This is definately a "newbie" question, but the topic comes up a lot around here about what guns are good, not so great etc.

There seems to be an almost unanimous consensus that the pre-1964 Winchester Mod 70's were about the best all around rifle ever. So now for the dumb questions:

1) What exactly was it about them that made that model unique?
2) Why aren't any of the big gun manufacturers, or even custome gun makers trying to reproduce the classic model 70?

Just trying to get a better understanding - but it's probably like asking why Jeep makes an inferior product today for 24K than they did in the 70s for 4K.

Jason

Jason, Montana arms is making a action that closely resembles the pre-64 action, I once had a Benchrest rifle in 708 that was made with a pre-64 action, I didn't/couldn't see any major or minor difference than the actions they're making now, I think the new Win. action is every bit as good as the old ones, with tighter tolerances due to CNC'd machining, one thing I didn't like about the BR rifle I had was you had to feed from the Magazine instead of the single feed method, thats why I prefer pushfeed bolts I guess, for the type of shooting I do, I think what some of guys are saying now about Win. rifles is the fit and finish, which from some of the rifles I've seen is true, they could clean it up a bit, Jay

The common argument is the pre-64's were better because they had more hand fitting and, I think, a one piece, forged bolt like the orginal mausers.
The modern M70 Classics are made with CNC machinery and feature imporved gas control features. I had a pierced primer from a pre 64 M70 in .22 hornet sting my eye once. The modern versions, like the very similar Ruger actions, route the gas away from the shooter.
They are now made with a brazed, or welded on, bolt handle. So what ? If done right, it is just as good as a one piece bolt. Remington not only brazes on their bolt handles, but their locking lugs as well. Remington has proven their action to be stronger than anything else. Weatherby claimed such a title, but has not proven it to my knowledge.
Winchester still makes the improved version of the pre 64. Dakota makes, or made, an even more modified or improved action. It depends on what you think is better, or more desirable, in the way of features.
My "go to" big game rifle is a M70, short action, Featherweight in stainless steel. Two more modern improvements. E

AZOnecam, somone is produceing a pre-64 Mod 70 today! It is Winchester! The new Mod 70 Classic, is even an improvement over the origenal, except for the need to have the action be slicked up before hunting with it in most cases.

The Pre-64 Mod 70 was not an improvement over the Mod 98 Mauser which was the pattern it tried to imitate. The only thing that was a positive, over the origenal Mauser,was a safety, and bolt handle that was more conducive to scope use, which was just coming into vogue in 1937 when the mod 70 came out.

The thing that made the mod 70 so popular, here in the states, was it was nearly a Mauser, and was made by "WINCHESTER" a name along with COLT, that was cerdited with tameing the west.

In 1964 winchester had to cut cost, to compete with Remington, who had gone the Discount Store route, against the FAIR TRADE ALLIANCE with it's 700, selling in bulk so cheaply a dealer couldn't even buy their rifles as cheap as K-Mart could sell them retail. To be able to sell at K-Mart prices,even in bulk, the control feed, and other things that required some more machineing, and hand work, had to be sacrificed. The discount stores began a period where buyers started buying with only price as an indication of value. This way of thinking is a paradox where rifles are concerened. Quality is something one must pay for if he expects to get quality! CHEAP and quality are diametriclly opposed in definition!

Today, even the arms with the features you want, like CRF, and fit, and finish, must be finished by the customer, in most cases! It is my opinion, the reason for this is, the people running the companies, and most of those working in their plants, are not "gun people", and care only for their paycheck, and vacation! In effect, both ends of the company's personel, today, are only interested in their personal BOTTOM LINE! Gun maqkeing used to be an ART in this country, now it is simply a job! Too bad! It is a given, today a brand new rifle's first trip, after the dealer, is to a good Gunsmith,to make it work right, even if it has the features you want!

The pre action was a first of its kind. Please remeber this was the mid 1930's. The M-98 was "alien" and the best think domestically was the M-54 or an Enfield. The Pre had a usable bolt handle, saftey, trigger and stock deminsions. Reliable optics where still some years ahead but the 70 was ready for them. If you wanted a .300 or .375 it could be had for 75.00$$$$

The mechanical atributes are ;
Good gas handling ( for there time, not now)
Wonderful feeding (they are the design standard)
Very good trigger (will need to be tuned)
Good stock to bolt handle to comb to forend fit/feel ( they just "fit" like a real gun)

There really was no competion around and they got the press and tradition and mystic. Every writer of the age that use a bolt, used a 70.

i.e. The biggest worstest difference in the post-90 v. the pre-64 is that the cartridge feeding is managed by a tin magazine as opposed to the action rails being milled to the specific cartridge. No problem if it works, but may need tuning.

ED

As others have already said when they appeared they were just so far ahead of any other factory rifle it was amazing. They had many features that were originally found on the 1903 Springfield and included features that were normally only found on custom rifles back then. A look in the older Gun Digest books will show what they had for competition from other factory rifles then. They were the class of the field. The metal work was superb, mostly all milled steel parts and featured a nice blue finish. The stocks were well fitted, some also had very nicely figured wood, and featured cut checkering. They came in a variety of calibers and any person could afford one if you really wanted one. They were actually more of a custom type rifle than just about any factory rifle of their time. Add to all this they were highly accurate im most cases.

In short, they were nice looking, functioned as you had a right to expect they should, and could also be ordered in many calibers both standard and special order. They had a right to be known as the "Rifleman's Rifle".

My own favorite 270 is in the process of getting a face lift after many years of very satisfied times in the field. It will be refinished to original specs and I have found a nicely figured black walnut blank that will be whitled into a stock of original proportions. When finished it will still resemble the original rifle and yet will have the function of many custom rifles of today. I think everyone should have at least one pre-64 model 70 in 270 Winchester caliber. It is as American as apple pie!!

I've owned pre 64, push feed, and current classic Model 70s.

Surprise.....I liked the push feed guns the best.

I've not yet hunted DG so I need to rehash the controlled round feed thing. Supposedly one can feed the classic and the pre 64 upside down and it'll feed correctly.

I build my own custom rifles and for me the cost of a custom is far less than hiring the service. Even at that I wouldn't pay a premium for a pre 64 action.

If someone else had one however, I sure wouldn't knock it. I think it's more nostalgia than service.

MacD37,
The modern day model 70 bolt is brazed on.

Check out this discussion here

The post 64 M70 was an improvement. It incorporated many of the features that customers and the trade magazines had asked for.

The trouble was that the gun had been around for 30+ years. A generation of hunters had come to know and own the gun. So, when it changed, everybody complained.

As others have stated, the post 64 M70 is a better rifle.

The other thing that is going on, is the effect of the collector market. The rifle has been in production for 70+ years and is still going. It really helps to drive the values up by tauting the virtures of the pre 64 as a classic. Why else spend thousands on a mint condition used gun, when you get the same from the factory for much less?

Pete

Quail Wing

The post 64 M70 was an improvement. It incorporated many of the features that customers and the trade magazines had asked for.

An explanation of "Improvement" is in order here. What exactly constituted an improvement? I don't know if you have actually held a model 70 made from 1964 through about 1967 in your hand, but if you have I don't see how you can make such a statement. Most people, especially actual customers for the model 70, I know were asking for Winchester to bring back the pre-64 until it finally did reappear as the classic from the moment the 1964 model appeared. Those model 70s in 1964 had to be some of the worst rifles produced by a gun manufacture ever. When the "anti-bind" bolt system, cut checkering, steel floorplate(but not triggerguard), fully bedded barrel, and overall better machining came out years later they were a bit more palatable, but barely.

The trouble was that the gun had been around for 30+ years. A generation of hunters had come to know and own the gun. So, when it changed, everybody complained.

People complained for good reason. Who asked for this abortion? Winchester was forced to cut costs and they did it big time. The results were so bad that the biggest competition that the new model 70 of 1964 faced were the pre-64 model 70s that could still be had. That is the main reason that the market went so high for the pre-64s. The sad thing was the pre-64 model 70s produced in the early sixties were not what the earlier model 70s were either yet they were still much better than the model 70s produced in 1964 and the following years.

As others have stated, the post 64 M70 is a better rifle.

It was a very small minority from my experience who thought the 1964 model was a better rifle.

The other thing that is going on, is the effect of the collector market. The rifle has been in production for 70+ years and is still going. It really helps to drive the values up by tauting the virtures of the pre 64 as a classic. Why else spend thousands on a mint condition used gun, when you get the same from the factory for much less?

There is some truth to what you say, but remember most pure collectable model 70s will never see much hard hunting. There are a great number of pre-64s however that their owners, many times more than one owner of a particular rifle, have used for as long as the 70+ years you refer to and they wouldn't think of trading them for a new "classic" model even up. Kindly count me as one of these please.

The first CRF "classic" model 70 I ever owned the extractor broke on. If you pay much attention you will see this is an overall weakness in them. An after-market one added a fair piece of change to the cost of the rifle. The follower spring broke because of the way the plastic type follower was attached to it and a milled steel follower and new spring amounted to another fair piece of change. These things never happen to me on pre-64 models. The triggerguard was also alloy and a new steel one added more cost. Granted, I suppose I didn't have to replace the triggerguard but I don't like alloy parts on my rifles. My pre-64 standard rifles didn't have any of these. The featherweight models did, but I don't own them partially because of that reason. Anyway, if I add up all the cost of these replacement parts that it took me to make this "Better" rifle as good as my pre-64 something doesn't quite add up or at least to me it doesn't.

I will say that the present model 70 "classic" perhaps represents a good value in todays rifle market. In fact if forced to pick a factory rifle from today's lot it would perhaps be my choice. But since I don't buy new factory rifles I would much rather buy a used pre-64 model 70 than a used model 70 "classic". I feel that it would be a better value overall and it would still be worth about what I paid for it when I pass it on to my Grandson or Granddaughter many years later after normal use and care of it. I also doubt I would have to spend as much for repairs on it as I would a "classic" model from past experience. For these reasons I can't say that the post 64 model 70s are better than the pre-64s. My experience certainly shows otherwise.

[ 09-14-2003, 12:21: Message edited by: Idared ]

I can think of several notable hunters such as Jack Atcheson, Sr. and Jay Mellon who used post-64 Model 70s extensively on countless big game animals, and when it comes to real-world hunting experience, these guys have very few peers.

The post-64 Model 70 is a better rifle than it's ever given credit for in terms of accuracy and function. The red cocking indicator, bolt sleeve cap, red "W" pistol grip cap, and wildly free-floated barrels were pretty lame features, and the rifle suffered badly from lack of finish, but it generally worked very well. But pre-64s they were not - not by any stretch of the imagination.

It's funny that Remington offered many of the same shortcuts and features of the post-64 Model 70 (including the push-feed action)on their Model 700, yet Winchester was crucified in the press for the same things that the Model 700 was praised for. The reason was that Winchester set such a high standard of quality with the pre-64 (especially before 1960)that there was no going back, at least when it came to words and noise.

But not when it came to sales. Believe it or not, and annual sales numbers of the post-64 Model 70 out-stripped those of the pre-64 by a considerable margin - a fact that very few poople are aware of. So from a business standpoint, Winchester's 1964 changeover wasn't quite so stupid as it would appear.

It's a shame that the current, young generation of hunters has not been exposed to the quality-built rifles that were on dealer's shelves back in the 1960s and 70s, when I was growing up. I remember going into a local sporting goods stores with my dad in the early '70s, when I first came into my teens, and there were racks full of used pre-64 Winchesters, new Belgian-made Browning High-Powers, German Weatherby's, old-style Sakos, etc.

Any of these rifles would make today's off-the-shelf offerings seem pale by comparison when it comes to real, honest quality. The trouble is today's newish hunters don't see, don't want to learn, and don't want to be taught the difference. All they seem to see is price.....

AD

All of allen's comments are right on. Winchester was the standard for a quality bolt rifle but they had only sold a half million of them by 1964 and other rifles had sold a lot more in volume.

Just like the new Coke some fool at Winchester made the wrong decision and in the meantime Ruger came out with the 77 which had a nice stock at a very good price.

When I go to the range most of the shooters here now have AR's. They display them too like I am supposed to go over to their bench and say something.

Fame is so fleeting. Johnny Cash died too and things evolve. Not to my taste or liking at all but I try as best I can to be happy knowing that I knew and know the Riflemans Rifle.