Post-1990 M70 action?

[ninepointer]

Here's a quote from an article I found on-line:

"Gunsmiths bemoaned the passing of the "pre-64" action; but it wasn't until 1990 that U.S. Repeating Arms executives, the inheritors of the Winchester name, decided to revisit the pre-'64 action and see if modern computer-controlled machines could make the classic action at a competitive price. Much to everyone's delight and amazement, the engineers were not only able to recreate the "pre-'64", but also improve on it."

What changes to the M70 action happened in 1990. I have a M70 that I bought new in 1991 that is a push-feed. Is this the "improved" action that the authors are referring to?

Ninepointer

 

[Slimbo]

No, the "classic" action which is controlled round feed, was introduced in 1992.

 

[RickF]

The controlled feed action was reintroduced in 1990 as the super grade. Available initially only in 7mag, 300mag and 338 mag, the lineup was expanded about 1992 as the classic. Same action. External claw extractor, a different action than the push feed.

 

[martinbns]

Some improvements over the pre-64, mostly gas handling.

 

[Rod]

I don't feel there were any signifigant improvements with USRA M70. They bragged on improved gas handling and a groove in the bottom of the bolt for easier extraction; but in reality there was nothing to improve on the pre-64 M70. Most people who down play the pre-64 M70 are those who don't own them. So of course the new ones are better with these guys. There was also the talk of improved metallurgy that made the post 64 better, but the pre-64 M70 was made of winchester Proof Steel, (Chrome Molly). How much better can you get? The pre-64 bolt, including the bolt handle, was machined from a solid block of steel. I don't think the new M70 is. Also the triggers were superior on the pre-64's as well as they were made from machined WP steel, not castings.



Just being able to come close to the pre-64 M70 would be a good deal in todays manufacturing world of bean counters.

I've owned both and all my pre-64's are still with me, but all the post 64 push feeds are not. I would purchase the post 64 CRF if a good used pre-64 was not available

Rod

 

[Bishopus]

There was also the talk of improved metallurgy that made the post 64 better, but the pre-64 M70 was made of winchester Proof Steel, (Chrome Molly). How much better can you get?

Much, much better. Steel back in the day was a pretty inexact science. Metallurgy has gotten steadily more ridiculous, thanks largely to aerospace and defense. There are many more and better alloys available, and their characteristics are much better understood than in the old days.

BTW 'winchester proof steel' doesn't really mean much--any steel with chromium and molybdeneum gets to be called 'chromoly', and the winchester brand was just whatever they got from US Steel, with the USRAC trademark stamped on top. I can't remember if it was Hatcher or Ackley who goes into the Winchester steel composition in depth, but it was a good read.

 

[BigUglyMan]

They also changed the bolt stop too, IIRC.

 

[rgv]

Much, much better. Steel back in the day was a pretty inexact science. Metallurgy has gotten steadily more ridiculous, thanks largely to aerospace and defense. There are many more and better alloys available, and their characteristics are much better understood than in the old days.

really?

take a spring steel extractor out of a pre-64 and a cast one out of a classic (yes I know a few made it out the door with machined Williams extractors).

bend them both in your fingers, and come back and tell us about 'ridiculous' metallurgy.

You will find the gun-makers understood metals characteristics just fine in the old days, and maybe better than they do now.

 

[MTM]

Post 90 Actions

Only reason to use them old ones is if you can't hardly afford to buy new ones.

 

[rgv]

Only reason to use them old ones is if you can't hardly afford to buy new ones.

truer than you think, there is such a market on ebay for un-bubba'd pre-64 stocks and barrels, that the last several rifles I have parted out left me with clean actions for a couple of hundred dollars, and I even came away with an action plus a few bucks on a couple

 

[DarrylDB]

really?

take a spring steel extractor out of a pre-64 and a cast one out of a classic (yes I know a few made it out the door with machined Williams extractors).

bend them both in your fingers, and come back and tell us about 'ridiculous' metallurgy.

You will find the gun-makers understood metals characteristics just fine in the old days, and maybe better than they do now.

A little springier doesnt make it any better... Spring steel is brittle, Cast steel is quicker to make, and is built to more exact tolerances...

 

[rgv]

A little springier doesnt make it any better... Spring steel is brittle, Cast steel is quicker to make, and is built to more exact tolerances...

A little springier doesn't make it better?

A claw extractor is a spring. When tensioned correctly, they allow the cartridge rim to slip under, and then hold the case to the bolt face as it enter the chamber then as gets ejected. They also have to flex when they jump over a chambered cartridge. The extractor has to maintain this consistent amount of tension over the long run as well.

And since when has spring steel (once properly hardened and tempered of course) been brittle? If it is brittle why would they make springs out of it?

Now does this matter? Practically, no, since the post 1992 M70's I;ve seen all work fine. My point is, that posts promoting the superiority of the post-64 actions, due to supposedly "much, much better" metallurgy is nonsense.

 

[DarrylDB]

Spring steel retains its springyness by being hard. The hardness is what keeps the metal low memory.
hard often means brittle. (springs break more often than bending right/compressing?)

 

[Why not?]

I don't feel there were any signifigant improvements with USRA M70. They bragged on improved gas handling and a groove in the bottom of the bolt for easier extraction; but in reality there was nothing to improve on the pre-64 M70.

Tell that to those who have been behind or been around a pre 64 Model 70 when a cartridge head let go. I have a biologist friend up here who essentially lost the use of his right eye, except for the very skilled intervention of a fine surgeon.

The pre 64 Model 70 is known for its less-than-stellar gas handling capabilities! That was one of the reasons Winchester went to the push feed model in 1964, not just to cut manufacturing costs.

Ted

 

[Leeper]

Any gas handling improvements in the later CRF M70s are pretty hard to see. The one change made was the addition of a "gas block" which is located opposite the extractor. This piece may or may not be effective in stopping escaping gases from travelling along the left raceway. I don't intend to overload one to find out. Retrofit this piece to a pre-64 action and you have all the gas handling of the new action. They still use the coned breech which directs the gas into the raceway. They also still have not redesigned the bolt sleeve to block the raceway. MRC did this on their actions which amounts to an improvment but they still retained the coned breech (just not as part of the barrel tenon) which is one of the flaws.
There has been no change whatsoever to the bolt stop since 1964. In 1964 the stop spring was changed to a clothespin type because it was cheaper than the spring, plunger, and hole used on the pre-64's.
One can improve the gas handling capability of the pre-64 or the post-90 by modifying the bolt nose and the breech end of the barrel. This, in addition to better venting in the bolt, will do a lot to prevent the direct funneling of gas into the shooter's eye.
I think it's accurate to say most of the improvements made to the action exist entirely in the ad copy and the brochures as well as in the minds of some who read them.
The push feed actions do handle escaping gas somewhat better as far as the left raceway is concerned but they still are not very good as far as gases from a pierced primer are concerned. The little sheet metal shield which was pinned on to the rear of the bolt did very little. In fact, the one on my "F" class rifle ricocheted off the lense of my glasses when I pierced some primers at a 1000 yd match in Montana. The cover came off with about the third pierced primer. I finished the match but was beginning to flinch a bit I think! The bolt needs more venting and a firing pin re-design to improve this situation. The pre-64 is, of course, no better in this regard. In both cases the bolt is vented directly into the left race way instead of into the magazine well as it should be. Regards, Bill.

 

[Rod]

Tell that to those who have been behind or been around a pre 64 Model 70 when a cartridge head let go. I have a biologist friend up here who essentially lost the use of his right eye, except for the very skilled intervention of a fine surgeon.

The pre 64 Model 70 is known for its less-than-stellar gas handling capabilities! That was one of the reasons Winchester went to the push feed model in 1964, not just to cut manufacturing costs.

Ted

I don't know where your friend had his eye when he touched off his rifle, but it's difficult to believe a gas blow-back could jump up and bite him in the eye if he'd been looking through the scope. To my knowledge there is no known record of anyone receiving eye damage in this way. And if there was, all Hell would have broken loose and every Gun Writer in North America would have Made Hay with that story.

Gas handling had nothing whatsoever to do with Winchester going to the push feed. Never heard this one before. Winchester tried very hard to have their new M70 accepted and used all kinds of so called improvements to promote the new one. Their marketing stragedy worked in the short term, as sales were good until Jack O'Connors and most purchasers clued in to what a "POS" the new one really was.

I think what upsets a few folks, who don't own pre-64 Winchesters, is going on Guns International or Guns America and learning what these fine firearms sell for in todays market. "Look at that, there asking $3800 US for a pre-64 M70 in 338 Win Mag". -- There's a reason these pre-64 Winchesters sell for these high prices. Most folks that know and appreciate quality craftsmanship have figured it out.

Rod

 

[Rod]

Much, much better. Steel back in the day was a pretty inexact science. Metallurgy has gotten steadily more ridiculous, thanks largely to aerospace and defense. There are many more and better alloys available, and their characteristics are much better understood than in the old days.

BTW 'winchester proof steel' doesn't really mean much--any steel with chromium and molybdeneum gets to be called 'chromoly', and the winchester brand was just whatever they got from US Steel, with the USRAC trademark stamped on top. I can't remember if it was Hatcher or Ackley who goes into the Winchester steel composition in depth, but it was a good read.

Some good information I received from a life-long Winchester Expert ------

Winchester Proof Steel is Chrome Moly, 4340 or 4130. It was heat treated to have a tensile strength of around 115,000 lbs. "Winchester Proof Steel" replaced "Nickel Steel" in 1931.

Winchester's Chrome Moly steel, used from 1931 to 1964, is better than what most gun makers use today. Remington uses in their 870, 1100, 1187 line, simple 4140 or 1140 Carbon Steel. It can be heat treated to the level that shotguns require, it certainly doesn't have the strength of Chrome Moly or have the same ability to withstand corrosion.

When it came to "Proof Testing", Winchester was the only US manufacturer to Proof Test at 150%; the others Proofed at 120% to 130%.

What's really changed over the years is manufacturing technology. Barrels used to be forged and today manufacturers just purchase round bar stock to machine. Heat treating has advanced as today they use fans to keep the air moving as they know that barrels close to the walls can end up with a temper different than those in the centre of the oven. Machining has advandced as well, from the conventional machines to CNC (computer controlled machining). Cutters of high speed steel have given way to carbide cutters.

Other technology changes has allowed manufacturers to do more with lower grades of steel. Imagine what could be done with Chrome Moly today. Could Winchester have heated treated Chrome Moly to withstand steel shot? Sure they could have, but steel shot wasn't around then, so they didn't.

Today's manufacturing technologies have changed to the point that the old labor intensive designs of the first half of the 20th century can and have been produced, in some cases good if not better than the originals. But to do so, you will have to accept the lack of craftsmanship, (hand chechering, hand engraving etc.)

Today what governs the Quality of a firearm is what the public is willing to pay. Hence the survival of mossberg, remington, etc. But go buy a couple hundred 150% proof pills and see how long an 870, Mossberg or other pumpgun will last.

Quite a few experts have said, If Olin would have invested in Technology, back in the 60's and 70's instead of how to make a cheaper product with their old equipment, their guns would still be made in the US and they'd still be in business today.

Regards:
Rod

 

[Why not?]

I don't know where your friend had his eye when he touched off his rifle, but it's difficult to believe a gas blow-back could jump up and bite him in the eye if he'd been looking through the scope. To my knowledge there is no known record of anyone receiving eye damage in this way. And if there was, all Hell would have broken loose and every Gun Writer in North America would have Made Hay with that story.

He was in a normal sitting position at a bench on our Metallic Silhouette Range here in Whitehorse sighting in his 7X57 Ackley.

If you have never heard "of anyone receiving eye damage this way" you really need to do a little more research. This is one of the most common injuries received by shooters when cartridge cases fail.

As for gunwriters making hay out of the gas-handling characteristics of the pre 64, it has been written about far and wide and often.

Gas handling had nothing whatsoever to do with Winchester going to the push feed. Never heard this one before. Winchester tried very hard to have their new M70 accepted and used all kinds of so called improvements to promote the new one. Their marketing stragedy worked in the short term, as sales were good until Jack O'Connors and most purchasers clued in to what a "POS" the new one really was.

Well, you have learned something new today. As Bill Leeper mentions in his post, it does handle gas better, but not much.

The push feed actions do handle escaping gas somewhat better as far as the left raceway is concerned but they still are not very good as far as gases from a pierced primer are concerned. The little sheet metal shield which was pinned on to the rear of the bolt did very little. In fact, the one on my "F" class rifle ricocheted off the lense of my glasses when I pierced some primers at a 1000 yd match in Montana. Bill.

Finally, as far as the prices pre-64s bring, I don't think anyone is questioning what you are saying at all. What is being discussed is how they handle escaping gas in the evnt of case failure.

My pre-war Model 70 has been the subject of considerable offers to buy, however it is still at home. Five digit serial number, it is a lovely rifle, but just doesn't handle gas as well as any of my Husqvarnas, FN Sporters, 98 Mausers, Savages or Remingtons.

Ted

 

[tiriaq]

The little cap on the end of the bolt appeared on some rifles, and then disappeared. In the event of overpressure inside the bolt, the crosspin isn't likely going to keep it on the rifle.
"Chrome moly 4130", "simple 4140 Carbon Steel". Better check and see exactly what the difference is between these alloys. Chrome moly steels are widely used today.
"Buy a couple hundred 150% proof pills and see how long" a Model 12 will last. Model 12s can be shot loose, too.
The old Model 70s were a quality product of the day. The design and manufacture can have warts.
The prices being paid for some M70s is driven by the collectors' market. Do you suppose that the selling price of a pristine pre-war M70 in 7.65 Mauser has anything to do with its quality as a rifle?

 

[catnthehatt]

I don't know where your friend had his eye when he touched off his rifle, but it's difficult to believe a gas blow-back could jump up and bite him in the eye if he'd been looking through the scope. To my knowledge there is no known record of anyone receiving eye damage in this way. And if there was, all Hell would have broken loose and every Gun Writer in North America would have Made Hay with that story.
Rod

Oldbadger and I worked up some loads for a friend of mine a few years back.
The rifle was a post '64 M70 in .264WM.
With a particular brand of coated bullet( I will not name it, but if you want you can PM me and I will tell you) following thhe manufacurer's reccomended data, I proceeded to blow the tail piece right off said rifle!!
The tail piece hit my glasses hard enough to mark thhem ( safety lenses)
We were a bit worried to say the least, but going back through everything we rechecked and found notjhing out of place as far as the data, etc.
We replaced tthe pin that holds the tail piece on.
We checked a few more loads of different factory bullets , then tried the ones the owner wanted again.
Same thing!
Oldbadger got out HIS M70 in .264WM and tried it to see of it was the rifle, as the load was neowhere near max for anything.
SAME THING!! Tail piece flew off on firing , bonking him in the head.

We called the company and they flim flammed, made excuses , etc.
OB simply told them to revise their manual, but they stood fast , saying nothing was wrong.
A little while later he was on their website, and guess what? They issuded an update to that load, and the new manuals reflect it!!
case in point, I used the same load in a Mauser in .264 with no problem.
The gases in the M70 however, go straight back and with enough force to blow that tail piece off and if I was not wearing glasss , it definately would have done damage.
Cat