pre 64 winchester m70
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Winchester's bean counters thought they could cheapen the product without loosing sales - this should go down as one of the biggest blunders in the history of American manufacturing. Rifles bearing serial numbers below 700,000 are pre'64.
First off, the rifle was redesigned and became a push feed rather than the control round feed. As a result of this change, the ejector had to become the spring loaded plunger type. The trigger guard assembly changed from steel to an aluminum alloy. The stocks once cut checkered were then pressed checkered, and some say the quality of the wood dropped. The huge following that Winchester commanded was lost overnight, and the change resulted in the US military awarding the sniper rifle contract to Remington shortly thereafter. As far as I can tell Winchester never completely recovered.
First off, the rifle was redesigned and became a push feed rather than the control round feed. As a result of this change, the ejector had to become the spring loaded plunger type. The trigger guard assembly changed from steel to an aluminum alloy. The stocks once cut checkered were then pressed checkered, and some say the quality of the wood dropped. The huge following that Winchester commanded was lost overnight, and the change resulted in the US military awarding the sniper rifle contract to Remington shortly thereafter. As far as I can tell Winchester never completely recovered.
Last edited:
There were a change in manufacturing techniques implemented in 1964. Some investment casting used, plastic/al trigger guards, stampings instead of milled parts. None of which had a lick of effect on military procurement. That's always done for political and financial reasons.
While the physical changes were significant, the change in corporate philosophy (more of an evolution or devolution, I guess) is what made the big impact. It seemed as though quality became nothing more than an impediment to profit in the minds of Winchester's directors. For the M70, these were the obvious differences.
1. The receiver. The old receiver was machined from stock while the new receiver was a forging with a minimum of machining done. In the intrests of reducing the necessary machining, changes were also made to the bolt stop and spring and to the feeding system. The pre-64 had feed rails which were machined into thereceiver while the feed rails of the new action were largely formed by the sheetmetal magazine box. The Receiver was also slightly longer to make it a better fit for longer cartridges.
2.The bolt. The original bolt was, again, a one piece machined steel part and utilized a Mauser type full length extractor as part of a "controlled feed" system. The new bolt was a two piece part with the bolt handle sleeved and silver soldered on to the rear of the bolt body. The extractor was a small sliding block which was mortised into the front of the right hand lug.
3. The barrel. The old barrel was a traditionally drilled, reamed, and cutrifled part. The new barrels were hammer forged. This is one area where quality really did not suffer. The new barrels were and are excellent barrels.
4. The Stock. It was the stock which might have offended the aesthetically sensitive potential buyer the most. The pre-64 stock featured a significant amount of hand fitting and finishing. By 1963, this wasn't being particularily well done but it was, at least, touched by human mands. The 1964 stock was machine built with the checkering stamped into the wood. The 1964 stock introduced the shooting public to the free floating barrel and they didn't fool around! There was a gap of more than 1/16" all around the barrel. In shape, the stock was just plain ugly.
Winchester's sales were seriously hurt by the perception (not unfounded) that quality had gone south and they started making changes in the other direction in 1968.
One of my "F" class rifles is built on a 1965 action and, though the action comes up a little short in the looks department, it shoots as well as anything else. Regards, Bill
1. The receiver. The old receiver was machined from stock while the new receiver was a forging with a minimum of machining done. In the intrests of reducing the necessary machining, changes were also made to the bolt stop and spring and to the feeding system. The pre-64 had feed rails which were machined into thereceiver while the feed rails of the new action were largely formed by the sheetmetal magazine box. The Receiver was also slightly longer to make it a better fit for longer cartridges.
2.The bolt. The original bolt was, again, a one piece machined steel part and utilized a Mauser type full length extractor as part of a "controlled feed" system. The new bolt was a two piece part with the bolt handle sleeved and silver soldered on to the rear of the bolt body. The extractor was a small sliding block which was mortised into the front of the right hand lug.
3. The barrel. The old barrel was a traditionally drilled, reamed, and cutrifled part. The new barrels were hammer forged. This is one area where quality really did not suffer. The new barrels were and are excellent barrels.
4. The Stock. It was the stock which might have offended the aesthetically sensitive potential buyer the most. The pre-64 stock featured a significant amount of hand fitting and finishing. By 1963, this wasn't being particularily well done but it was, at least, touched by human mands. The 1964 stock was machine built with the checkering stamped into the wood. The 1964 stock introduced the shooting public to the free floating barrel and they didn't fool around! There was a gap of more than 1/16" all around the barrel. In shape, the stock was just plain ugly.
Winchester's sales were seriously hurt by the perception (not unfounded) that quality had gone south and they started making changes in the other direction in 1968.
One of my "F" class rifles is built on a 1965 action and, though the action comes up a little short in the looks department, it shoots as well as anything else. Regards, Bill
