Lets see your pre 64 model 70's

I have a pre 64 model 70 but it was converted to left hand in a 300 wheatherby... they did a beutifull job on the convertion. It also has a lamanant monte carlo stock... interested?
 
Well I haven't got any action shots to ad to this thread from this fall, been finishing building a barn and starting on a house so the hunting has suffered. Here's a couple new Model 70 pics though anyway.
First is a pre-64 in 300 Win Mag. I traded with a friend to get an original standard length magnum bolt face action, then we installed a rechambered/restamped 30-06 barrel and I tracked down a useable stock here and my friend refinished it and recut the checkering. So it's not an original 300 Win mag but it's just like one and it's a gun that a guy can hunt with and not worry too much. I think he did great work too. I put some Warne QD bases and rings on and a Leupold 3.5-10x40.
043.jpg

Picked up an original 338 as well
048.jpg

And a fwt 30-06
047.jpg
 
Thanks Geoff, I was very pleased to get the Alaskan but I have to admit that the new one you got is a more practical choice for sure. I have taken this one hunting a few times though, grizzlies this spring and a bit for moose this fall.
 
Well I hope you have better luck with your Alaskan than I've had with mine Matt. After first day in the field with it while back in camp I suffered a major seizure, frothing at the mouth,growling. Scared the crap out of my buddy. Local oil-workers helped get me to the ambo at the highway. Spent next few days in Grande Prairie hospital. I'm grounded for now. Gives me lots of time to recoup for next year.
Cheers
Geoff
 
I have a bit of a quandary.Picked up a stripped 1950 model 70 receiver that was a .270 win originally .Want to put a .300 H+H barrel on it and have the action milled out to fit.This will eliminate the forward hole at the rear of the action.The .300 H+H two hole spacing at the back were .440" Getting a 2 piece base to fit may be fun.Would involve D+T one more hole at the rear.Warne makes a weaver style steel base .440".Don't want QD rings and was wondering if med steel rings were available in Leupold compatible with Weaver style base ? Anyone know if the Warne Maxima rings are alloy or steel. The web site wasn't much help.
 
I believe the Warne rings are steel but I'm not sure and I can't tell by staring at them, I do know they've held up just fine on a bunch of my rifles. Are you putting on an original Winchester barrel or an aftermarket?
 
Original 26" pipe.the Warne bases are slotted for Weaver style rings so I'm hoping Leupold's Weaver style will fit.I guess I'd like nice classic clean lines not to cheapen the look ,along with strength.Never been a fan of alloy mts.
 
Have you looked for an original 300 H&H then? There are quite a few out there and it would be pretty close to a wash moneywise by the time you gather all the pieces and do the mods. My opinion only. I do love a 300 H&H. If you want I've got some tip-off Weavers with 300 H&H hole spacing.
 
I have a bit of a quandary.Picked up a stripped 1950 model 70 receiver that was a .270 win originally .Want to put a .300 H+H barrel on it and have the action milled out to fit.This will eliminate the forward hole at the rear of the action.The .300 H+H two hole spacing at the back were .440" Getting a 2 piece base to fit may be fun.Would involve D+T one more hole at the rear.Warne makes a weaver style steel base .440".Don't want QD rings and was wondering if med steel rings were available in Leupold compatible with Weaver style base ? Anyone know if the Warne Maxima rings are alloy or steel. The web site wasn't much help.
You should be able to leave the rear bridge holes as-is. I recently had a 1990's era Model 70 .338WM built into a .300H+H. Besides barrel, the action work simply involved removing spacer from rear of magazine and changing bolt-stop/release. Also had to adjust follower to go to rear of action more. Easier seen than done.
Geoff
 
The original .300 H+H actions have the rear of the magazine well milled out and a notch in the front receiver with rear hole spacing .440" not like the other calibers.This when altering a .270 size would remove the typical front base hole on the rear receiver requiring the drilling of one additional hole to match the .440" measurement .I just want to make sure I can get a rear base to fit.
 
The original .300 H+H actions have the rear of the magazine well milled out and a notch in the front receiver with rear hole spacing .440" not like the other calibers.This when altering a .270 size would remove the typical front base hole on the rear receiver requiring the drilling of one additional hole to match the .440" measurement .I just want to make sure I can get a rear base to fit.
Yes I realize, but you can do without it. I know what you mean as I also have an original model 70 (1954) .300 H+H. PM me with your email address and I can send you pics of both rifles bridges if you like. Another thing I just thought of is your action is a non-magnum. When I was looking to do my project I was adviced to start with a magnum due to extra cost.
Geoff
 
Last edited:
The donor action is from a .270 win but I think all model 70's were long action at that time and the H+H versions were milled out somewhat to accommodate the longer cartridges.
 
The physical action length and external dimensions are the same. The rear bridge was machined out and the receiver was machined at the front and read to accommodate the longer cartridge on the Pre-64 actions. I forget which action style it is, (push or new crf) IIRC they made the box length and action internals capable of handling H&H length cartridges but add spacers for the standard length .30-06 length cartridges. Rear base spacing should still require the 'express' mounts for original H&H length actions.

If that action cannot be used for your project, and it has not been modified, send me a pm. I may be interested.
 
Last edited:
The gunsmiths I spoke with before buying a donor rifle for my .300 H+H build highly recommended starting with a magnum caliber action instead of non-mag as the work required to convert would be expensive ie:widen rails, open bolt face etc.
Geoff
 
There are some very nice rifles here. I don't have any pre 64s in my collection yet,but I do own an XTR m70 in 270 from '76 or'77. Also a 30-06 fw, and .300 win mag super grade. All three are top off with leupold scopes, rings and bases. Best rifles made I think.
 
Back
Top Bottom