New vs pre-64 Winchester mod 70

[270]

How would you rate the new controlled feed Winchester model 70 compared to the pre-64 model 70s? (I notice the new super grade model is really nice to look at!)

The new model has anti-bind bolt and barrel is free-floated--isn't that the only significant differences?

I recently bought a pre-64 model 70, standard weight. Shot it a few times and cartridges feed very smoothly. Made in 1950. Once home with it I noticed the grade of wood wasn't all that great--otherwise it's in very nice condition.

This purchase lead to buying a couple of Jack O'Connor's books. He would be proud of me.

270

[Buzzcook]

Both are good rifles. The Pre-64 are pricey because of the collector value. You can still find a shooter every once in a while.
The new ones are probably better mechanically with better metallurgy.

From your thread above it looks like your looking for a dangerous game rifle. You're going to have a broader selection in heavy cartridges with the old model 70 than the new.

[kraigwy]

I have both, plus lots of post '64 Model 70s,

Personally I think the new FN Model 70 is the best of the lot.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with any of them. Still my favorite action, exotically actions used in target rifles.

[30-30remchester]

I have studied and collected pre-64 model 70's for 40 plus years and can tell you that there are some substancial differences even between your 1950 model and later pre-64 models. Winchester did not have good wood in the 1950's but neither did Remington or Savage. The main difference between pre's and the newer guns is the trigger of the new guns are more precise but less rugged and reliable than the pre's. The early triggers were simple and strong and used on nearly all military rifles of the time as they were soldier proof. The other glaring difference is the bolt. Pre's were manufactured from a single billet of steel including the handle. The pre's didnt need a anti bind devise as they had an "overtravel bump" milled into the bolt that prevented it from binding. The newer guns have a two piece bolt that is welded togeather and I believe but dont know, that the bolt handle is welded on as well.

[270]

30-30remchester,

As a fellow who also loves the old model 70's I'm impressed with your knowledge.

Interesting about the wood on model 70's in the fifties not being so good. Shortage of good walnut at that time, I presume?

As I said, I have the standard and not the featherweight. Lots of people went for--and still do--the featherweight but did they chose wisely? I like the fact that my buttplate is steel and not aluminum. I like the appearance of the "hump" at the rear sight. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

Which do you prefer, the standard or featherweight in the pre-64's and why?
Were there "shortcuts" in the featherweight other than the primary reduction in weight.

By the way, this is my second pre-64 model 70. Years ago I had one chambered for the 257 Roberts and believe it was made in 1937.

270

[30-30remchester]

270, there are many differences in the production of the pre 64's. First was the prewars. These are considered by purists as the finest years. In a nut shell they generally had better wood than later years, had 20 point checkering, a bulbous pistol grip. Then came the transition models from 1946 to 1948, these I personally prefer. Their advantages were, they were drilled and tapped for scope mounts and a safety that would allow usage for scopes. This safety was called a "clamshell safety".These also were still the famous cloverleaf tang and bulbous pistol grip. Next came the 1948 to 1952 models. Their distinction was a change from the cloverleaf tang to the standard tang common to the remainder models including those produced today. Also after 1948 the saftey design is the saftey we still see today and is refered to as the "L" safety. The pistol grip after 1948 went from bulbous to flat for the remainder of production. The other change was the sear hole in the reciever went from a milled square to a faster to produce round hole. After 1952, Winchester was trying to compete with cheaper guns, so they started cutting costs, this is the reason I dont collect any post 1952 models. From 1952 to 1960 the front sight was no longer milled into the barrel but was instead was a soldered ramp plus some minor changes like the bolt knob being drilled. Lastly from 1960 to 1963 the metal buttplate was changed to plastic, the checkering panels were shrunk in size and the bolt shroud was changed from a milled flat surface, and left round to cut costs. Those are the BASICS, there are other smaller changes. I only have one featherweight and while light weight I had changed the aliminum floorplate and triggerguard to a steel model. I found I cant hold steady the featherweight rifle plus I dislike the soldered on front sight. The rear sight "bump" on a standard weight is called a "boss". When you study firearm design you can easily see why the pre-64 Winchester model 70's are justifably called " The Riflemans Rifle". I worked very hard in my carrer and purchased only the best firearms. After considerable study it was an easy decision to collect old Winchesters and Smith & Wesson revolvers.

[270]

30-30remchester,

Thanks for your outstanding response. You really know the model 70!

Curious. What's your favorite cartridge for this gun?

270 (Don from a farm in Indiana)

[30-30remchester]

270 while I have owned many over the years, my favorite cartridge would have to be the 30-06. My old 1947 model in 30-06 was my guide rifle when I was guiding deer and elk hunters. It seems to be the only gun I take when hunting anymore. Just shot an antelope with it last weekend. However when you get an older model 70 chambered in either 300 H & H or 375 H & H their long sloping shoulders allow effortless cycling.

[OlCrip]

Back in 1962 I had a new Model 70 in .300 H&H. I loved that rifle but it was lost in a house break-in. About 1975 I bought another M70, this one a pushfeed in 7mm Rem Mag. Incredibly accurate. Still have that one. I've examined the new FN product and while it's a fine looking firearm I'll simply keep what I have and know. The trigger system is goofproof. In my opinion, for what little it may be worth, FN "fixed" a problem that didn't exist. The old trigger system wasn't broke, I don't understand why they tried to fix it.

[GeauxTide]

Have two CT made Classic III 70s in 7mmRM. Excellent.

[Clark]

http://i757.photobucket.com/albums/xx220/ClarkM/WinM70270.jpg


I got mine when some guy died and his nephew sold it 6 years ago.
It was rebarreled 30-06. It had shot 2 of every animal in Alaska and 120 some Sitka black tailed deer. I paid something like $450 or $550 for it.

I put a pac nor 270 barrel on it.
I put a Bordon Rimrock stock on it.
I put a Leupold scope on it.
I put a Butler Creek sling on it.
I put a Harris bi- pod on it.

It weighs 8.75 pounds with all that gear AND ammo.

In the last 2 years I have killed 8 mule deer on the agricultural surplus between 329 and 510 yards with 130 gr Ballistic tip bullets.

I have over 100 rifles in two dozen cartridges I could hunt with, but this is what I wind up carrying, because it is light and gets the job done.

[ZeroJunk]

I am a user not a collector and have enjoyed trying different cartridges. And, for a lot of my life I had to sell something to get something else and spent most of my extra cash on hunting trips. Consequently, I have used several Model 70's from pre-war to the last of the CT CRF's. While I have seen some very accurate push feeds, I just didn't like them if for no other reason getting used to short stroking to empty the magazine after a hunt.

Anyhow, after killing deer and elk all over the U.S. and Canada for several decades with some variation of a Model 70 CRF I have to say from a practical standpoint, I have never had a malfunction of any type with any of them.