Looking for info from someone who owns a post 64 in the 64 to 68 range.

Want to hear about likes, dislikes, facts, thoughts and opinions.

I've read all the stuff about them being awful, poorly made, ugly, and everything short of hellspawn from a modernized world of cheap ass slap it together monkey crap without a thought other than the company needs to make a buck.

Only one person said he has a 65 and it's one of his best rifles.
The rest seem to be regurgitating what they've read or heard without having owned one.

Anyone care to admit to owning one of these?

I bought a new post '64 7mmRM at that time which was a very accurate rifle. I had a choice between it and a brand new hang tag pre 64 30-06. Being a teenager, I wanted the sexy 7mmMag and like I stated, it was very accurate. I used a 1960's Lyman manual for my loads and they were definitely hot compared to today's manuals.

I noticed after a couple years of shooting various loads that I never had to readjust my scope. One day I set a target up and stepped 200 yards. I fired a 115g Speer hp handload, a 139g Hornady handload, a Rem 140g factory load, a Hornady 154g handload, and a factory 175g load. They stacked vertically at about 1 1/2 inches.

I'm not mentioning the load the old Lyman manual had for the 139/140g bullets, all I can say is that the max load I used with the 139g Hornady was a deer killing load.

The pre 64 rifles were definitely nicer looking and better fitted than the post 64 rifles, my post 64 was a great shooting rifle.

I have a M70 in 225 Win (made in '65) that has been a very accurate and reliable rifle. Recently I got a 30/06 made it '64. The first 2 loads I tried shot less than MOA.

Yes, they're ugly. The gap between the barrel is big enough to store small items. the impressed checkering is not too impressive. But at least my two rifles shoot so well that I love them..even though I'm really a pre64 nut.

I have a couple. The problem with a post 64 is it is compared to the pre 64, which is given supernatural powers. The stamped checkering is a bit ugly but functionally it is fine for a general hunting rifle. 30-06 and 270s can be had cheap.

Mark

I just bought a 1965 M70 .338 WM. In reality it looks about the same as its main competition the Rem 700 BDL pressed checkering and all.

To be able to compete in the market in the 60's Winchester had to do something different or die. The radical departure from the pre-64 was just too much for many people's eyes and yes they did make some mistakes in quality but overall the post 64s are a good reliable gun. I'm having fun with my new acquisition.

I've owned but two pre '64s and a plethora of push feeds there after.....and actually prefer the latter.

I must say however that I've encountered some feeding issues with post 64 magnums, but they are not usually on my "buy" list.

Three of the post 64 rifles have been outstandingly accurate.....one in .225, and two in .223. All of them have proven adequate except for a .300 H&H I once owned. Nice gun but I just couldn't break into groups under 2"

In fact, both of my pre '64 rifles were not steller shooters either.

The big disappointments were pressed checkering, lousy patterns and white spacers that were common in the '60s.

ive got 3 from the 65 to 69 yr range.... a .225 that shoots ragged 5 shot 1" groups at 100, a 30-06 that shoots about 2" with factory 150's and 170's.... and a .270 that is about the same.... I like m70's and can adjust the trigger to a crisp 4lb ... all are shooters,...not collectors...

Sounds like they are good rifles just not aesthetically pleasing.

Anyone have issues with the bolt binding?

I've read that it's a two piece deal that's braised together and is prone to this affliction.

A book titled " The Bolt Action" sub title " A design analysis" by Stuart Otteson Winchester Press 1976

Has write up on most of the 20th century BAs in a technical format. Otteson states rather plainly that the 68 version other than a rougher overall finish, appears to be superior to the Pre 64, namely the Springfield breech of the pre 64 provides less case support, albeit moderately. Lock time for both is rather fast, triggers are one of the better design (OEM). And apparently, at the time of the books publishing there was only the standard length post 64 action, making it less than ideal for short cartridges.

Personally, I am looking for a '68 or later standard length left hand version for a special build.....

Had an -06 made in about 65. It was accurate and functioned flawlessly but was heavy. Built a M700 that was over 2 lbs lighter.

I have owned many of them, they are a decent hunting rifle and compare with the Rem 721, 722, and 700s IMO....I much prefer a control feed rifle for all my hunting, but I still have a Rem 721 in a 300 H&H, and a post 64 270 that shoots all day into the same hole that I just gave to my son in law..

If it shoots good buy it.

quote:

Originally posted by olarmy:
I have a M70 in 225 Win (made in '65) that has been a very accurate and reliable rifle. . . .

Yes, they're ugly. The gap between the barrel is big enough to store small items. the impressed checkering is not too impressive. But at least my two rifles shoot so well that I love them..even though I'm really a pre64 nut.

Exactly!

(Though I only have one post 64 Mod 70, a .225, it has personality. It's like it's trying to make up for its ungodly appearance by being especially accurate.)

The 1968 and on is the best because it was then they added the slot to the right locking lug for a bolt guide. Rem 700 did the same at the same time.

It makes the action much smoother and the bolt bind free.

As a side not the Pre 64s were shorter actions and some of the bottom locking lug recess was cut away for the 375 H&H.

Personally I think they are the best actions as I am not a fan of controlled round feed.

At one point in time, I had a Varmint Model in 22-250. Nice rifle, I think it was a later version as it had nice wood/checkering unlike the early butt ugly versions.

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
At one point in time, I had a Varmint Model in 22-250. Nice rifle, I think it was a later version as it had nice wood/checkering unlike the early butt ugly versions.

In the early 70s they had the XTR. It was very much a Wby copy in the stock including then angled forend tip.

In that same period the M70 with the top action was the 458. They were called Super Grades which was on the floor plate. About the slickest action you ever did feel In Australia they were almost exactly the same price as a Mark V Deluxe in 300 Wby. The 375 H&H was midway between those and the XTR in 270 etc.

I have used and still own, the 1980's push-feed featherweight XTR's. Wonderful rifles and much prefer that vintage.

I inhereted my father's 1964 model 70 in 243 Win. It is the only model 70 I possess. He originally purchased it used for hunting roe deer while stationed in Germany.

I restocked it into a plain walnut stock I found online, which really improved its aesthetics. Plus, I can cut it down to fit my daughter if she gets the bug, without ruining the original (awful) stock. I replaced the old scope and mounts and cleaned the heck out of it.

I loaded up some 90 grain accubonds and started shooting it. I initially had some misfires which led to the replacement of the firing pin spring and then...viola, I have a youth/spouse friendly-loaner-truck rifle which shoots 3/4" groups at 100 yds.

If you think of them as about a heads up competition for the 700's of the same era; you will be fine. They have about the same resale value and appeal.

The funny thing I found about them, for all the hoopla; they cost the same as a pre-64.

Winchester eventually had to bring back a slightly modified OM70 to regain market share.

That claw extractor and CRF still have that certain magic to the buyer.