspired designs. M-70 arguable the best of that bunch. My opinion.

Yeah, I'm pretty aware of the M70's following & some of its attributes. But when the tread immediately started on other brands I just had to play.

But really, production numbers don't lie & with newer generations moving to other things, it should be plain why not as many goodies are offered for the 70. Maybe they don't need retrofits or upgrades as said. And, aren't a lot of the fans a big part of the blue steel & walnut club? If so, a big percentage of the owners wouldn't want synthetic stocks if there were 20 options. With that said, how many companies will jump in and spend time making them.

If I were a M70 fan, I'd likely have to flip a coin if I wanted French or Turkish walnut for the stock. Skeleton but plate & grip cap of course. JMHO.

I'm with you!

I've had two M70's and didn't much care for the metallurgy. I sold both and switched to older M700 Remingtons. Never had any problems with them and they've always worked great, plus more accurate than those two Winchesters.

LoL Mdl 70's are practical shooters ...good enough.

But no amount of customizing will ever make one better than that.

I suspect part of the deal is that pre-64 and post-64 stuff won't interchange, including stocks.

Meanwhile, Remington 700 stuff will generally work on 721/722 rifles, though it it may take a little adjusting. Have used 700 aftermarket stocks on 721/722 rifles, along with magazines, floorplates, etc. They've been basically the same for almost 75 years now.

I just tried to swap a post 64 M70 bolt with a Rem700 bolt and they don't swap. They look alike, but...

Great picture!

You're right, no need to customize. plus I don't have to float a loan buying parts to "improve" it...
UNALTERED Model 70 Classic Stainless 7 Mag:




UNALTERED Model70 Safari Express


UNALTERED P-64 FWY 308:
https://i.imgur.com/qlw1Yzs.jpg

Note two different bullets.

If that's "practical" then I'm good with it.. BTW, I have lots more, but I have a feeling I'm talking to a bulkhead...

I'm curious how one discerns the metallurgy of a rifle and how you actually determine your preference.

David Tubbs used a M70 for a number of years and dominated his competitors

In the arena where the Model 70 was successful, more successful, by the way, than the 700, the accuracy requirements, while impressive enough, are not that great. A 1/2 moa rifle was certainly adequate. A model 70, well set-up, has shown itself to be capable of this and very consistently so. In a way, hi power rifle competition is an anachronistic pursuit and the model 70, a bit of an anachronism itself, seems to be especially suited to it. I think the Model 70 is even better in this role than it is as a hunting rifle. I have two model 70 target rifles, one a 308 and one a 30/06. On a good day, I can shoot either one into 1 moa; prone, with a sling. The 30/06, especially, is a rifle which functions perfectly and, if it doesn't shoot to BR levels, it still shoots well enough to be an interesting rifle. The 308 shoots better but is a little short on panache.
The point is, the Model 70, with it's long history, in the field and on the target range, may no longer be totally relevant but it is still a fine rifle in many respects. The lack of current relevance is why you no longer see the aftermarket support for the Model 70 Winchester. GD

Back in the heyday of competitive shooting you could find factory offerings from Winchester (Model 70 Target in many variations) and Remington (40X, XB and XC). My obervation is that the M70 was much preferred over the M700 or 40x in Highpower Rifle competition. I believe a good portion of that was the ease of cycling an M70 compared to the Remingtons. This matters for the rapid fire stage of the course at 200 and 300 yards. All the big names in Highpower Rifle, off the top of my head; Mid Tompkins, Gary Anderson, Carl Bernosky and David Tubb (Tubb no "s") shot M70's...that is until the Tubb2000 and the AR Match Rifles took over.

Didn't read all of this but that never stops anyone on the fire.

The trigger is one of the best hunting triggers available and is easily adjustable, hence no need for an aftermarket trigger until you go below an ounce or two.
The safety is one of the best for sporting rifles, no need to replace.
Bolt is one piece, no need to replace it.
Extractor is about as good as it gets being almost a pure Mauser style but beveled to load dropped in cartridges (usually).
Barrrels are not bad and deliver hunting grade accuracy on a regular basis.
Stocks generally have good ergonomics and are available in lighter weight models if desired.

There is more but basically not a lot is needed on an M70. Also most that are modified go through the full custom treatment whereas the M700 are more likely to be bubba upgrades. As the price goes up on custom rifles the number of M700 will get fewer and fewer until at the very upper echelons it will be almost all Mauser's and M70s.

The M70 was at one time used as I believe the Marine issued sniper rifle but due to cost Remington took over this market, I don't think it had anything to do with functioning.

...close. During early years of the Vietnam war, the USMC without a ready to run solution in hand was grabbing whatever suitable rifles they could and a good portion of the M70 Target Rifles from the Rifle Team were deployed with Unertls. Rumor has it that they were grabbing hunting rifles from Base Exchanges as well too. Later in the war, the Corps worked with Remington to field a purpose built sniper rifle which became the M40.

The model 70 never had a match grade trigger and if you compare worked over triggers for comp guns the 700's blows it away.
The rest of the points you raise on the model 70 pertain only to the pre 64 guns which havent been around for 57 years. The NH classics had mostly crappy extractors, crappy cast triggers and mediocre at best barrels. The bolt were also two piece and grazed together. They have had failures. The FN guns are better across the board.

RE the model 70 not being used in modern competitive shooting. This is because the recieve of the model 70 is much more difficult to true up vs. the round receiver of a Remington or clone. If money was no object I believe you could make a model 70 shoot just as well. It just takes time and money.

I've used the exact same fixture to true a up a M70 that I've used to machine R700s. No difference in set up time either.

One of my Model 70's is a push feed, short action, which is currently set up as a silhouette rifle. The action is trued. The threads opened up to 1 1/16". The bolt is bumped to eliminate slop when in battery. This same action is also used as the basis of a Hunter class BR rifle and, in it's third guise, it is a prone rifle. In every configuration, it shoots very well. In the silhouette configuration, it is a 6.5 Creedmoor and comes pretty close to shooting at the 1/2 moa level. This is an 8 3/4 pound rifle. In the HBR stock, in 308, it is very close to a 3/8 rifle. In the prone stock, as a 308, it's good for about 1/2 moa. In every configuration, I feel that it shoots well but I think I could do just a little better with a Remington. Perhaps, I should say, I could do it more easily but the margin is not huge.
By the way, I have built quite a few accuracy rifles on both actions, along with a bunch of custom actions, since 1976 so I have a pretty good handle on it.
By the way, a well-tuned Model 70 trigger is as good as any standard 700 trigger. GD

I assume your not squaring the lug or the bottom flat of the action on the model 70? I also assume your using a mandrel for both the model 70 and 700 to single point everything?

You would be assuming wrong. Cutting the face of the action and the lug abutments perpendicular to the centerline of the bolt bore, single point cutting the threads opening the major diameter up to 1.062" Ø all in a single operation. I only use a mandrel for machining when I'm qualifying the scope mounting holes and installing an aftermarket bolt release (I prefer the Defensive Edge...) on a R700 action.

That indescribable "something" that is the allure of the old M70 and which draws the attention of discerning riflemen is also that which deflects the ministrations of customizers who are giddy about altering 700's to beat the band.

M70's are icons from that era of 1937 to 1964 - working stiffs who dreamt of their ideal rifle usually pictured a M70, but settled for a Remington or Savage as a darned good (and cheaper, and better in some respects) alternative. It was the standard against which the rest were compared though, always. When a M70 was acquired, it was treated as an instant heirloom. A Remington was treated as an efficient tool. (Remingtons of that era are nowadays treated to heirloom status too, but more because of our forebears who used them to put meat on the table and keep the wolf from the door. Their place in our hearts is further cemented by their strength, accuracy, and, er, customize-ability.) The M70, for right or wrong, keeps on exuding that same mystique that drew Gramps to it 70 years ago. Someone who would stick a plastic stock on a pre-64 M70, and then a bipod, and maybe give it a weatherproof coating would be called a two-timing four-flusher in many circles. Do that to a 721/722/700 and you're a man of good taste.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

don't know about this by-gone era thing with M70s. As far as I know, David Miller Co. and Mr. Echols still use M70s exclusively for their clients rifles. As for me, I just got back a pre-64 action with a new douglas barrel in .220 swift for my coyote rifle and another pre-64 in .375 is heading to Alaska on Kodiak Island next year for a brown bear hunt. I just like the way they work out in the game fields.

Darcy just put his LX1 into full build status which is just a straight and darned near perfect close of the Model 70 Classic. Last I spoke with him, he was happy to never have to machine and monkey with another factory Model 70 action. But he created a clone of it with some of the things he does with the old Classics. Pretty nice action too.

I'm going to be testing an LX1 sometime in the next 2-3 months, and am really looking forward to it.

It is a beautiful action for sure.

Me too. Looks like it’s about as perfect a copy of a 70 as I’ve seen, but better

Will he be selling the action seperately?

Yes

The LX1 sounds very intriguing. I didn’t see anything on his website. Anyone have pics or a link to share?

It would probably be best to give D’Arcy a call directly

I had a post on here with pictures but I’ll be darned if I can find it.











It’s for sure got me salivating a bit.

It’s just a dream, wouldn’t want to bother him. Just wanting to window shop for now.

I see your pics now beretzs thank you. That is a piece of art for sure.

Me too! Might be an “affordable” way to build a faux Legend.

Any good guess on price for one of these?

$3300-$3500 ish. Complete with everything you see minus the barrel.

Well that is most interesting......

I like looks of the action in most respects but I do not like the recoil stops for the scope mounts. The cross slot of the Weaver base or the shoulder of the Talley are both better than a notch for a protrusion on the clamp. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly adequate and not ugly.
I can't tell for sure but it looks like he has retained the coned breech which I would not have done. I like the gas vent hole on the off side. I couldn't tell, from the pictures, whether or nor a sear engagement adjustment was included but, if the trigger dimensions are good (and I assume they are), it is unnecessary anyway. GD

Thats what I'm thinking myself

The ring and base design are a copy of Burgess QR rings/bases I believe. I know he went that way as it’s the only QR system that he has been able to use under heavy recoil successfully.

Beauty but a bit expensive. Another option go with a Defiance Rebel with CRF and three position safety. It's under 2K

Those rings are D’Arcy’s original design whereas Burgess rings are a vertical split ring design and are certainly a mechanical mousetrap. A couple of years ago while I was in D’Arcy’s shop he showed me the prototype of his rings he was working on and they are a very solid design, as to be expected from his shop. He also had an early 3D printed prototype of his action then and it was a very impressive effort to say the least.

I'm sure it's just fine but I would have put the recoil boss on the solid side of the ring rather than on the clamp. In truth I would rather have a full width recoil stop but I realize, by going this way, he was able to keep the bases as low as possible. The system is quite similar to that on the BRNO ZKK but with the notch at both ends instead of just at the rear. GD

And needs a trigger, rings, and bottom metal.

Yes, sorry. I was referring to the base/ring interface.

It does come with a trigger

Only reason I know Is I ordered a Deviant GA Hunter with CRF and 3 POS safety and my grand total was 1750’ish with my Vet discount.

2 hours after I put the deposit down I called D’Arcy about a stock and he told me about his action

The Defiance is about 10-11 ounces lighter than the Win M70 Classic though, so that was another reason I went that direction.

A "Deviant" action? Why would any fine, upstanding Campfire members use a Deviant action?

MD

(PS, yeah I know. Auto-correct strikes again.)

Guilty...

It's why detachable magazines are so popular. Fish and Game departments outlawed the full magazine/ empty chamber in a vehicle concept.

Logical next step was to have a "clip" ready to slam home as you leap from your vehicle.

Naw... I got tired of my wife dropping rounds in knee deep snow when she drops the floorplate to clear her gun. With a "clip" she might only drop one clearing the chamber. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

Could you describe what the bolt being bumped entails?

A system whereby two dovetail inserts are used to increase the diameter of the bolt at the rear. This keeps the bolt centered against the pressure exerted by the cocking piece when the rifle is cocked. Essentially, this is a retrofit version of Borden's "bumps". GD

Thanks greydog. First I've heard of it or Borden bumps. Sounds similar in effect to installing sleeves but perhaps more tolerant of field conditions.

That is the point. There is no difference in operation except that the bolt fits the bore closely when it is closed. GD

That is the point. There is no difference in operation except that the bolt fits the bore closely when it is closed. GD

How much is a Legend going for these days?

I'd love to get one of those actions, but wouldn't know what to build with it. I already have all the modded up Mod 70s I need- screw in a Krieger, chunk it in a McMillan.........can't think what else is needed no matter what year the action was built.

Maybe a 375 H&H but I've already got a Pre War 375 with a period correct Tilden safety lever on it (it's sitting in its travel/synthetic Echols Legend stock) and is going to Zim on Wednesday.

My Go to deer rifle is a March '36 Model 70 (ser# 109) - the wing safety fits fine under my 42 mm scope. My Go to all around rifle is a 300 Win Classic built by Charlie Sisk back in '04- lion, leopard, ibex, stag, been all over the world with that "modded" one. Got a couple-three Holehans as well, but they haven't made it in the rotation yet.

But I almost ordered a legend back when they were $8000. Last I checked they were what $15?

I likem.

The last one I got was 600 bucks.

I believe you’re right, at least that is what he has listed on his sight.

Certainly this belongs in classifieds...but I have a nice Walnut/
Blue 1991 built .375 express. Bolt face says it has been fired otherwise safe queen. complete with a few dings...I just am not taking it into the SE Alaska rain forest. I have traded on the 'Fahr Classifieds for 20 years but lately fellows just want to yack.
So, PM me for pictures. $1200 + about $70 shipping more or less.