'09 Winchester Model 70

In my opinion, all the changes made to the new Model 70, as opposed to the Classics, have been positive changes. This even includes the trigger which, although I liked the original just fine, is a reasonably well made trigger. I don't like the bottom metal because I don't like painted cast aluminum for a trigger guard. Regards, Bill
 
Leeper said:
In my opinion, all the changes made to the new Model 70, as opposed to the Classics, have been positive changes. This even includes the trigger which, although I liked the original just fine, is a reasonably well made trigger. I don't like the bottom metal because I don't like painted cast aluminum for a trigger guard. Regards, Bill
Click to expand...

Bill, is the bottom metal a copy of the one piece Williams at least?...could one swap in the Williams?

"painted cast aluminum".........sounds like a 700....:D
 
The only aluminum part is the trigger guard/mount plate itself. The floor plate etc. is steel.

The Al is Remingtonesque.

Otherwise, I simply love the new 70's. I wish the bluing was more polished like the Classic series, but all in all a very well fitted and finished rifle.

A friend recently bought a Featherweight in 270. It shot right around an inch with Federal Fusion ammo, and somewhat better with handloaded SGK's and NP's that I made.
 
Yes, the trigger guard and bottom metal are one piece, the old style with the third screw holding down a seperate trigger guard has been changed.

The B&C stock does have an aluminum bedding block:

535110x3l.jpg
 
I have been knee deep in the model 70. If you are thinking of the 30-06 you are in luck. The box mag holds 5 Vs only 3 if in a wsm or mag caliber. As well you get a 22 inch barrel. I have handled a few and the only advice I have is to keep your eyes peeled. They are a really nice rifle but quality differs rifle to rifle from what I have seen.
 
I revere the 30-06, but would choose that or a 300WSM based mostly on which rifle I could get. Ballistically, they're so similar, and who needs 5 in the mag anyway?
 
Silverado said:
I revere the 30-06, but would choose that or a 300WSM based mostly on which rifle I could get. Ballistically, they're so similar, and who needs 5 in the mag anyway?
Click to expand...


If I get one of these it'll be a 30 caliber,..but,...the 300 Win Mag has a 26" tube and I think the flutes run too close to the muzzle to cut it back to 24"...the 30-06 has a 22" tube,...I'd rather have a 24" tube on the '06...so, the 300 WSM might be the one to get...24" barrel and a bit shorter action than the '06....but,..will it feed?...I know the others will...
 
Rembo said:
If I get one of these it'll be a 30 caliber,..but,...the 300 Win Mag has a 26" tube and I think the flutes run too close to the muzzle to cut it back to 24"...the 30-06 has a 22" tube,...I'd rather have a 24" tube on the '06...so, the 300 WSM might be the one to get...24" barrel and a bit shorter action than the '06....but,..will it feed?...I know the others will...
Click to expand...

Have you had problems with 300WSM feeding? Or are you referring to Model 70's generally?

I did note that they are still applying the cone taper to the breech face, one of the more legendary features of the M70 of yore... done strictly to help feeding IIRC.
 
Silverado said:
Have you had problems with 300WSM feeding? Or are you referring to Model 70's generally?

I did note that they are still applying the cone taper to the breech face, one of the more legendary features of the M70 of yore... done strictly to help feeding IIRC.
Click to expand...


WSM's can have feeding issues in controlled feed actions...I had a Kimber that wasn't great but it was useable.

Long action Model 70's feed great..I have two Pre'64's in 30-06 that feed perfectly.

Contrary to popular belief the coned breech has nothing to do with feeding...chamber a round slowly and watch the tip of the bullet...it doesn't touch the coned breech.
 
Rembo,
The trigger guard is one piece and does not utilize the center screw although the drilled and tapped hole is there in the receiver.It is difficult, at this late date, to theorize as to why Winchester chose to go with the coned breech on the Model 54 and later on, the Model 70. I've often thought it was simply because that's the way the Springfield was made. Americans can be just as obstinate as anyone! In the Springfiled, the coned breech may have simply been an attempt to circumvent Mauser Patents. From a safety (gas handling) standpoint, it is a poor system and I think they should have taken the opportunity to change it while they were making other changes to the action.
The receiver has benefitted from a couple of changes. The first obvious change is a real imrovement to the external finish. Not that it exceptionally smooth or shiny but the surfaces appear to be true and the receiver posesses the lines it should. A second change is obvious only when the barrel is removed; The receiver thread has been increased to 1 1/16 diameter which is a real improvement. The thread pitch is 28TPI! I assume this was done to maximize the wall thickness on the WSM chambers. I think the 28 TPI thread is a bit over the top but it does no harm. Anyway, the problems with oval chambers in the WSM's or even the belted magnums, is a thing of the past.
The trigger machanism is OK. It actually takes up less space in the stock than did the original. I one wishes to utilize the center screw location, there is sufficient surface that it can become a meaningful part of the bedding system.
I think it's too bad they didn't decide to go to a one piece bolt but the new bolt does appear to be better made than the classics. The vee threads on the bolt sleeve are an improvement just because they seem to be able to cut them more consistently. The flange on the bolt sleeve is an improvement. Some have complained the edges of the safety are too sharp but it's quite easy to round off or bevel a sharpedge. Much more difficult to straighten up a rounded off edge. The striker is lighter and uses a shorter, stiffer spring. This should reduce lock time which is meaningless in the field but a selling point nonetheless. Regards, Bill.
 
Thanks for the interesting perspective Bill.

I always thought the coned breech was to help feeding if a round got ####-eyed... perhaps not. I wouldn't doubt that following some sort of tradition could play a part!
 
Thanks Bill for sharing your expert observations on the new Model 70.

I was thru Bashaw today and stopped to check out the new Model 70's...handled a 300 Win Mag and a 300WSM....both stainless versions.
The finish is a bit rougher than I expected...and they used very dull cutters to do the flutes....lots of lines in them that even a heavy beadblast couldn't remove. Both rifles had the "WINCHESTER" trademark on the receiver very poorly stamped..they need to line up the roll stampers better. Bolts worked smoothly and the safeties had a very positive feel to them, locking quite solidly into the middle postion detente....my Pre'64's safetys are mushy in comparison...and I didn't try the triggers...I think it's poor form to dry fire rifles in a gun shop:cool:....especially brand new ones....:D

re: the coned breech thing..it's amazing to see in literature for custom benchrest actions that "the coned breech speeds up the firing rate"....I'm sure most bench rest shooters would not like thier carefully tuned and minimum runout handloads smacking the coned breech on thier way into the chamber.......:rolleyes:
 
Leeper said:
Rembo,
The trigger guard is one piece and does not utilize the center screw although the drilled and tapped hole is there in the receiver.It is difficult, at this late date, to theorize as to why Winchester chose to go with the coned breech on the Model 54 and later on, the Model 70. I've often thought it was simply because that's the way the Springfield was made. Americans can be just as obstinate as anyone! In the Springfiled, the coned breech may have simply been an attempt to circumvent Mauser Patents. From a safety (gas handling) standpoint, it is a poor system and I think they should have taken the opportunity to change it while they were making other changes to the action.
The receiver has benefitted from a couple of changes. The first obvious change is a real imrovement to the external finish. Not that it exceptionally smooth or shiny but the surfaces appear to be true and the receiver posesses the lines it should. A second change is obvious only when the barrel is removed; The receiver thread has been increased to 1 1/16 diameter which is a real improvement. The thread pitch is 28TPI! I assume this was done to maximize the wall thickness on the WSM chambers. I think the 28 TPI thread is a bit over the top but it does no harm. Anyway, the problems with oval chambers in the WSM's or even the belted magnums, is a thing of the past.
The trigger machanism is OK. It actually takes up less space in the stock than did the original. I one wishes to utilize the center screw location, there is sufficient surface that it can become a meaningful part of the bedding system.
I think it's too bad they didn't decide to go to a one piece bolt but the new bolt does appear to be better made than the classics. The vee threads on the bolt sleeve are an improvement just because they seem to be able to cut them more consistently. The flange on the bolt sleeve is an improvement. Some have complained the edges of the safety are too sharp but it's quite easy to round off or bevel a sharpedge. Much more difficult to straighten up a rounded off edge. The striker is lighter and uses a shorter, stiffer spring. This should reduce lock time which is meaningless in the field but a selling point nonetheless. Regards, Bill.
Click to expand...

Can you give detail on the bolt? What is one piece bolt? Thanx in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom