The Mystique of the Pre-64 Winchester M70
- Thread starter South Pender
- Start date
I have a set of sights from an older push feed Fwt that I'd meant to put on a newer production rifle but never got around to it.
Want to be my friend?....I like Weatherby Mark V's and Coopers...haha
There are a couple of differences between the pre-64's and subsequent models, which are worthy of mention. Before I get to that, I should mention that there are sub-sets within the pre-64 category. The pre-war, with clover leaf tang and wing safety which pivots about 120 degrees and swings over to the left side, the transition model, which retains the clover leaf tang but which gets a safety which is located on the right side and does not have to swing under a scope, and the later models with full tang and right side safety. There are noticeable differences in quality of manufacture as we pass the mid-fifties. Now, back to the differences.
The first difference is with the bolt, which, in the pre-64's, has a one-piece body. The handle is integral. Post -64's have a handle which is a separate piece and is brazed on to the rear of the bolt body. The second big difference is in the magazine and feeding system. The feed rails on the pre-64 are machined into the receiver. The magazine box is straight sided. The post 64 box forms the feed rails and the top of the box is folded in to form, in conjunction with the receiver rails, the feeding system.
Another difference results from the cartridge for which the pre-64 was designed. The pre-64 was design for and around the 30 Gov't 1906 cartridge; the 30/06. Modifications made by the factory to accommodate the longer H&H magnum cartridges, weakened the action. The post-64 action is longer and designed to be able to accommodate these longer cartridges. There are other, less obvious differences which were made over the years. Changes to the bolt stop, to the firing pin, bolt sleeve, and more than anything, materials and the methods of manufacture, highlight the differences between pre-64 and post-64 offerings. I like Winchesters and especially the pre-64's. They are representative of one of the best designs the North American industry has produced.
The first difference is with the bolt, which, in the pre-64's, has a one-piece body. The handle is integral. Post -64's have a handle which is a separate piece and is brazed on to the rear of the bolt body. The second big difference is in the magazine and feeding system. The feed rails on the pre-64 are machined into the receiver. The magazine box is straight sided. The post 64 box forms the feed rails and the top of the box is folded in to form, in conjunction with the receiver rails, the feeding system.
Another difference results from the cartridge for which the pre-64 was designed. The pre-64 was design for and around the 30 Gov't 1906 cartridge; the 30/06. Modifications made by the factory to accommodate the longer H&H magnum cartridges, weakened the action. The post-64 action is longer and designed to be able to accommodate these longer cartridges. There are other, less obvious differences which were made over the years. Changes to the bolt stop, to the firing pin, bolt sleeve, and more than anything, materials and the methods of manufacture, highlight the differences between pre-64 and post-64 offerings. I like Winchesters and especially the pre-64's. They are representative of one of the best designs the North American industry has produced.
Sure ...... but there are limits . I might let a Mark V go , but the Coopers are mine .
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I’m a big fan of the pre 64 Featherweights as well and prefer them over the newer featherweights by far. My present favourite carrying rifle is a Featherweight pre-64 270 Winchester that I picked up at a very reasonable price. It hadn’t been used in years but at one time carried a lot and shot a little so with a bunch of refinishing it was resurrected into a very usable rifle that accounted for an elk the year before last.
I had a pre 64 featherweight in 30-06, a new production featherweight in .308 and a new stainless featherweight in .30-06. Personally felt the new ones were smoother, more nicely finished and the triggers felt better. The stocks fit me better as well. I did not like the stupid little gas block opposite the extractor on the new model and there is definitely something to be said for the hand craftsmanship of the pre 64s. I think either one is a fantastic rifle and I regret selling all of them. The major benefit to the new production ones is the stainless steel option. Huge benefit to me and my hunting weather.
I like them both but I would probably lean to Winchester if everything else was equal. I have the same amount of M70's rifles as I do M77's so that's sort of an answer.
There are more aftermarket options for the M70, if there is any intention of customization.
Easy. Kimber Montana.
Just have to find one hehe
My dream rifle was a sythetic stocked stainless kimber 84L with a floor plate.I've seen a few stainless classics for sale but they were the worng receiver size.
Thanks Leeper for that explanation. It's exactly what I was looking for. It's not hard to see how going from the one-piece bolt body with integral handle to the two-piece construction would save a lot in manufacturing costs. I wonder whether there have been instances of the later bolt handles coming loose.
The heavy lawyer-inspired trigger of the recent M70s mentioned by Dorian Gray certainly constitutes one disadvantage of the newer rifles, particularly if it can’t be adjusted to something under 3 lbs. I’ve read of guys finding their new-manufacture M70s arriving with triggers having 5 lb. pull weights. Maybe it’s because I’ve had crisp, light triggers on all of my hunting rifles (I like about 2.0 - 2.5 lbs.), but having to go to an aftermarket trigger to get an acceptable pull weight would probably be a deal-breaker for me.
That would be as easy as an aftermarket spring. Much cheaper than having a 'smith go over the trigger on an older style Win 70...N/A if you do it yourself of course
https://store.theshootingcentre.com/mcarbo-winchester-70-trigger-spring-kit-after-2008/
There may be others too
https://store.theshootingcentre.com/mcarbo-winchester-70-trigger-spring-kit-after-2008/
There may be others too
I’ ve had pre 64s, push feeds, early classics and more than a few of recent production. In that bunch were sporters, feather weights, Supergrades, Africans and one lonely Alaskan. I’ll take the new ones anytime.
It hasn’t always been easy to be a M70 guy, there were decades of ho-hum sort of good enough rifles. It wasn’t like I was asking all that much, something that worked like a pre 64, minus that stupid 2 piece bottom abortion, a modern stock with nice wood that wasn’t put together by a hungover blind man, with a great trigger, held 4 magnums down and shot like a Remington. Winchester has done all those things, but doing them all on the same gun seems to have eluded them. Cheaper and easier to buy a Kimber.
It hasn’t always been easy to be a M70 guy, there were decades of ho-hum sort of good enough rifles. It wasn’t like I was asking all that much, something that worked like a pre 64, minus that stupid 2 piece bottom abortion, a modern stock with nice wood that wasn’t put together by a hungover blind man, with a great trigger, held 4 magnums down and shot like a Remington. Winchester has done all those things, but doing them all on the same gun seems to have eluded them. Cheaper and easier to buy a Kimber.
Yeah, you've raised a good point about a lot of pre-64s. With many, the drop at the comb and heel was too great to permit a comfortable cheek weld with a scope. Here's a scoped pre-64 super grade in 300 H&H, and I'd expect that it would be difficult to get a comfortable sight picture with it with your cheek planted properly on the stock.
On the other hand, I have seen some pre-64s that had a fairly modest monte carlo cheekpiece that raised the comb line up to a point where a comfortable cheek weld would be possible even with a scope. Perhaps this was more the case with the later pre-64s.
Last edited:
Each and every time that I try to underline that weakness of the Winchester Model 70 pre-64 for longer H&H magnum cartridges, there always someone to tell me to go pound sand. Fine. I am not an expert on Winchester Model 70 rifles.
BUT, now, is there anyone to tell Leeper that he should not say what he just said ? Anyone to tell Leeper that he does not know what he is talking about ?
