Since I enjoy stirring the pot occasionally, I'll throw this out for consideration. Which is the superior rifle -- the Pre-64 or the contemporary Model 70? Setting aside resale value, which would you declare to be superior, and why?

This post was prompted by an argument with pal who swears the Pre-64 is superior based solely upon his having read JB's "Shooting 70 Years of Model 70s." I suspect he didn't read it that closely because I don't recall JB declaring a winner in that article. IIRC, he compared one Pre-64 30-06 with one contemporary Model 70 300 WSM and group size difference was just 0.03 in.

At any rate let's see your arguments pro and con. Just let me grab some beer and popcorn first...

As a long time collector and user of both pre and post 64s, One has to delve even deeper into differences not mentioned. For example, there are the Pre-wars (my favorites), Transitions, etc. the first couple of years of the post era, they were pretty bad, reminded me of 700s only with a better safety and trigger. Then came the Classics, circa 1992 and those are pretty fine rifles(my most accurate). Shortly after they went under, quality control was less than optimum. The new or "South Carolina" 70s I have no experience with them so I can't say although I don't care for the new trigger.

Bottom line is from a shootability perspective, the Classic (post 92) era are fantastic rifles. The Pre-64s were to a point, almost hand finished and I prefer them, but from a hunting perspective I see no difference. jorge

As a complete rifle, I never liked the standard sporter non-magnum Pre-64 M70. The Featherweights, varmints, match, etc., I did like.

As an action to build on, the only M70 I would refuse would be the early post-64's, or a poor QC example from any era.

Bruce

Oh, I'm fully aware of the evolution. Was just comparing Pre-64 to the contemporary rifle. Your take on the trigger is interesting. IIRC, JB declared the new trigger to be an improvement. I haven't played with the new ones yet to compare.

Jorfge said most of it.

My pre- war is amazing. Very early gun. Still very accurate. The stock was atrocious for scope use. I put a Rimrock on it.

The three Pre-64 Featherweights I fool with [My son's, a friends and my BIL's are good rifles not the equal of the pre-war.

Youngest son has a post '68 PF. Exceptional rifle. Maybe better than the pre 64 FW's.

I have two mid 90's rifles, an SS Classic in .338 and an All-Terrain SS-Synthetic '06. These are the rifles I would build customs on. I would try to get one of the bolt shrouds with the gas block though.

I don't have any experience with the newest ones but I am leery of the trigger so I will likely avoid one for a while.

I've been a pre collector for a long time also and have used both pre and post rifles. If I had my druthers, BACO would start manufacturing their 70's with the original pre 64 trigger,I like the gas handling, shorter action features and weight of the current models. For the overall aesthetics and workmanship though I prefer the pre's by a wide margin

Add another vote that I might buy a new one if they put the original triggers back in. I like simple, functional, ruggedness; in other words pre 64 Win 70's!

I personally think the new SC models are nicer guns, the stocks are finished with modern methods and scope friendly, the machining on the actions looks better, many of the pre64's look like they were machined with a dull butter knife. the checkering on many of them while done by hand looks like a kid could have done it.

the only problem I see is the new SC model 70's trigger, I like a sub 2# trigger which appears to be a problem with the new ones.

however the old geezer gun snobs will cry foul to everything I am saying, so be prepared.

If I remember right, the pre 64's didn't handle gas well.


ddj

With the exception of a pre '64 M/88 with which I killed my first deer, all of my hunting over the last 35+ yrs. has been with a pre '64 M/70. Currently I have two, a prewar .257 Roberts and a later '06 which I have had rebored to .35 Whelen.

Me either!!!!

Who here or who here knows someone that has had a problem with the gas handling of a pre64? It is mentioned frequently, but I have yet to personally hear of any accidents. Then again admittedly my world is a small one.

If the design is such that it can happen, no doubt the possibility exits. However, I have yet to hear of any actual events that caused harm. Certainly it seems to me at least it would be an infrequent or rare occurrence and a nonexistent event using new or properly reloaded ammo.

Who here knows of any adverse events? Lawsuits? I mean it's not like only a few bullets have been sent down the barrels of pre64 Model 70s.

Good question. I recall reading that is was a differnce from the 98 mausers and some felt it was a design flaw of the pre64's.


ddj

According to the experts it is a design flaw. The question however is it a flaw that warrants one avoiding the rifle at all costs or one that only evidences itself in a catastrophic situation.

Addition: I don't have any plans to cease shooting my pre64s.

I'm sure I'll be run out of town for this, but I just have to say I'm not sure how much better a M70 could be than my EW in 30-06. The action is ridiculously smooth, shoots anything into little bitty clusters. The factory stock needs a little improvement. Now resides in an Edge.

I've not owned a pre-64 since I couldn't afford them years ago, so went to Mark X's, then a few Remingtons and onto M70's when CRF resurfaced.

P.S. I'm not a heathen. Nomex suit in place.

The pre-war M70s are the best looking of them all, in
my opinion. The post64-68s were the worst looking of them,
and I dont care for the black sythetic adl type they sold
at Walmart a few years back.

I might be in a suit with you if they offered the EW in a SA 7x57

Karnis your not wrong, the EW is next on my list. Now where did I put that nomex suit ??

No need to wear the suit. From almost all reports they are a great rifle and they look better imo.

For those who think the trigger is a potential problem, I'm betting soon an aftermarket product will be available.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with JB about the new trigger. The old trigger was one of the best hunting rifle triggers ever made, the new one isn't. On average you might argue that the new trigger has better feel or whatever but it misses the point of the greatest virtues of the old model trigger - simplicity and reliability, and it can be easily tuned to a fine pull.

My take on which is best depends on what caliber you want to build. Pre-64's are ALL the same action size and are optimized for 7x57 to 30-06 length cases. They put spacers in for short action rounds and removed metal for 375 H&H length cases.

So give me a new model claw feed for short actions and large magnum length rounds. I like Pre-64's for 30-06 length cases. NONE with the new trigger..................DJ

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

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

dj,

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

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

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

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

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

Bullschit.

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


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

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

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

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

It IS more complicated than the original M70 trigger though.


Jim

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

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

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

All these rifles test safe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

Jim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither has had the springs replaced.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Ted

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

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

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

Pre-64 IMO.

I have read a lot of what has been published about the pre '64 M/70 over the past 40 yrs. or so. The gas handling issue has to do with the difference in the bolt shroud of the M/70 and the Mauser. The Mauser has a flange at the forward edge that was intended as a last form of protection, deflecting escaping gas before it reached the shooters eye. Ruptured cartridge cases were probably far more common in the era in which the Mauser was designed than when Winchester engineers designed the M/70. I believe there was a custom gunsmith who designed a bolt sleeve for the M/70 that incorporated a Mauser-like flange. I have never seen one, so I don't believe the idea caught on. As regards the trigger, I have always been satisfied with the pre '64 trigger and have never felt the need to do any adjusting or gunsmithing. I owned a .338 Winchester Magnum that the previous owner had installed a Canjar trigger in, it felt like a M/52 Micro-motion trigger breaking very crisply with very little over travel. An I am talking about Canjar's standard trigger, not the set trigger model. In my opinion most of the M/70's percieved deficiencies are between the owner's ears. The one flaw I will agree to is the poor stock design, it does not handle recoil well. Other than to sight in or check zero I don't shoot my pre '64's from the bench a lot. The recoil issue when shooting at game is like the noise of the shot, just not noticed enough to be of concern to me. I have had a couple of pre '64's custom stocked and agree they are more comfortable to shoot. Currently I am awaiting the delivery of a Griffin & Howe M/70 .35 Whelen that was made in 1961, it had a Monte Carlo stock which looked hideously out of place on a classic rifle like a G&H. Their gunsmithing shop is in the process of redesigning the stock into a straight comb and adding a G&H recoil pad.

If there is a higher quality, non-custom rifle than my pre-war SG carbine, I've yet to see it....

Bob, I believe I answered your question on the "gas" thread... Kimber and M70's suck about as badly as Rem 700's in regards to gas handling... if you want the "best" gas handling you need to go with a Savage 110, Weatherby MKV (most of us traditionalists won't go to either) or a Mauser 98...

PS, agreed about the Pre-64 generally though vs. the Classic, though I don't share your horror of MIM parts... most of the time, all the factory extractor needs is either to be loosened up a bit or tightened up a bit (either way quite simple to do). The Pre-64 really needs a high comb stock to fit my face as it doesn't allow for a low mounted scope. Your Bansner Pre-64 stock is just right IMO.

Brad: I forgot about that...can't remember all these threads

You know my point....on here everyone asks, first thing,about "gas handling" when you mention pre 64's,like it's this big deal.

..they sound like parrots.......

Yet you never hear the same things asked about any other action that has many of the same faults....for example...how many ask about "H"ring Mausers? Or the same commercial actions like FN or Zustava, with "H" ring and no thumb cut?Or Kimbers?



Yeah the Bansner works well..and the Brown also...got a pair of those that have been trucking since the 80's

....the bolt handle clearance is a bit of a pain,and for universal scope clearance the new ones are better.

But I get around this and low mounts by mostly using Leups, which clear nicely even on DD mounts;and sometimes Leup STD with some Leup variables

Unlike you, I'm a Pre-64 newbie... will say, once I spent some time behind one I was amazed at its feeding... flawless. Best feeding rifle I've ever used.

Will say, there is "feeding" and then there is "feeding"... just because a rifle like, say an M700, will shuck shells into the chamber 100 time out of 100 doesn't mean it feeds particularly well...

Would add, it's certainly no trick to have a good smith scallop the bolt handle on a pre-64... to me, that's the only real modification it needs.

True...they feed because they were built to do so.

With rifles for BG hunting, I worry most about two things....maintenance of zero,and flawless function.

I worry less about grouping because that is easy to get...just use good barrels and bed properly.But function under all conditions is not so easy..

..and that is one thing I notice between "old" and "new" guns...ever pick up a M94, or M71, or M12,or a Savage 99 that didn't "work"? Mostly, they don't exist,because knomes with files made sure they did work...it was just in the DNA of gunbuilders in the bygone days,because people looked at guns like they were tools and tools were supposed to work.This is sometimes missing in some manufacturing today.

People shot food and dangerous animals with Winchesters,old Remingtons and Savages.

Today, urban cowboys want to know how small the groups are,and admire the CNC machining...and if it feeds from the confines of an enclosed deer blind, they think it's great...

CNC is only as good as the operator and tooling. M70 classics, especially the stainless version's, often look like the were put together by a gorilla with a belt sander. OTOH, the Kimber MT looks, mostly, flawless.

The precision of the parts fit together on the pre-64 is a thing to behold. I'm not one of those that thinks the sun rises and sets on the pre-64 (I don't think they're as good as their most devoted fans think they are, nor as bad as their detractors)... they do have an awful lot of machining marks, etc. BUT, the precise fit and function of the various pieces on a pre-64 is a thing to behold, and the KISS trigger is, to me, the best hunting trigger ever devised. The SC rifles lack, to me, the most salient feature of what makes an M70 an M70...

The obsessing over stainless, fiberglass, light weight, sub moa, etc., all for a rifle that will be carried 1/4 mile (at the most) to a deer stand is one of the funnier things about this forum.

Guess it only goes to show, rifles are fun to obsess over!

The pre 64 Model 70 was not called the Rifleman's Rifle for nothing...I still have 5 of the many I have owned over the past 40 years+...I have never had one fail me in the field...from Texas to the Arctic or California to Newfoundland..BobinNH has pretty much covered it regarding the grand ol' pre 64 Model 70...
in my opinion there is none better...

Wish I would have said that.

Damned! If they were so good then this transition (1948) model should be worth more than $500-$700.00 dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .



Maybe I'll list it on gunbroker and see what the consensus is there.

Looks like coffee and donuts time . And where did I put that suit?...............still looking for that damned thing.

Used to know a guy who could add $700 back on in very little time. It would cost you a couple hundred, but it would be "new" again.

However, he had to give the restoration market to another after he was caught.

I don't know what all the fuss is about, they do it with old cars all the time and Turnbull restoration seems to be doing a thriving business doing the same upfront.

The more they age, the more accepted it will become.

Battue you should of used this instead of a period for your punctuation mark . No I'm just kidding. Kind of agree with you here, but we all know there is a fine line there and when it comes right down to it, most people believe there's no differnece between that and a counterfeit dollar bill.

Bob didn't and his was much more artful than mine.


Agree completely. I have one he did, but I'm upfront about it. It was pretty rough when I gave it to him. Subsequently a couple aficionados have tried to buy it. Still shoots great.





It will become more common in the future.

The funny thing about that rifle in the picture is it has aged some 62 years. It is like a fine wine and some poor guy thought he was making himself the classiest rifle in town. Little did he know back then that it would end up being worth less (almost worthless as a collector) some day. I'll tell you, the rifle in the pic is one of the nicest I've ever seen and my friend won't budge off of around the $900.00 mark!!!!! Kind of don't blame him though because of what BobinNH was saying about them. He's absolutely right as far as I'm concerned. He loves it when I tell him that especially when it is where you guys can see it and not just in a pm .

Been re-finished but reasonably well done.
I like pre-64 actions a lot and, like most, prefer the pre-war and trnsition actions. After that, actions 1958 and older seem best.
As the basis for a custom rifle, the pre-64 is an action which needs just enough cosmetic work to allow the 'smith to show off a bit.
The new SC Model 70 receivers are the best of the lot as far as dimensions and finish are concerned. Surfaces are true and no holes are dished out. All surfaces are smooth and edges are sharp (sometimes a bit too sharp!). The bolts are also better machined and finished. I like that the bolt sleeve is threaded with standard vee threads and the fit to the bolt body is, generally, better. I like that the contact surface between cocking piece and sear is vertical and that the sear poivots at the rear. The sear no longer lifts the rear of the bolt up when the action is cocked.
As far as the trigger is concerned, I think the new trigger is reasonably well designed. I am a fairly good hand with the original triggers and can tune them as well as anyone. I can do at least as well with the new trigger and with less effort. Many complain that enclosed triggers collect debris. Here's a tip; clean the rifle now and then! Seriously, I think the trigger is a non-issue.
I would have like to have seen Winchester make the bolt handle integral but, as long as the joint is well done, it's not a real issue either. I would also have liked to see them eliminate the anti-bind protrusion on the bolt head and return to the pre-64 guide "hump".
The new bottom metal is an abomination. It is an ugly piece which, with use, will only get uglier.
Winchester had the opportunity to change the breeching system to improve gas handling but chose to not do so. I wish they had.
The new SC actions offer one improvement over the other post-64 actions which is significant. The receiver threads are larger and are no longer interrupted by the broaching of the locking lug raceways. The change was made to address problems which surfaced with the advent of the WSM cartridges but it was a worthwhile change regardless of caliber.
All in all, I still prefer the pre-64 action but consider the newest offering to be better than acceptable. GD

Battue, that's a beauty for sure.

And that, my friends, is the most qualified voice on this thread... good reading.

I thought it was pretty damned educational. He sounds like he knows his chitt.

ddj, battue and BobinNH,

From an engineering standpoint the pre-'64 M70 is indeed inferior in its gas handling in that, in comparison to the Mauser M98, for example, it lacks the internal gas collar (C-collar) that mostly surrounds the bolt head, the thumb notch that allows gas to vent from the left lug raceway, and finally the bolt sleeve flange that deflects gas away from the shooter's face. Of course, commercial Mausers like the later FN and Zastava that have the H-collar seriously compromise gas handling by providing a big hole leading directly into the left lug raceway.

In fact the M70's bolt head design is very similar to the Springfield 1903, which was probably the model for the Winchester 54 which in turn led to the M70. Incidentally, I recently looked at a Kimber 84 and it has a screw-in C-flange that sits where the internal gas collar on the Mauser 98 is, and presumably is intended to serve the same function.

Having said all that, however, it's mainly something for rifle looneys to argue over, just like medieval theologians argued over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. From a practical point of view, given how good modern ammunition is, worrying about gas handling is equivalent to worrying about the chance of getting hit in the head by a meteor. It's probably happened to someone, somewhere, at some time, but really... At least, that's my opinion, I could be wrong... :-)

Someone enlighten me.

I know the pre64s were a one piece bolt and bolt handle.

Which of the post 64s were two piece bolt and bolt handle and which were one piece?

This has intrigued me for years.

thx: Matt

I feel compelled to comment on the gas-handling question:

I have had cases go in several rifles over the years, though not very many since I quit being a hot-rod handloader many years ago.

But cases have blown a very few times since, and always for mysterious reasons that couldn't be exactly determined. Once was in an H-ring FN Mauser and once was in a M70 Classic.

The H-ring Mauser did a fine job of gas handling; I barely felt any gas at all, and that just on the left side of my face. So yes, there is more to a 98's gas handling than the H- or C-ring.

Even with the gas block on the Classic, the M70 allowed a lot more gas to hit my face, along with a few bits of brass. I was wearing protective glasses--and always do--so there was no damage. But the experience didn't thrill me.

The pre-'64 has NOTHING to prevent gas and brass from coming down the left raceway into the shooter's face, but I have never had a case blow in a pre-'64, and still own and shoot a couple. But I do make sure that the brass or ammo is in very good shape. In fact I rarely shoot brass more than twice in either rifle.

Somebody also commented on the poor "gas-handling" of the Remington 700. I've had maybe 3 cases go in 700's over the years, and not once did any gas touch any part of me.

A couple of comments on triggers as well:

I've owned maybe 10-12 pre-'64's and can't remember one where the trigger was adjustable below 4 pounds. I did take some of those triggers apart and replace the spring.

Since other people have had pre-'64's with triggers that easily adjusted to below 4 pounds, obviously that experience isn't universal. However, unless they bought those rifles new (not very common), those triggers may have been modified already.

I do find it a lot easier to turn a screw on the South Carolina 70 than to take apart a pre-'64 trigger.

The Mauser shroud as stated is the last in a line of gas deflecting devices. The pre-98's lacked the flange that the 98 added. However, that shroud is a last resort. Unlike the Rem 700 which is designed to contain gases, the Mauser seeks to redirect escaping gas. The problem with the Model 70 is that there is nothing that prevents gas from running down the left siderail and past the shroud straight into the shooter's left eye. The Mauser had the shroud as mentioned, but before that the gas had to get past the huge bolt stop, and prior to that gas was bled off by the thumbcut.

Now, it is probably safe to say that brass today taken on the whole is better than that made when the Model 70 was designeded. But, it is not perfect and neither are shooters and reloaders. The June 2010 issue of handloader has a nice article showing all sorts of factory defects in brass. So, counting on your brass to never fail will be a big disappointment to some.

That said, one of my favorties is a Model 54 I own. Just be sensible and wear shooting glasses.

I'll bet that after 50-75 years of use, the Classics will be as smooth as a pre-64 is now.



Bruce

It's always great to have someone much more experienced like Mule Deer or Z1R to point out the errors of my ways :-).

Just wanted to throw a quick note out about Pre-64 triggers. If you can track down a 1965 Gun Digest, Bob Waller had an article titled "Tuning the M70 Winchester". There's some good stuff on how to adjust its trigger and some info. on stock bedding. Waller states that a M70 trigger can be adjusted from about 2 pounds up safely. He thought a pull of 3-4 pounds was about right for normal hunting use.

Thank you to Mule Deer and z1r.

I am from the same town as Frank De Haas and I spent many hours sitting in his house talking about rifles and guns. He was blind by this time so when I would take him a target to his house, he would run his fingers over the target and feel the holes to see how I shot. I asked him once about buying a pre 64 when I was 16 and looking for a big game rifle. He told me he would never recommend a pre 64 for a kid to hunt with for fear of them becoming blind like him. I never asked him if he had a bad experience with one but I remember talking about a design flaw. I wish I could sit and talk to him again. I must have asked such novice questions but he never made me feel inferior.


ddj

I'll be the last to go against the experts when it comes to knowing the ins/out of a particular rifle design. I stress it a little more than JB when it comes to number of reloads. I usually quit at 5. Have a rifle smart friend who takes pride in how far he can go and laughs at me for throwing them away at 5. Too much going on inside that case for me to take the chance no matter which manufacturer. He is always searching around inside with a paper clip for a crack. Not worth the chance.

However, speaking of chance, almost everyday I go down the road between 25 to 60mph with another car coming at me doing the same at perhaps 10feet away. That worries me more than any pre 64 or case failing.

Wear your shooting glasses and keep you trigger clean is good advice.

Lots of good posts here...I don't profess to be any expert on these things as guys like Greydog and JB know far more than me about all these various rifles.

I am not a collector...I am a user and been fortunate to own quite a few of all of them.Part of my afinity for pre 64's is that I have used them successfully for years and so I trust them, the same way some people have lucky hats,or wear mismatched socks when they pitch a baseball game...

I have also had good semi-custom rifles built on the Classic action that were just as good and just as trustworthy in every way.

My new Mashburn is built on Classic action,and after seeing the job Gene Simillion did on it,have to sayit is as nice,or nicer in every way as any pre 64 M70.

The 7RM Classic the Redneck here put together for me is a fabulously accurate rifle that has never bobbled. He also did a great job on the trigger,which is reliable and safe and breaks like ice.

I have posted a bunch on how much I like the new SC M70's,and how impressed I have been with the out of the box function and accuracy,and feel of the trigger.

So,in the end when the OP asks which I prefer, I say I prefer the pre 64,and "here's why".....this is far different from an objective analysis of which is "best". I have my own notions,but that is all they are...

And this is not to say the others are junk;the design is fundamentally the same,and if care is taken to make sure they work first time/every time, I doubt a guy can really go wrong with any of them...the stuff I have shot with the Classics has wound up just as dead as the one's killed with the pre 64...

With any of the three, I think after a few hundred rounds of trouble free use, a guy could hunt very confidently with any of them and not worry

I agree with BobinNH...my preference is the pre-64...while the Classic could and most likely will do the job the ol' pre 64s have been doing it for well over 50 years...I'll keep taking my pre-64s into the game fields as long as I can hunt...just my opinion...

I'll just note that right now I own two pre-'64's, and hunted with one of them for a week this fall. At the moment I don't own any post-64's, though have owned a number in the past.

I have a pre-'64 in 270 Super Grade and a newer Mod '70 Classic in 375 H&H and I can say this....I am just a Winchester nut case.I own more Winchester rifles and shotguns than any other make and wouldn't trade or sell any of them, but my heart is with the pre-'64 being a pre-1950 guy.

Jayco

Fifty years from now,some folks will be saying the same things about Kimber Montana's and SC M70's......each generation has to have their own rifles,and what they consider to be "best"

Geez Bob..I can't imagine a John Wayne movie with him carrying a Kimber...Kimber is going to have to come up with some Leverguns to even be in the running for the best of all time.



That's not a Kimber!!!



Jayco

Few pre-64 or post-64 NH Model 70s are as accurate as the current FN Model 70s. Winchester finally got it right.

Swamptroll, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about. You should quit while you are ahead. Get ready for a bunch of posts talking about how accurate their older Model 70's are and were. Geez I even have a push-feed G-series that shoots as good as anything made now................................DJ

Folks can make up all kinds of crap. The facts stand.

Until the FN came along, an out of the box MOA Model 70 was a rare bird.

Well mine a sample of one, but the pre 64 will out shoot the post 64 always. Factory ammo reloads etc. Again a sample of two rifles that I own and know well.

Amazing that somehow I've managed to have more than a dozen or more "rare birds".

Swamptroll you are just trying to stir up crap on something you obviously don't know what you are talking about...........................DJ

The times when I've actually needed better than 2 MOA accuracy for hunting big game has actually been quite small, even though it has been no trouble to get most every Winchester M70 I've shot well below that. But the number of times the M70 rifle has been a better choice than most M700s I've shot has been plenty. Either will work, accuracy isn't the whole story, or even close to the majority issue - and the 700 doesn't have a corner on it anyway, but I still like the simplicity of the M70 - it relates well to the principle of KISS.

Just had to through my thoughts out there for this most interesting topic. However, I only have one perspective. I have two M70's of the FN variety, and I love them. My extreme weather SS in 30-06 is a 1/2 moa gun with H414 and nosler accubonds. I drenched it in northern Idaho this October, without a thought. The last time I checked a pre-64 M70 was in really good shape, was really expensive. If I had a hand full of cash and could pick and choose I would take two M-70 FN's and leave the old feller on the shelf. I'm not a collector though, I'm a user. Mostly I'm just glad that the rifle is what it once was, or at least a closer semblance.

Gee. I have an example of 6. The FNs must be one holers for 3-5 shots because that is what my pre64s come close to when I am shooting well. They are Standard 270 and 30-06, a 300 H&H, and a .375 H&H and a FW in 30-06. The FW is an inch to inch and a half for three shots with me shooting it. Unless things have changed that is what WBY gurantees. This is of course from the bench.

Well shoot Mark..There we go agreeing again.Is the sky falling...

Jayco

I expect a deer rifle to shoot MOA or it's gone. That's why I mostly shoot Remingtons.

I've got a pre 64 and a nice classic (in swampy's favorite chambering) that shoot less than moa very consistantly. I've got an FN made varriation coming soon and I've got my fingers crossed about that one. The pre-64's never cease to amaze me when it comes to accuracy. Swampy is old enough to know better, don't know why he is so biased????

I'm not biased, I love Winchesters but not enough to make stuff up about their accuracy.

You love Remmys enough for that though.....

Maybe you've just been unlucky with the ones you did have.

Who wrote this???



Jayco

JOC, That's an easy one. Out of "The Rifle Book".

What did I win jayco???

It wasn't just me. Winchesters have never been known for their accuracy. They are good hunting rifles.....period.

Rems seem to fit me a little better, but pre 64's have a special quality to them. No, they don't handle gas well, but I've had only one case head failure in my life, and that was because of doing something silly.

The FN's have a different feel to me, not quite as good as the Remingtons, but the fit & finish is very good. I could see buying one of these, pretty easy.

Is that why Marine Scout-Sniper Carlos Hathcock was credited with over 80 confirmed kills during his first tour of the Republic of Vietnam between 1966 and 1967. Except for the use of a .50 caliber M2 machine gun, with his 8x Unertl scope mounted on it, the majority of these kills were made with his caliber .30-06 Winchester Model 70 and the Unertl telescope.

Jayco

Its also why M70 Targets made such good showings at Wimbledon for so many years...

swampy you are delusionial


ddj

I rather like the most recent M700 sample with its 19 pound trigger. But it does shoot well if it doesn't bounce too much at trigger break. Actually, it wasn't difficult to correct - perhaps one of Remington's biggest plusses. It would be nice to know that I could as easily un-gunk the trigger when it gets iced like you can with the older M70s. Benching is fun; hunting is funner!

There goes Klik, being practical again and tossing that Alaskan weather and conditions into the mix......shatters fantasy all the time

And I agree with the guy a few posts back who said the Classic with SS is a real good way to go.......

Jayco: Well, John Wayne is another example why we have Winchester mystique......I love all old Winchesters.Being as how New Haven is close to where I live, you would be surprised how many old Winchesters pop up in the New England area.

Brad: For sure,pre 64 M70's were made for "Function Nazi's"

Quite a few show up at Camp Perry IIRC. They not only shoot accurately but they seem to have less feeding problems than Remington rifles do. This is helpful during the rapid fire stage of the National Match Course of fire.
whelennut

Ummm, small correction. Depends on the model. The sub-MOA model is guaranteed to group an inch or less.

Now back to the beer and popcorn... this has been a fun and informative thread to watch with the exception of the recent appearance of the village idiot. I'm sure we can all ignore and continue with what has been a mostly civil and entertaining discussion.

Swampy not to engage in any arguments of course,but I would disagree.Pre 64's, on average, have out shot about any other production rifle I have owned,and that includes a pile of Remingtons as well.The barrels were broached(cut),stress free and very accurate. Some rifles have needed some fiddling but mostly not very much.

I have had everything from 375H&H clear down to the Swift produce stupid groups for me;easily on a par with anything I have owned today.

This has long been the reason I don't build custom 270's or 30/06's anymore....it makes no sense to spend the money, because I "know" (having done it so many times) that if you take a pre 64 FW or Standard in those calibers,have the metal bedded in a good synthetic stock, it will shoot sub MOA easily,every single time.Sorry to say but frequently it will do significantly better,and you could spend thousands and not get a better rifle of like kind.

I belong to a club full of highpower match shooters.....after seeing my old 300H&H perform at 600 yards the club VP would not leave me alone and kept trying to buy it....

Spend a 1000+ on the Model 70 and it can shoot with an out of the box $350.00 Remington 700. A new stock and barrel are good places to start.

Swampy..where exactly can I get a new, out of the box Remington for $350...?

I did that once. I think it was $400. Had to send it back, wouldn't feed a round out of the magazine so I never got to see how accurate it was.

I'm sure it shot lights out though.

More than a few experienced people here stand behind what they know to be the facts on pre64 Model 70s.

Then we have this lone hero of the Rem 700, and when he speaks and turns around there he stands all by himself. No backup, no posters of like mind. A lost soul out in the wilderness (swamp?), jabbering into his computer, hoping someone of like mind is out there listening.

This Model 70 thread is played out countless times during a year. Reason being it is a rifle that has always, no matter its reincarnation, generated enthusiasm and anticipation.

And then there is Swampman, Model 700 held high, all by himself.
"Swampman 700 phone home."

Swampy, you're baiting us....and you're wrong.

Swampy throws good bait. He just isn't all that good at setting the hook.

Pre-64 Model 70...all original 375 H&H 275 BBC at 100 yds 2800 FPS...so much for the lack of accuracy from a Pre-64...my other calibers 270,264,and 30-06 have done just as well..all original rifles with hunting hand loads..

Wonder what he'd say if hw knew that M70 Classic barrels and Remington barrels,were made on the exact same hammer forge machines manufactured out of Germany......uh...Ruger, too.

I'd say it takes more than a machine to make an accurate rifle.

Yep it's a well known and often mentioned fact that Remington only hires the most experienced of smiths. Men and women who are at the peak of their craft. Why just look it up.

The 700 was designed for cheap and easy manufacture after the war... it's a steel toilet paper tube that's easy to chuck on a lathe and stick parts on. If the 700 turned out to be "accurate" was purely a happy accident.

Aside, I've had a small pile of 700's and as a whole I've not found them to be any more or less accurate than all the M70's I've owned.

If you want the most accurate "out of the box" rifle, The Savage 110 and Tikka T3 are your huckleberries...

I can offer no explanations, only 50 years of personal experience.

Thanks for the correction. I forgot about the SUB-MOA. But, arn't the SUB-MOA just those few that were found to shoot better then the rest? In other words not purpose built to shoot that well. Anyway that is what I have read in some magazines.

What, when you were 10 you were an authority too? Capable of discerning which rifles were the "most accurate?"

Must be the reason my Remington 504 bolt .22 had to go back to Kentucky to their gunsmith. The barrel was bored way off center and would pattern not group. It came back wearing a new barrel with surface rust on it, only one he had left I guess from rebarreling all those dogs. 504's didn't sell for chump change either.

The experianced "smith" must have called in sick and let his apprentice assemble my rifle.................

Usually when it is said rifling is broached that means the grooves were all cut in one pass with a gang broach like this:





When it is said rifling is cut we're usually talking about the machining being done one groove at a time, and with many lighter passes of a hook cutter like this:





Of course, they are both cutting mechanisms. Which did Winchester use?

I believe you just qualified your personal experience with Model 70's.

Thanks for the insight.

JW

Out of context.....while we are all fond of the pre-64s, I'm glad that FN has finally built a MOA out of the box rifle.

"As the fish ignores the ineptly presented artificial, Swampman prepares to cast again"....

From what I've been told, the sub-MOA models weren't purpose-built to shoot better than the rest. They're plucked out of the production line when testing reveals them to shoot sub-MOA and given an engraved floorplate. However, not all sub-MOA shooters are chosen for that treatment, so it's common to get a regular model that also shoots sub-MOA. I own two regular models and one sub-MOA. They all shoot sub-MOA groups.

"Starting with the general shape from the drop forginging, the outside diameter wa staightened by hand with 15 pound hammers on anvils.

From this step,they were mounted on a lathe,their high spots chalked and turned to round.

Next the barrels were deep hole drilled from chamber end to muzzle.....

Following drilling,they underwent anothet straightening procedure with control intended for the inside diameter.For this process, ther were several turning,grinding and straightening operations which usually guaranteed concentricity.

With this established,the bore diameter was next reamed.

Rifling was performed after reaming. Each groove was cut individually by the "hook" method whereby a rifling head with a single cutter blade was pulled from muzzle to butt.The head was so spring loaded that itwould make gradual cuttings,removing fine chips from each groove........

After rifling the bores were lapped. A steel rod with the appropriate twist at one end was inserted in the bore and cadmium lead was poured around it.....an operator then pulled the rod back and forth,lubricating the bore with carborundum oil. This technique removed burrs and left a glasslike finish in the bore.

Once finished to this state the barrels were inspected......

Barrels which survived inspection were then belt polished in the barrel polishing shop.....

After this they were chambered. This took three to seven tools depending on the caliber....when thechambers were complete,they were still sightly undersized to allow for final headspacing....

In 1955 the hook rifling system was supplemented with the "broach rifling" process.The former method was retained for the target styles, the Custom Shop and the Model Shop. The new operation was was applied to the remaining production styles. The advantage of broach rifling was time savings as all grooves were were cut with a "one pull" operation........

"The Rifleman's Rifle"...Rule;pgs 53 and 54.

I left out a lot of steps in polishing and finish and stamping.This was the barrels....we won't even discuss the receivers and final assembly.....

Those who know WTF they are talking about,who have actually shot rifles made before and after 1955( instead of speculating and guessing about it) will know that the barrels made by both methods are easily MOA or sub MOA barrels..I know this because I have shot many examples of both in a variety of calibers.

The hand lapping that the later barrels did not get was accomplished by about 100-200 rounds of use.

I took a 1963 270 recently that had been shot little, if at all...first trip to the range and it shot sub MOA to 300 yards.It will hang with any M70 made by anyone, including FN

I suspect that any pre 64 M70 barrel made by either method saw more TLC tha any 1000 barrels built by anyone else.

Swampy go get some and actually shoot them......quit posting BS. It's unbecoming.....

Thanks Bob.

I believe Bar-Sto broaches their barrels. I haven't followed handguns closely in a while, but they were considered a primo barrel for a build.

Swampy.....Look at the target above,and read OU76's comments...What part of this is it that you don't understand?

I have seen/done precisely the same thing with many other pre 64's......

And the SC M70's as well,just not so many.

Classic? Sometimes.....

Bob,

All this agonizing over how good pre-64's are is really moot. If a rifle feels like a "companion" instead of a "tool" it will usually get pulled from the gun cabinet to make the hunt and leave some more accurate "tools" behind.

I'm guessing more guys have and will keep on searching for pre-64's ahead of the more modern renditions of rifle makes when looking for a "companion", if resale and availability on the used rack are any indication.

Don't really care if my 1954 featherweight is superior or not, it and a old Sako Forester give me a feeling the others can't quite touch........

Bob: You are wasting your time with that inbred swamp moron. His response to that target will be the same as when I posted some "oh those are faked from ten yards." He is a total deer ass-shooting buffoon who can't even figure out how to properly put a sling on a rifle. jorge

jorg: I know he's baiting us and I've called swampy on it before..I'm just having some fun..... I couldn't go to the range today so figured I'd do this instead

Gary: I agree; you are correct....just like to post some of this stuff so the younger guys don't get the notion that great rifles came into being within the last year ...again, just enjoying myself.

Not even sure Swampy could catch a Montana high-country Cutthroat that hasn't seen anything float by in awhile.

Its reminiscent of Oldman's tirades about Barnes bullets and Lee24's SC 375

I have been watching this and gave my opinion more than once but what I see from a few, is the name calling and stud like actions towards Swampman who has not "once" called anyone a name unlike some...

So,who is more grown up?

Just because his opinion is different and I assume he believes it,why the nasty stuff and name calling?

Atleast Bob can address it without name calling and just facts..Others ignore but then comes macho ......with nuttin but trash talk.

Ain't right.

Jayco

Logcutter, Nobody like liars. Swampman from time to time starts making up BS about different gun brands etc. to stir up crap and bring attention to himself.

I can see that if you hadn't been through some of his BS before you might look at 1 thread and not notice the trolling about for attention that have gone on, nor seen the lies etc..

Keep watching and reading and you'll probably end up seeing what me mean.

I will agree that he doesn't get as nasty or obscene as certain other posters have and that might be the one thing to his favor..................DJ

Pretty grown up chit right there!


Jayco

Everyone posting about Swampy is allowing themselves (and the topic)to be diverted and rewarding the behavior.

C'mon guys. I know (most of) you are smarter than that.

We've talked about gas handling, triggers, stocks... what about barrels? Anyone care to contrast pre-64 barrels with the new ones?

Great, getting called on the carpet by the maturity police. Then again my dad's always told me I never grew up...Oh and Swampsmell is still a moron...

Why can't we all just get along? Sniff Sniff ...............dj

GWood, you are making perfect sense or my brain isn't working right yet after spending all day out in 14 degree weather shooting my rimfires . I love the pre 64's, but when it comes to what to take to deer camp the BSA model D gets the nod. Something about the 1917 enfield action that I just can't shake. Probably because I grew up using one and it brings back good memories. That or because it shoots better than just about anything I have. I like accurate rifles because it gives you confidence, nice too because you can't blame it on the equipment if the shot is ever botched . My vote for the "poor mans pre-64" :

If being the most accurate or most rugged or lightest, wearing the best looking McMillan was the only criteria for chosing one's rifle, I wouldn't see so many of them for sale in the classifieds.

Just sayin.............

I like show and tell time around here, especially when it is targets of how capable our pre64's are:

First time I ever shot a group with my standard pre-64 (1951) 30-06.

First time I saw the rifle, took pictures with my phone at some guys messy shop.

Its original stock/original sling, all correct with steel butt plate.

It's hunting stock that I bedded.

How it looks now in it's "hunting" stock.

bsa1917hunter,

I have had several of the BSA Sporter 17s, and agree with you on them being the "poor mans pre-64" . Their only serious drawback is that they are a tad heavy, which prompted me to rechamber one of the Ds to 270 Wby.

That was my first 270 Wby, and Bevan King did the job. He said the steel cut as smoothly as any new barrel he had made, and that getting it to to feed into the coned breech was a piece of cake. It shot just as well after the job as before, and killed a very nice bear just a few days later.

Yours looks very nice, and the Redfield variable sure fits the vintage well.

Ted

Here's my classic in swampys favorite chambering (30-06):

She's a shooter too for a model 70 (group size .650"):

And lastly, my buddies featherweight with my handloads shot about 2 months ago. He wasn't happy with his first group and as you can see he really bared down to make the other group count:

This was a featherweight after about 25 rounds were sent down range!! He's the owner of this beauty:

Thanks for the coments, I agree that it is a tad heavy . I have often thought of rechambering it to something like 308 norma, but like it as a 30-06 and it is damn accurate. I'm starting to have more 06's than I know what to do with though. Maybe it is time for that norma .

You sure wouldn't be going far astray with a Norma Mag.

Both are great cartridges!
Ted

I've always wanted a 308 norma, just don't have the guts to start cutting on my bsa

And lastly guys, here's the new rifle I just bought from a member here (dc3483). Hopefully he puts it in the big brown truck on monday . A FN PBR XP 300 wsm:

Yep, this is the one I've got my fingers crossed on whether or not it is going to be a shooter. By all rights It should shoot better than any other model 70 I've got, but we'll see.

Who put the rail on backwards? ...........................dj

Funny dj.

It rained most of the day but cleared up just before dark, so I slipped out to the bench on my back porch and shot this group with my 1952 M70 standard rifle in .30-06. I've only had it a month and we're still getting to know each other, but so far things look promising. This is the one-inch five-shot group of myth and legend (actually 1.012") but a better shooter with a more precise target would probably have resulted in a better group. I don't care; I'm happy with the rifle and thrilled with my start to the new year.

The load is 150-grain Hornady softpoints and 56.0 grains of Big Game, in Federal cases and F215 primers. The scope is a Leupold
Rifleman 2x7, set on 7X and using a six o'clock hold.

[img:center][/img]

[img:center][/img]

Damned nice! Thanks for sharing, see swampy there are some model 70's that can shoot .

bsa you are wasting your time with that idiot. When I posted the target below his profound response was to say I shot it from ten yards. jorge

375 H&H. Nice shooting jorgeI. One of these days I'm going to get a nice 375 .

Snoop is right, those old pre64 Model 70s just will not shoot. Today my .308FWT-wearing a McMillan suit and 6x36 with PD-would only put 9 of 10 inside and inch at 100. However, it did place all 4 in under 2in at 200. I just can't trust that rifle. I guess I should sell it. Dang and I really liked it a lot. It also likes to suck on copper. There is another reason.

I never get tired of looking at some of the targets you guys post. Especially when they are shot with the pre-64's. I went out the other day and froze my azz off (15 degrees) and shot my 30-06's a little. The pre-64 proved to shoot the best out of 3 rifles I had. I already posted pics of the targets in the "how accurated is your 30-06" thread or I would post them here. Ah what the hell, here's 2 targets anyway :
5 shots at 100 with 165 sierra gamekings:

Another 5 shots at 100 with 165 hornady interlock spire points:

My classic sporter shot the best 3 shot group of the day with the same 165 sierra GK load @ .4570" (what's one more going to hurt ):