I voted new for the better gas handling properties. The old ones are ok, but more nostalgia than anything else IMO. You may get a dog with either one. Plus $850 for a pre-64 .30-06with a redone stock sounds high to me.
Terry

Agree with Terry, $850 is OK for a NIB Supergrade which is a very nice rifle. $850 should buy you a 98% pre-64 in '06 that has minor handling marks only if you want a collector piece. For a hunting rifle, chances are the new one will be more accurate. I've found only one pre-64 (300 H&H) in my limited experience that would routinely keep three shots in 1" +/- @ 100 yds (kept that one) but on the new ones, guys are disappointed if it won't do it as so many do.

you should be able to find a shooter pre64 06 for less than 850. all ive had were superb.super grade06 1/2" w LC 62 match.270 3/4" w nosler partitions,220S 3/4"w 55gr sierra r sisk(that vintage),another pre war S/G 3/4"w168 gr sierra match&Zeiss Zielvier.plus you wont lose anything if you have to sell the pre64.

I wouldn't pay $850 for a pre-64 .30-06 that's had the stock refinished....you can find them cheaper.

I like the new Super Grades....so guess top to bottom I'm with Terry!

I wouldn't pay $850 for a pre-64 .30-06 that's had the stock refinished....you can find them cheaper.

I like the new Super Grades....so guess top to bottom I'm with Terry!

Ron

Keep the comments coming - I am not worried about selling in the future. I am looking for a great shooter to hunt with.

Would you say the same thing if this were a .375 H&H for an Africa Trip?

Thanks!!!!

I own three pre 64’s and two classics. The two classics and one pre 64 I made into across the course target rifles. Each action is a good foundation for a target rifle. It is hard to say if the classic is really a better action than the pre 64 or visa versa. While the pre 64 has a reached legendary status, based on the memories of old coots and self serving rantings of gunwriters, pre 64’s are variable in quality. Some of them look like they were chewed out of barstock by angry beavers. And have functioning problems. Replacement parts are very expensive with a pre 64, good thing the rifle does not break parts often. Magazine springs and claw extractors were the parts that were most likely to have been replaced by the target shooters I know who used them for years. A good pre 64 is a good rifle. A bad pre 64 is just as bad as any bad rifle. The extractor on a push feed is the part most commonly replaced on those rifles. One day rounds stop clearing the ejection port. Time for a new extractor.

Barrels are variable on a pre 64. I have been told that it is not unusual for a pre 64 feather weight barrel to walk all over the place. The standard barrel apparently does better. My 30-06 Standard weight pre 64 does not walk. It shoots ten shot 1.5†groups at 100 yards. That’s plenty good for a hunting rifle. I was not impressed with the 243 barrel on my classic featherweight. Not that it really mattered, I had bought it to make it into a 308 target rifle. Still I thought it should have shot better.

The 243 Winchester Classic also turned out not feed reliability. It is only good as a long range action. It was purchased in 1996 and apparently there was a strike at the factory. Who ever machined the feedramp cut into the side rails. Now cartridges on the left of the magazine box occansionally nose dive into the extractor groove. The other classic feeds 308’s like a champ.

With Winchester rifles going out of production replacement parts may become hard to find for the classic and push feed rifles.

You know, I believe the pre 64 will always be worth more than a post 64. I don’t think one is really a better hunting rifle than the other, assuming that accuracy and reliability are the same. If I had the choice, I would buy the pre 64. Take the stock off, set it aside, put on a cheap composite stock that would not lose value if it got scratched up, and would take it hunting.

Just my opinion. Brian.

I voted for the pre-64. I also agree with the others that $850 is too much for a gun that has been altered, however when all is said and done the pre-64 will always be worth more. What you have described sounds like a $550 gun to me, maybe a bit more if it has a good period scope on it.
Of the 1/2 dozen pre-64s I've owned, it has been my experience that most are really good shooters. Those that have given trouble all needed stock work, or rebedding (acra-glass) I have yet to see one with a good bore and sealed stock that couldn't be made to shoot. I once had a $500 220 Swift with a "bad" bore that, after a million patches or so it seemed and some Sweet's 7.62, shot well again. Amazing how much work it takes to remove a couple of decades worth of copper. That's one gun I'm sorry I sold.
FWIW, I wouldn't turn down a modern supergrade either if it could be seen in advance.
Good Luck with either

$850 is too much for the Pre '64. It will appreciate in vaule but I'd keep looking and find one for less. If I was going to spend that much I'd take the super grade.

New guns are somewhat boring IMO. Older ones may have their own drawbacks, precision has never been a problem though as most guns shoot better than I´m capable of.

Buy the one that feels right.

The pre64 has all the glamour, the post64 is just a shooting tool.

Take a look at the latest BLUE BOOK OF GUN VALUES .It`s sad the the stock has been refinished which has lowered it`s value. The pre 64 Mdls had a SN below 700,000. The old Super Grades Mdl 70s sell for 2 X times the Standard grade .

Actually the SN of the Pre '64s was below 500K.

...The last production serial numbered pre '64 M-70 was: 581471 Re: Rules book.

Let the collectors have the pre 64s. I've owned both and the Classic Super Grade is a better rifle period.

A month ago I could have said that both are priced too high but there is a m70 buying frenzy going on right now.

As to one of those or the other I think both are too heavy for the cartridge. In my view the Featherweights are nicer easier to carry rifles.

I much prefer the pre 64's.