Pre '64 Winchester 70

[Butch]

What makes them so special? What happened in '64? What's wrong with a new one?

[T2C]

Pre 1964 Winchesters had an action based on the robust Mauser action. They had large, durable, extractors.

[GJM]

They also have feed lips integral to the action, which makes for better feeding than later actions, including their current controlled feed actions.

[DBCDave]

They were bought and all the executives were replaced with ones from the hardware industry. To save money they went from forged metal parts to cast ones.

[Butch]

Thank you. My first two questions are answered. So what's wrong with the new ones? The Model 70 hasn't changed since '64? Aren't loads today more powerful? Doesn't the military use these as sniper rifles? I have no agenda, I just want to know. To me it seems like chest thumping. I get it; I have a pre-MIM Ruger 10/22 I'll never get rid of. I get the feeling that there is nothing wrong with a post '64, it's just that us gun "nuts" like to cling to history and constantly search for the "best". Am I wrong?

[Butch]

Just visited Winchester's site. This is what they say (partially) about the Sporter:

•ALLOY ONE-PIECE BOTTOM METAL adds rigidity for better accuracy
•FORGED STEEL RECEIVER WITH INTEGRAL RECOIL LUG IS BEDDED FRONT AND REAR to eliminate shifts in zero for exceptional long-range accuracy
•PRE-’64 STYLE CONTROLLED ROUND FEED WITH CLAW EXTRACTOR fully controls the cartridge from magazine, to chamber, to ejection
•Three-Position Safety shows safety status at a glance
•COLD HAMMER-FORGED FREE-FLOATED BARREL for years of pinpoint accuracy
•RECESSED TARGET CROWN enhances accuracy and protects the rifling
•M.O.A. Trigger SYSTEM with zero take-up, zero creep and zero overtravel gives you outstanding accuracy
•Blade-Type Ejector for full control of ejection force

With exception to the trigger group, a modern Model 70 appears to be an upgraded pre-'64. Am I wrong? Am I right when I say it's all about gun guys thinking Winchester had it right the first time; clinging to old world, long-gone craftsmanship?

[MountainRaven]

Franklin W. Olin founded Olin Chemical in 1892. In 1930, Olin bought Winchester Repeating Arms (Olin Corporation still manufactures Winchester-branded ammunition).

Frank loved guns and he loved Winchesters and he'd been manufacturing ammunition under Western Cartridge Company since 1898. So he created the Winchester line of ammunition and decided to treat the manufacture of firearms as a loss leader: Kind of like modern console games, where Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo sell the console at a loss and recoup it on video game sales and licensing. Frank didn't so much care if he was losing money on Winchester guns, he wanted the quality kept high and customers happy - all that money that he lost selling guns he made up for (and then some) in Winchester ammunition sales.

Franklin W. Olin died in 1951. When he died, the bean-counters took over - there's a reason why pre-War model 70s command a premium even over pre-64 model 70s - and in 1962, Remington introduced their much less expensive model 700. IIRC, the Remington was selling for a third less than the model 70. So now Olin Corp was looking at a gun they were losing money on making and losing sales on to the new, cheaper Remington. So Olin's engineers set about designing a new rifle that would be cheaper to manufacture, that they could sell at a profit, and compete with Remington's 700.

The new gun borrowed many aesthetic cues from the model 70, but featured push round feeding, a plunger ejector, and a smaller extractor - in many ways it was a Winchester model 700. The only issue is that Winchester decided to name their new gun the model 70. The new gun was introduced in 1964.

Needless to say, lots of folks were unhappy about the combination of cost-cutting features - like pressed checkering instead of hand-cut checkering, an action prone to binding, aluminum bottom metal - and the new push feed action, all under the name of the Winchester rifle they had grown up loving. Many fans of Winchester never forgave them for this and I doubt that Franklin Olin would have allowed it. (Another cost cutting feature was the introduction of cold hammer forged barrels, a fact that probably soured many sportsmen to CHF barrels, an attitude many are probably most familiar with from those who were alive when the model 70 of 1964 was introduced.)

In any case, in 1992, the pre-64 action returned. After US Repeating Arms Company (which was formed in 1981 by Winchester employees after Olin Corp decided they weren't making enough money on their guns and decided to sell the whole thing off) went under in 2006, FN-Herstal (who had bought USRAC in 1989) essentially discontinued production of all non-pre-64 action model 70 rifles.

I know many folks, including those who were around when Olin screwed the pooch on the model 70, who believe that current production model 70s are the best model 70s ever made. Combined with Colt's current 1911s being the best they've ever made... we must be living in a Second Golden Arm of firearms!

[brickboy240]

Winchester actually made many cost cutting measures on all their guns in 1964. Many alloys replaced machined bar stock steel parts and other cost cutting measures went into place.

Certain models in their line up went away entirely, like the Model 12 shotguns. The Model 1200 that replaced the Model 12 was poorly finished and lacked the fit and feel of the Model 12 but it was made to compete (cost wise) with the Remington 870 and that it did.

The pre-64 Winchesters were all pretty much better guns than those that replaced them. The pre-64s had better fit and finish as well....adding to their desirability.

[Butch]

Wow! Thank you Fjallhrafn! Great history lesson and helps me put things in perspective.

[BuzzinSATX]

Thank you. My first two questions are answered. So what's wrong with the new ones? The Model 70 hasn't changed since '64? Aren't loads today more powerful? Doesn't the military use these as sniper rifles? I have no agenda, I just want to know. To me it seems like chest thumping. I get it; I have a pre-MIM Ruger 10/22 I'll never get rid of. I get the feeling that there is nothing wrong with a post '64, it's just that us gun "nuts" like to cling to history and constantly search for the "best". Am I wrong?

I have a Win Mod 70 Westerner, circa 1980'ish, in 7MM Rem Mag. Bought used from a friend in 1989, I've had the rifle for years, and it still has the old Bushnell 4*12 that was originally mounted on it. I don't hunt anymore, so I rarely shoot it, but last time I took it to the range, I was ringing a 10" plate at 300 yards every shot with both 139 grain and 174 grain PPU factory ammo. Clearly not very scientific, but I hadn't shot the gun in over 10 years, so I was happy. I was getting a little over an inch at 100 yards on a paper target as well.

This gun took many deer and antelope in MT back when I was stationed there. I've never had an issue with either firing or extraction using factory of handholds. Just my very limited experience with the Win Mod 70...

YMMV

[brickboy240]

Doesn't surprise me.

The Remington 700 is a similar push-feed type action and nobody seems to question it's abilities.

[okie john]

The push-feed Model 70 was a step backwards in a lot of ways, but it also improved as time went on. The later ones are fully the equivalent of any other non-CRF action built at that time. The post-64 guns also have the twin benefits of the old-style Model 70 trigger and the Model 70 safety, both of which are still considered the best ever produced. And as you ponder all of this, you also have to remember that there were sub-variants of all of these variants, and that even the god-like pre-64 had some variants that are more desirable than others.

If you haven't convinced yourself that you need controlled-round feeding, then there's a lot to be said for a post-64 Model 70. For one thing, post-64 rifles tend to cost 40-50% of what a pre-64 rifle in the same condition would cost. Either would be fine for most North American hunters, as would the budget versions (670 and 770), the knock-offs that Winchester made for Sears and Montgomery Wards, or even the Model 54. It's mostly collectors who get their noses out of joint about about the pre-64 rifles.

I've owned a dozen or so pre-64's and been around a couple of post 64's. Last year, I bought a brand-new Model 70. Having shot it for a while now, I feel like it's at least as good as any of my pre-64's if not better.

But it's not a pre-64, and that rankles some folks.


Okie John

[gunnut284]

Yeah, the changes made in '64 were considered a step down at the time but the post-64 guns are still solid and mine shoot very well (especially my 670 .243). The design evolved over the years, getting better, and the CRF action returned in the 90s. I've heard many knowledgeable people say they believe the current M70 is the best they've ever made. But don't think the post-64s were junk, they can be some of the best deals in used guns (I paid less than $200 each for my .243 and .30-06).

[brickboy240]

The worst changes in the post 64 Winchesters were also in the fit and finish. The bluing did not look as deep, the wood they chose was not as pretty and many smaller parts went from blued machined steel to plastic or alloy that was painted black.

Pick up a Model 94 from before 1964 and compare it to one made in the early to mid 70s. The overall fit, feel and finish is VERY different.

Pick up a pre-64 Model 12 and compare it to a post 64 Model 1200. The model 12 has a machined steel receiver and trigger guard and those parts are alloy and not well matched against the blued barrel. The nickel steel barrels of the Model 12 went away as well. By 1964, Remington had their excellent 870 out and the Model 12 was just too expensive and time-consuming to compete in the pump shotgun market. Things had to change, unfortunately.

Many of the post 64 Winchesters ran fine and were reliable...they just lacked the fit, finish and overall build quality of the pre-64 guns.

I own several pre-64 and a few post 64 Winchesters....so I notice many differences first hand.

[Freethought]

Doesn't surprise me.

The Remington 700 is a similar push-feed type action and nobody seems to question it's abilities.



Beg to differ , a great many guides and professional hunters despise the Remington 700 because of the push feed design. And insofar as it goes the 700 is the most over-rated rifle on the planet. For dangerous game a controlled feed rifle is *highly* desirable.

As I stated in another thread , of the 40 plus bolt rifles residing here there are only 2 700s and neither is as Remington delivered it from the factory , in point of fact quite far from it.

Also as stated in the other thread I refered to , please do not attempt to utilise the M-24 and M-40 as an example , I spent too many years behind an M-24 along with working on 'em. Both are the rifle that Remington should have been delivering to the public all along and comparison of those units to the civilian model 700s in a comparison of Apples to Apricots.

Remington had decades to fix the abysmal trigger group , so they come up with the X trigger group. You see where that lead , what with the recall of *all* 700s produced from 2006 to 2014. Then you have Remington's current quality control issues which are quite well known and indeed legion.

[pinzgauer]

Many good options mentioned, but I'd take a surplus Mauser as a starting point over a 700. Or even a ruger 77 or win model 70.

To me the 700 is the pc clone of rifles. It's only attraction is aftermarket support, much of which is fixing issues others may not have.

You can do better!

[sabrefan]

I'm not particularly mechanically inclined. I just know what I like. And I have a Model 70 .243 caliber made in 1955. All I can say is, it's a pretty damn cool little rifle. It's kinda like a scalpel to the Rem. 700's club. And I do own a 700.