Cliff,

As a relatively new member, I agree with you. This ought to be a forum where you can honestly air your views (including contrary views) in an open atmosphere free from pesonal attack. I personally found the profane language of one response offensive in the extreme and would not continue to view or contribute to this forum if this was to be a regular occurence. In fact, the offending post probably violated the first rule of the forum (see http://www.accuratereloading.com/ubbthreads/faq.php?Cat=#rules ) and I am very surprised that the moderator has not already stepped in.

Magnum308

Hey Cliff, If you would like, I'll be glad to go back and delete all my posts to this thread, just let me know. Then you should be able to get nothing but glowing responses about how wonderful the "Holy Grail" (rag) Pre-64 M70s are.

On the other hand, if you are indeed interested in the truth, check out Mr. P.O. Ackley's "Handbook For Shooter's & Reloaders" prior to spending your money.

Best of luck to you.

Wow.....there surely needs to be an enormous amount of perspective injected in this subject. I probably would defer to Allen Day on most things "pre-64" Model 70's. He has owned a significant collection of them at one time, and has hunted with them for years.

Beyond that, he provided fairly pragmatic posts to the aforementioned custom action thread on the gunsmithing forum. For one, that David Miller was instrumental in the design of the new Model 70 Classic action.......which design corrected a weakness in gas handling existing on the pre-64. In fact, all clones of the Model 70 action have some sort of modification that accomplishes the same.

That the model 70 is cloned is testament to it's soundness of design. Its 3-position safety is the standard of the industry, and it has one of the best triggers available on a commerically available rifle. Beyond Jack O'Connor (who certainly admitted the same), the .270 probably owes its popularity to it being offered in such a fine rifle as the model 70, as much as anything singularly great about the round itself.

So how serious are the metalurgy and gas-handling issues involved? Better ask Tracker12 or my brother Idared. They both had incidents. Apparently Tracker12 faired a bit better than Idared.

Is the pre-64 Model 70 the Holy Grail? I guess I don't have a big disagreement with the term. Most of our fine rifle actions are derivatives of the 98 Mauser. The Model 70 happens to be a very good one. I have an affinity for the 1903 Springfield. However, in modified form. And I modify them with features that are standard on the Model 70.

I've owned 3 pre-64's. One a pre-war, another a transition model. The third was a pristine .264 Magnum. A true 99%plus.......sorta wish I still had it.

Buy the gun if it strikes your fancy, Cliff. Be a prudent handloader and rifleman. (And that's good advice regardless the type or age of the action.)

Besides.......you're on the way to what Idared considers the necessary rifleman's battery.

Model 70 in .270
Mauser in 7x57
Springfield in 30-06



GV

Hey Oldmodel70, Yes indeed Mr. Ackley did like those back then. Darn shame he is gone and doesn't have an opportunity to work with the firearms being made today.

That is one of the best things about his books - they were written during the (rag) Pre-64 M70 era and relate clearly "some" of the inherent design problems associated with them.

I've been trying to locate a reasonably priced current manufacture 22"-24" 308Win M70 Featherweight in Stainless and Synthetic for quite a few years now. Everytime I do locate one in a GunShop, they value hanging onto it more than selling it to me. In fact, I've had 3 other rifles in 308Win since I started trying to get the S&S M70.

---

Just seems to me that a person should be exposed to "both sides" of a discussion so they can make a fully informed decision rather than buy something they might regret. For some reason, that seems to upset some folks.

Obviously you like the old (rag) Pre-64 M70s and I wish you well with them. Just way too many better designed and better made rifles out there today for "my money".

H C.....since we seem to be into name-dropping; Parker Ackley's favorite rifles (in terms of strength,)were surplus WWII Jap army rifles.....He claimed they were the hardest of any rifle to "blow-up." And if that's your only criteria for a prized collecter, or fine hunting rifle, well, go grab the "holy grail".........In my part of the country, you can get all you want for 60 bucks a piece. Oldmodel70

Hello,



I have a question about rifles which I probably should be posting in another forum, but I have received such great advice in this room on a post I made about hunting rifles, I would prefer to post it here.



I have found a pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight, in .270wcf, for sale. The rifle was made in 1960 and is in really nice condition, good bore, wood, etc. It has a Leupold 3x9 scope and sling. The price is $795.00. The problem with this rifle is that the stock has been shortened to 11-3/4" LOP (trigger to back of recoil pad). There's a very good chance it will be too short for me. I know that you can build up the butt by adding as closely matched wood as possible until you reach the desired length, then adding a new butt or recoil pad. I'm assuming this could be unsightly - how can you match the wood to a 1960 Featherweight? This will just be a hunting rifle, so it doesn't have to be a perfect match, but having a really ugly butt on an otherwise nice Model 70 just wouldn't work for me. I also assume the shop fees for this would add at least another hundred, or more to the overall price. The question I have is do you think this is a good deal or should I wait and see if another .270 Featherweight pops up sometime in the future? It seems like pre-64 .270 Featherweights are getting hard to find and are commanding some pretty high prices.



I have two photos of this rifle that give a good view of the stock, but I have no way of uploading to this site.



I would surely appreciate your advice - again.



Thanks,



Cliff

Seattle

If you really like the rifle, go ahead and buy it. Maybe you can get the seller to lower the price somewhat because of the cutdown stock. Then look around for a good used original stock. They're not all that hard to find. I often see them at gun shows and they turn up on Ebay and the internet firearms auction sites quite often. Somebody here at AR may even have one.

I wouldn't try to match wood in an effort to create a spacer. You won't like the results.



What I would do is order an extra-thick recoil pad from Galazans. They offer what is call their "Correct Period" recoil pad, which is a solid red pad with a black base. This is very similar to the type of recoil pad Wihchester used on .375s, .338s, and .458s prior to 1964, and looks very nice. These "Correct Period" recoil pads are offered in either 1" or 1 1/2" thickness, the later being the one you want. This pad will increase your LOP to 13 1/4", which should serve you just fine, and the rifle will still look great. The original factory LOP for the M70 was 13 1/2", and in some cases 13 3/8".



Galazan's Customer Service:



1-800-515-4867



e-mail:



galazan@msn.com



AD

That's a great idea, AD. But just so you understand, there is already a substantial recoil pad on the rifle, which appears to be at least 3/4" thick. The LOP is from the trigger to the back of that recoil pad. If I installed a Galazans extra thick pad (1.5")I would have to remove the existing recoil pad, so the overall LOP after the installation would be at least 3/4" less than what you think it would be with the Galazans pad installed, or in other words, it would be 3/4" thinner than the 13-1/4" LOP you think it would be. Right? Math is not my subject, so maybe I've got this figured out incorrectly?

Thanks,
Cliff

Cliff, you've got mail. Okie John