quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
I'm sure he is Savage99. I recognize the kitchen cabnets


Terry

Simple put the Pre'64 Model 70 was the finest magazine rifle ever made. With that said, I'm not interested in any Post, or new model 70. I hunt, shoot, and collect these fine rifles. The most accurate rifle I have owned was a Pre'64 Model 70 in .300 H&H Magnum. I can't help but laugh to myself when one compares the two above rifles. There realy is no comparison. There is a reson why these fine rifles comand a premium. The old saying is you get what you pay for. Plus, for investing purposes I can't think of a better gun. But, you better have some knowledge before you venture in this direction.

Bo Rich,

Indeed the M70 was the Valhalla back then. For game hunting I prefer the Featherweight 70's. The standard grades in say 30-06 are just heavier than I want.

However some say the Brno 21's and 22's were the finest but they were not imported here in the USA then. Also fine Mauser sporters were rare.

While I have some fine and precious Featherweights a Brno 21h that I added a Dakota M70 type safety calls to me with its lean look and handling. Its all beat up but it shoots. Just right for hunting.

If its all I had a new SC/FN M70 would be better than nothing but as I stated before their safeties are rough and that brazed on bolt handle? Also I am tired of the fleur-de-lis pattern.

Conservative Rifleman, During the 1990's I used my Pre'64 Model 70 Featherwieght .30'06 exclusively on Pronghorns, Whitetail deer, Mule der, and Elk. So, I would prefer the Featherwieght for most of my hunting. For the Dangerous stuff I use my Standard model in .375H&H Magnum. My son has taken all of his Whitetail deer with a Featherwieght in .243 Win. all one shot kills.

quote:

Originally posted by Bo Rich:
Simple put the Pre'64 Model 70 was the finest magazine rifle ever made. With that said, I'm not interested in any Post, or new model 70. I hunt, shoot, and collect these fine rifles. The most accurate rifle I have owned was a Pre'64 Model 70 in .300 H&H Magnum. I can't help but laugh to myself when one compares the two above rifles. There realy is no comparison. There is a reson why these fine rifles comand a premium. The old saying is you get what you pay for. Plus, for investing purposes I can't think of a better gun. But, you better have some knowledge before you venture in this direction.

What a crock of horseshit. You're disparaging the SC M70s which by your own admission you have no interest in and have never owned or used.

I've owned both, as well as PF M70s and various of the Classics and I will agree with you on one point, there is no comparison between the pre-64s and the new M70s, the new SC guns are much better and nicer rifles.

Cane rat, That is your opion, and I respect that. If you went to a gun ghow, and you found a mint Pre'64 Supergrade .270, and a new SC Supergrade .270 on a table for the same price which one would you buy? There is a reason why these fine guns comand a premium. Thank you for your thoughts, but I will stay with my Pre'64.

quote:

If you went to a gun ghow, and you found a mint Pre'64 Supergrade .270, and a new SC Supergrade .270 on a table for the same price which one would you buy?

That's a straw man fallacy for obvious reasons in addition to the fact that we both know that is never gonna happen. Like I said, I've owned both, as well as plenty of other rifles, and I ain't drinking the pre-64 Kool-Aid. Many of them were nice rifles and a good many weren't but there is no rationale for the price premium given the quality level of the current rifles. But, that's just my opinion and if you guys want to keep buying them and overpaying for them have at it, the world would be a dull place if we all agreed on everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Bo Rich:
Cane rat, That is your opion, and I respect that. If you went to a gun ghow, and you found a mint Pre'64 Supergrade .270, and a new SC Supergrade .270 on a table for the same price which one would you buy? There is a reason why these fine guns comand a premium. Thank you for your thoughts, but I will stay with my Pre'64.

Bo,
With all things being equal, I would still buy the new M70. A couple of reasons - better quality machine work, better quality steel, better quality barrels. The new trigger is very good as well.

The pre-64's are at a premium because they "were" the best M70 out there until the new ones at the FN facility were out there.

Out of the box, they are more accurate than the pre-64's based on my experience. I have not shot a mint super grade pre-64 to actually compare but I have shot several of the normal grade pre-64's.

To each his own.

People do not overpay for a Pre'64 Model 70. If anything it is an investment that keeps going up. For example a 7 M/M value in 2004 in Standard Grade was $2,750. 2010 blue books value is $6,000. If you want the value of your firearms collection to uncrease then invest in quality Pre'64 Model 70's. If that is not important to you, then do what you must. I enjoy, hunting, shooting, and collecting these great guns. They were, and are the finest magazine rifles ever produced. Some may not agree with this, but most of the shooting World does. The proof is in the demand/price.

P.T.Barnum was right!!!

Its actually simple: The "Pre 64" is better because the bolt knob is smooth instead of checkered.


SSR

im a shooter and a hunter not a collector so id take the new one hands down. Ive owned and shot many pre 64s and one that shoots moa is rare. Most new ones will easily do that. Accuracy impresses me much more then cult status.

quote:

Originally posted by Bo Rich:
Cane rat, That is your opion, and I respect that. If you went to a gun ghow, and you found a mint Pre'64 Supergrade .270, and a new SC Supergrade .270 on a table for the same price which one would you buy? There is a reason why these fine guns comand a premium. Thank you for your thoughts, but I will stay with my Pre'64.

I looked at a Kimber 84 Classic in 7mm-08 at Gouger Mountain not too long ago that looked almost as bad as that one. I'm seeing a pattern. I wasn't impressed and i havn't picked up another.

Could anyone state a case for adopting a new trigger for the Winchester?
Why was the old one dumped?
Was it a cost saving exercise or is the new trigger truly superior?
Why is it that some people still prefer the old trigger?

This guy recons that the new trigger is a dud !!!

http://www.longrangehunting.co...70-55572/#post382202

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Cane Rat:

quote:

If you went to a gun ghow, and you found a mint Pre'64 Supergrade .270, and a new SC Supergrade .270 on a table for the same price which one would you buy?

That's a straw man fallacy for obvious reasons in addition to the fact that we both know that is never gonna happen. Like I said, I've owned both, as well as plenty of other rifles, and I ain't drinking the pre-64 Kool-Aid. Many of them were nice rifles and a good many weren't but there is no rationale for the price premium given the quality level of the current rifles. But, that's just my opinion and if you guys want to keep buying them and overpaying for them have at it, the world would be a dull place if we all agreed on everything.

+1 The delusion that a pre 64 Winchester has some mythical quality is only in the minds of those who belong to the cult.

This has been interesting. I'm kind of surprised on some of the Pre'64 Model 70 bashing. Some say that those that invest in investment grade Pre' 64 Model 70's are fools. Another stated that we drink kool aid. I prefer beer myself, of course in moderation. Another would if equaly price take a new SC Model 70 Supergrade over a Pre 64 Supergrade. If the new model 70 was superior (by the way it's not even close) then why the demand for the Pre'64? On my two trips to Africa I took my Standard grade .375 H&H Magnum. Both times the PH's only had good things to say about that rifle. There is a pride of ownership when your rifle is complemented by a Pro. Accurate, dependable, tough, and pride of ownership. That is the great Pre'64 Model 70!

quote:

Originally posted by Bo Rich:
If the new model 70 was superior (by the way it's not even close)

Not even close, eh?

Upon what do you base this statement? How much experience do you have with the new SC-made rifles? Have you ever owned one?

I would like to know what is so much better about the pre-64s. In my experience both the early Classics, before quality went to hell in New Haven, and the new SC/FN rifles have better and more modern steel, better machining, better barrels, better polish and bluing, a better and more modern stock design, and are generally more accurate. If it's not the things I just mentioned then other than the inflated prices paid by some for pre-64s what evidence is there that they are a superior rifle?

I have seen quite a few posts about complaints that the new M.O.A. Trigger on the FN Model 70 is too hard with the 4+ lbs at its lowest, when this is what is being said on the Winchester website:

"The Model 70’s new M.O.A. Trigger System is the most precise three-lever trigger system in the world. Operating on a simple pivoting lever principle, the trigger mechanism has been completely redesigned to exhibit zero take up, zero creep and zero overtravel. The pull weight ranges from 3 to 5 pounds and is factory-set at 3 3/4 pounds."

Others state that the pull is absolutely crisp although on the heavy side. and it can be fixed with a lighter spring and it does not need a new trigger.

Timney says that if enough people respond with interest they will make a replacement trigger for the FN Model 70.

Generally most hunters prefer a trigger pull between 2.5 to 3 pounds.

My hunting rifles are set at 2.2 lbs.

Warrior

no comparison ..
the new winnies are better than the best of the previous "classics" .. which where better than ANY pushfeed ..

and the previous classics where more dimensionally stable than the pre-64s ..

prpe-64s are nostalgia and ethos .. which, frankly, doesn't live up to its reputation in comparison

Funny thing. As a lefty who is a Model 70 fan I'm forced to "slum" Classics. I've owned several. Some are better machined than others and some are straighter than others that's for sure. However, my standard bolt faced Classics never fail to feed, extract, or go bang. They are a solid platform for a great hunting rifle that gets used.

Like many here, I certainly like Winchester's Model 70 BOTH Pre '64's and the New ones. I just WISH the newer ones, they are producting now, had open sights as standard feature like the pre '64's did. I am thinking of buying a Winchester 70 (New version) in either .270 or .30-06, haven't made my mind up yet. It would sure be nice to beable to buy one with factory open sight installed. I use a scope but like having open sights as a back-up.

quote:

Originally posted by DRS:
Like many here, I certainly like Winchester's Model 70 BOTH Pre '64's and the New ones. I just WISH the newer ones, they are producting now, had open sights as standard feature like the pre '64's did. I am thinking of buying a Winchester 70 (New version) in either .270 or .30-06, haven't made my mind up yet. It would sure be nice to beable to buy one with factory open sight installed. I use a scope but like having open sights as a back-up.

DRS:
I'm with you on this and I just got a set of open sights installed on my Extreme Weather .270 WSM and shot it several days ago.
The rear sight was bottomed out and it hit about 3" too high @ 25 yds. Just got back from the smith & he's gonna get another, higher front to put on it. The rear is an NECG (is that correct?). Looks as if everything will work out fine. Just FYI.
Bear in Fairbanks

I guess everything comes full circle. Used to be folks had to take their rifles to a smith to have them d/t for scope mounts; nowadays they take them to a smith to have open sights installed.

DRS, why don't you carry a back up scope?? Use weaver rings and sight it in for that rifle and then remove it. Put a couple of witness marks to help align the thumb screws and you'd be surprised at how closely it will return to zero when you re-mount it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bear in Fairbanks:


DRS:
I'm with you on this and I just got a set of open sights installed on my Extreme Weather .270 WSM and shot it several days ago.
The rear sight was bottomed out and it hit about 3" too high @ 25 yds. Just got back from the smith & he's gonna get another, higher front to put on it. The rear is an NECG (is that correct?). Looks as if everything will work out fine. Just FYI.
Bear in Fairbanks

Thanks Bear, I can remember when all factory rifles came with open sights, several years ago. Now only a few like Savage & Remington offer open sight on some of their bolt action models. Several years ago; I owned a Post '64 Winchester M-70 Featherwight in 7X57 m/m & it came with open sights. I traded it for my current Ruger Model 77 MKII in .270 but it also has open sights. I was looking for a .30-06 with factory open sights and was considering Winchester's model 70 but unless it is a .458 it is without open sights. I am currently leaning toward buying a Remington Model 700 BDL in .30-06.

Cane rat, Let me answer some of your questions. I have not owned the new SC Model 70. I have handled them at my local gun shop. I have shot the new classic model, and have found the accuraccy O.K. I don't think that the new Model 70 is a bad gun. In fact I think it is a very good gun. It however is not a great gun like the Pre'64 Model 70 is. I prefer the fit, and finish on the older gun. I like the Matte receiver that was milled out of a 7 1/2 pound bar block. I think that the rust blue barrel finish was the nicest blue job applied on a barrel. I prefer hand checkering to machined checkering. As mentioned above I like sites on my gun , and I really like it when the front site was intergal to the barrel, and a dove tail for the rear. The hand lapped barrels have always been the most accurate barrels that I have shot. I'm not a target shooter I am a hunter. I like the steel butt plate that is fixed on the standard calibers. True the older low comb stock reguires a low mounted scope. The later Monte Carlo style works well for a higher mounted scope. I try to mount my scopes as low as possible anyways.

I have two P-64's, one an '06 rebored to 9.3x64 and the other an original .300H&H. Have used both in Africa. The only thing I don't really care for is the weight. The standard P-64 is much heavier than it needs to be. My custom 10.75 Mauser is lighter and much more pleasant to carry all day.

Opinions are like what? Every body has one! This is a good topic, and has some interesting opinions.

I have 2 pre 64, (.270, & .243) and 2 new FN/SC built Mod 70 Extreme Weather rifles (.308, & 7mm-08). The pre 64s are without a doubt great hunting rifles, and the actions are sought after by custom gun makers for a reason. All the praise for the pre 64 is deserved imo. If you talk about comfort to shoot, and the stock of a pre 64, that is where you can certainly knock them. My pre 64 .243 with the monte carlo stock is clunky, ugly, and doesn't fit me for squat. It's all original. The new model 70 is built to the pre 64 specs, and imo is a fine rifle. It does fit better, the trigger is good, and is adjustable enough for most hunters. With some polishing, and backing the poundage screw completely off the spring, you can get in the 2.75 to 3.0 range. I prefer 2.25 to 2.5 but can certainly live with 2.75 for hunting. The new trigger is smooth, and the over travel adjustment make it very crisp and clean. I don't know how anyone can fault either one much. It seems to me that Winchester is really making an effort to re assert themselves at the top of the production rifle food chain once again, and the new factory is no doubt making great strides in bringing fine firearms to the market.

My belief is that you should make your gun shootable for your enjoyment. If making a pre 64 into a custom gun weighs on your conscience for destoying a collectable gun, then you should by all means feel good about choosing the new Mod 70. If you have a pre 64 that just sits and you don't shoot it. Why? If you don't enjoy it, get rid of it. Life's to short to shoot, and carry stuff that doesn't just really crank your tractor.

I like em both, but the new ones have become my go to guns, and I'm still not sure what the fate of the .243 is. The .270 was bought new by my dad, and given to my grandfather. It was passed down to me 25 years ago, and will some day belong to my grandson.

I like Model 70 Winchesters, especially the new ones!

I went through my pre-64 M70 phase in the early 70's, had several that I hunted with. All were nice rifles, shot OK. Owned a lot of 70's in the following years through their various changes, along with the ups and downs in QC. The mystique and the ethos of the pre-64 has faded for me, I look at them like the Browning Safaris, very nice old rifles if that is the sort of thing you want.

I have two of the new FN M70's, a 375 H&H and a 458WM. These are the finest M70's I have held in my grimy paws. The fit and finish are beyond reproach, both are stupid accurate. Love the new trigger. One thing I don't like on the new Safari big bores is the cheap-looking front sight ramp. I have replaced both with an NEC banded front sight,fiber optic bead for my tired old eyes and a windowed sight hood, looks much better. One other gripe is the that the same barrel profile is used for all 3 calibers of Safari rifles. The 375's are nose heavy, the 416's less so and the 458's feel just right.

These are very minor nit picks on what are very fine rifles. I can't help but think about my fiends across the big pond who would commit illegal and/or immoral deeds to get their hands on one of these new 70's.

I have 3 pre 64's, all 3 eventually found their way to a smith for a full custom job.

At least on the pre 64 the bolt handle is smooth, and attached solidly.

I am thrilled that FN is making the CRF 70 available, even though I am not in the market for a rifle (my safes are full). I am not going to nitpick. Sights, stocks, bottom metal, ect all can be changed with a variety of components found on the market, but without an action you are stuck. So thank God FN is making actions (and rifles).