Ok, the vote seemed to favor the pre-64 M70 to the new model 70. Most comments centered on cost and nostalgia with some comments focused on quality of machining.

Now - what about the Pre-64 M70 vs. Dakota in .375 H&H? Assuming money is not an issue. What do you like? What would you carry to Zim?

1. THe Dakota will be safer in the event of a pressure problem (barrel obstruction, etc.) due to better metalurgy and better gas handling.

2. Ownership of Dakota has changed and there are reports of some Dakotas being rough and even having feeding problems. I would carefully inspect the rifle you are thinking of buying, and test fire it if at all possible.

3. Dakotas lose value fast. and there are lots of used ones for sale. Instead of buying new, you might want to shop around for a used one.

4. I would prefer a M70 pre-64, but since they squirt burning powder back into the shooter's face when a case ruptures, I would buy a Dakota instead.

However, if money is not an issue, then I would get a fine custom rifle from the likes of Breeding, Branigan, Heilman, Echols, Wells, etc.

500grains,
Thanks, your wisdom is appreciated.
Dogcat

This is above all a matter of opinion, of course, but I have just been through this process and decided to stick with the pre-64 Model 70.

The Dakota is a copy with "improvements"--some undoubtedly warranted, some of more questionable value. For example, I think the pre-64's coned breech system ensures the incredibly sweet feeding behavior of that action. No other action I have seen or tried can compare with the factory pre-64's smoothness in that department. The Dakota action reverted to the Mauser-styled flat breech.

The metallurgy of the pre-64 really should not be any more of an issue than it would be for a '98 Mauser, the other vintage action of choice for custom rifle builders. In any case, the pre-64's metallurgy is plenty good enough, IMHO, with something like 700,000 of them manufactured, most of which, I would venture to say, remain in operation to this day.

And if one worries about gas-handling, which is really a non-issue any more with the use of factory loads and good brass, a competent gunsmith can fix you up with a bleeder hole in the left side of the receiver ring and a flange on the bolt sleeve. I don't worry about having those modifications done, however, because with today's brass, failures with factory loads are unheard of and safe and sound handloading practices can be counted upon to preclude them with hand loads.

I know you said cost is not an issue, but I must add that the cost of a pre-64 Model 70 action set up for the .375, even with the modifications discussed above (which would be somewhere around $1,000-$1,200, max) is much less than the cost of a new Dakota action (around $2000).

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
The metallurgy of the pre-64 really should not be any more of an issue than it would be for a '98 Mauser,

When a military mauser is overpressurized, it stretches because the interior of the steel is soft while the outside is hard (case hardened). Mausers are nearly impossible to actually blow up. In contrast, a pre-64 has hard steel through and through, but many of them were brittle and cracked. A lot of cracked ones were warranteed by Winchester. When a pre-64 is overpressurized, the brittle steel blow like a hand grenade. That is a little bit of an exaggeration, but there is a remarkable difference in metallurgy between a pre-64 M70 and a Mauser.

But what would worry me more about a pre-64 is that they do not redirect escaping gas from a ruptured case away from the shooter's eye. The gas travels rearward straight out the back of the action. The new production M70 Classics and the Dakotas do a better job of it in this regard.

I am working on building a custom rifle, and I have so far worked on getting a suitable action. One thing I noticed about the pre-'64 M70 .375s as compared to the Dakota action is the issue of accuracy. It seems that the Dakotas are not as accurate -- this surprises me.

So maybe some of you Dakota dudes will post and show me who wrong I am.

Anyway I have found an intermediate length commercial Mauser M98 pattern action (C-ring too!) Since I want to build a .376 Steyr, this should work great.

jim

Jim,

The accuracy problem is related to Dakota's execution of the finished rifle, not a problem with the Dakota action itself.

Yes, some pre-64s were too hard and brittle, just as were some Springfield '03s, which was a function of the steels and heat treating methods used. Still, pre-64s that are defective on that score have hardly been common over the years--the reverse is the case.

My point of comparison with the Mauser '98 was not that they have (or are perceived to have) the same exact problem as the pre-64s, but that Mausers, too, have been criticized by some for their metallurgy. In the case of the Mauser, it is the softness of the steel (or inadequate case hardening), rather than its hardness, that has most often been the culprit (or the alleged culprit) .

Too much ink has been spilled on the subject of the metallurgy of these rifles (and too many hands wrung, IMO) for us to add much more, I think. The debate could go on forever.

As for gas handling characteristics, as I have said, in this day and age it is just not something I can get worked up or excited about. The Dakota 76 is undeniably better as far as that goes. But the pre-64 is plenty good enough, given the strength and uniformity of today's brass, and for the nervous, can be made better for very little money.

Each to his own taste, in rifles as in other things.

Accuracy problems with Dakota rifles?????
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.

I would bet the farm that all of those pissing and moaning about Dakota's have never owned one. It's the old "if I can't or won't afford it, it must be a piece of crap" mentality.

One question. If Dakota make such a piece of crap why are they still selling them and with 6-9 month waiting list?

Get over yourselves and move on.

DougC

quote:

I am working on building a custom rifle, and I have so far worked on getting a suitable action. One thing I noticed about the pre-'64 M70 .375s as compared to the Dakota action is the issue of accuracy. It seems that the Dakotas are not as accurate -- this surprises me.

So maybe some of you Dakota dudes will post and show me who wrong I am.

I have 3 Dakota M-76 rifles and they all shoot sub-MOA groups. I also have 2 Winchester M-70 (control-round-feed) and they also shoot sub-MOA. Maybe I'm just lucky. I guess I really don't understand the purpose of your post, but most rifles can be made to shoot well with a little tweaking and "squeezing" the trigger!

I bought a Dakota in 7X57 last year. It quickly became my faverite rifle. If I were in the market for a new 375 H&H I would buy another Dakota in a heartbeat.

I'm another satisfied Dakota owner. I have two, a 30-06 and a 375H&H. I don't handload and went through some factory stuff to find what shoots best in each rifle.

The 375 loves 300gr Trophy Bonded Bearclaw Federals but hates the Nosler Partition. Shoots pretty good with the Sledgehammers but not great. Bearclaws are three touching holes in the shape of a cloverleaf at 100yds. Partitions are a two plus inch random cluster.

The 30-06 loves partitions and most other flat base bullets but seems to hate anything with a boattail and every 165gr load I've tried so far. Hate here means 1 1/2" - 2" groups.

If I can find factory loads that shoot this well, I'm sure anyone who takes the little time and effort and invests in a couple of boxes of different ammo can come up with the same results.

JPK

Continued thanks for everyone's comments.

Most of the accuracy complaints I heard about Dakota were concerning rifles made more than 5 years ago. Happly for all concerned, that issue appears to have been addressed.

Would have been nice to have mentioned this in your original post. Down south we call this "crawfishin'"

DC300

DC,

The new ones since ownership changed are still reported to be rough and sometimes have feeding problems. And I understand that they have lost several of the gun builders, so apprentice fellows are filling in.

500grains,

Both of my Dakotas are well over 5 years old, in fact they were built as a "matching pair" back when Dakota was still a custom/semi-custom shop. There has never been anything rough about them and they've always shot great, once loads they like were found.

JPK

I think this is a tough arguement. Dakota vs. The pre-64 model 70. I have never had a Dakota Arms that worked as well as my Winchester rifles. I have owned 4. I own none now.You will be hard pressed to find any factory made rifle that feeds as well as a pre-64 model 70. As far as gas handeling goes, this arguement will continue forever. Those that want Winchesters to look bad will have some points and those that want Winchesters to be good will also have their points. I spent almost three hours talking with Ed La Pure about this very issue. It was his opinion that the current Classic is a distant runner on safety and quality. There is no cross pin to keep a firing pin from being blown out of the bolt sleve as is found on the pre-64. The gas handeling is similar to a Mauser in that if gas goes down the left bolt race on either, the gas will be relieved by either the thumb cut on the Mauser or the top left sidewall cut for the bolt guide lug. The fact that there is no gas deflection flange on the cocking piece did not seem to bother him at all. He would rather not have a firing pin fly back into his face. I asked him what I should do to make my guns safer in case of an incident. He said to keep the pressure under 70,000 psi and keep shooting. I have seen many people that purport to be experts talk against the pre-64 action. Most are not as knowledgeable as they would like to seem to be.