The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > The Smithy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 23, 2013, 01:34 PM   #1
longfellow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 144
Pre-64 model 70

I have a pre #66,350 as well which apparently means I have a different configuration of receiver in some way because scope bases are either "pre or "post" 66,350.
The confusion is that when I google images of Redfield Pre #66,350 bases, I see a hole spacing for the rear bridge that is much closer than I actually have. My front and rear have the same hole spacing. You can see what I mean by looking up an image for the Redfield 512202. This close spacing was I believe used for some magnum models to be able to open up the loading port; just a guess.
And before the suggestions come streaming in about aftermarket smithing, I am the original owner and would likely know it if someone stole in to my safe and had the rear bridge modified. I've just had a peep sight on it for its entire life and only now an presented with this mystery because I want to scope it.
I currently have Weaver bases on it which are fine but I want to swap in some period accurate Redfield dovetail R's&B's if I can. Of course the Redfield Jr models which only use one of the two bridge holes, is also a fine choice, but I'd like the "Pre-64" guru's to shed some light on this for me anyway.
Thanks,
Ed
longfellow is offline  
Old November 23, 2013, 08:56 PM   #2
Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 1999
Location: WA, the ever blue state
Posts: 4,678
When I buy a rifle with Redfield bases, I take them off, throw them away, and put Weaver bases on.

I only have two Pre 64 M70s, but I own a lot of old rifles.
__________________
The word 'forum" does not mean "not criticizing books."
"Ad hominem fallacy" is not the same as point by point criticism of books. If you bought the book, and believe it all, it may FEEL like an ad hominem attack, but you might strive to accept other points of view may exist.
Are we a nation of competing ideas, or a nation of forced conformity of thought?
Clark is offline  
Old November 23, 2013, 09:46 PM   #3
longfellow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 144
Brilliant.
longfellow is offline  
Old November 24, 2013, 11:23 AM   #4
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,193
If the rifle is pre-WWII, the rear holes were not d&t by the factory. They would have been done by a gunsmith for whatever base he wanted to use.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old November 24, 2013, 11:27 AM   #5
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 6,318
Longfellow, Winchester's receiver bridges had two different hole spacings for the rear scope base. Those with the standard .860" spacing were used on both early and later versions when no clip guide was milled into the receiver bridge, except for the post-'64 match rifles with .308 Win barrels whose bridge was about half an inch longer and had a clip guide. Match rifle receivers had a clip guide in the bridge for charging the magazine with 5-round stripper clips.

Here's a picture of a pre-'64 .300 H&H Mag Win 70 with the cutout on the bridge for easy loading of those long rounds. Note the two close drilled and tapped holes about .450" spaced for scope bases. Is this what yours looks like? What cartridge is yours for?



Here's a web site page with serial numbers of all the Model 70's along with all the other models:

http://www.winchesterguns.com/suppor...-Documents.pdf
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

Last edited by Bart B.; November 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM.
Bart B. is offline  
Old November 25, 2013, 06:07 AM   #6
longfellow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 144
No.
I have .860 spacing both F and R. What is the difference between pre and post #66,350 if it is not hole spacing? Perhapd bolt knob shape. And again, I realize the clamshell safety had different shapes over the years but this mysterious difference MUST affect the design of the scope base or folks like Redfield would not have spefic base part numbers for pre and post 66,350.
Thanks,
Ed
longfellow is offline  
Old November 25, 2013, 10:04 AM   #7
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 6,318
Longfellow, does the bridge have something like this at the front?

http://i39.tinypic.com/24x3wo0.jpg
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

Last edited by Bart B.; November 25, 2013 at 12:58 PM.
Bart B. is offline  
Old November 25, 2013, 11:58 AM   #8
old roper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 1,506
Ed, if you look at a Redfield mounting chart they list the Model 70 except for the 300 H&H and 375 H&H below serial # 66,350.

There were no scope mounts made for those calibers below that serial # and not sure how many were chambered and I'm sure collectors have that data.
__________________
Semper Fi
Vietnam 1965
VFW Life member
NRA Life Member
old roper is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09153 seconds with 8 queries