If you had to choose between a Dakota 76 CRF action, or a Pre 64 Model 70 Winchester action, which would it be? Let's hear it!

A Mauser 98. New ones with WW safety and adjustable triggers being made by Dumulin Herstal of Herstal, Belgium.

Win pre 64 is a quality action with one fault.
There is no vent holes at the bottom of the bolt for escaped gases. The Newer Classic models do have it. Similar to the 98.
Dakota 76 is an elegant and refined action and is similar to the Win. Custom Shop in quality production New Haven built only.

Having owned both, It's the Dakota 76 for me.
Both take a back seat for the right Mauser 98.

I would take the Dakota 76 if it were me. It has all the wonderful things that the model 70 action has, without having to have all the action work done when having a custom rifle built. Plus that bolt release is just stinking cool!

That "cool" bolt release does not return to battery by itself and has been known to hang up in scabbords as rifle is withdrawn. On the plus side,it does offer theoretically superior gas seal.


Heck..might as well debate Ford vs Chevy

I'm glad someone asked this question. I've always wondered exactly what are the actual differences and advantages either way between the Dakota and Winchester model 70 actions, especially the new classic m70?

Sorry I really don't want to hijack this thread but it's pretty close to my question.

The proper place for the expanding gas to exit is through the muzzle. Why go drilling holes where they aren't needed?

I have two Dakota 76 custom .338WM rifles, have four P-64 Alaskan .338s and have had 43 actual P-64s, including one by some dude named Biesen. I also have two Classic STS rifles from the shop of Ralf Martini.

I would choose the Dakota in a heartbeat and also agree on the Mauser 98, I have an original Type B, 1937, 9.3x62 and it IS what all real working-hunting rifles SHOULD be.

I would choose the Brno ZG-47 and 21/22 series actions first, have several, then the Dakota, then the P-64 as rifles built for hunting and I also like HVAs.

quote:

would choose the Brno ZG-47 and 21/22 series actions first

I would suspect that if one asked a number of knowledgeable hunters the same question they would provide the same answer. Those older BRNO actions seem to rate very high on the list of everyone who has owned them.

What is strange to me is that (hopefully knowning this), why doesn't somebody offer these actions at a reasonable price where they can make money and a sportsman can afford to buy one. Why does it seem to be that for every little accessory or add on or feature a manufacturer has to charge an extra 10 times the total cost of adding it on.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

quote:

would choose the Brno ZG-47 and 21/22 series actions first

I would suspect that if one asked a number of knowledgeable hunters the same question they would provide the same answer. Those older BRNO actions seem to rate very high on the list of everyone who has owned them.

What is strange to me is that (hopefully knowning this), why doesn't somebody offer these actions at a reasonable price where they can make money and a sportsman can afford to buy one. Why does it seem to be that for every little accessory or add on or feature a manufacturer has to charge an extra 10 times the total cost of adding it on.

A product's value is what you are willing to pay for it.

I have been using 2 custom rifles built on the Dakota 76 action now for many years.

Several of us use them every year in Africa, and think very highly of them.

I own both Winchesters and Dakotas, among others, but when I go hunting, either NA or Africa, I use either my Dakotas or Rugers.

This is no criticism of any other brands, but rather just what I seem to grab when I open the safe to go hunting; and that is a function of what I consistently take to the range for practice.

quote:

A product's value is what you are willing to pay for it.

What a person is willing to pay is one way to measure exchangeable value.

Perhaps a better word would be utility.

I have several Pre 64 and Dakota 76 rifles. A couple of items that have not been mentioned. On the early Dakota 76s when the bolt is open there is no "positive lock" between the bolt and the shroud. The early Dakotas rely on the firing pin resting in a small depression in the back of the bolt to prevent shroud rotation. With the bolt open, or out of the rifle: and the safety off the shroud on the early Dakota 76s can be rotated to the bolt closed position and when it is rotated the firing pin goes forward. In this condition the bolt could not be closed. I have never had this happen on the rifle but in transit to Africa it did happen on a removed bolt. The bolt can be "recocked" off the rifle without tools but it is a pain. On the later Dakota 76s and on all the Pre 64s there is a positive lock between the shroud an bolt that is disengaged as the bolt is closed.

The other difference is in the chambering. The Pre 64s have a cone breech that does not encircle the bolt nose. On, at least the later 76s; the barrel is not coned and the barrel surrounds the bolt nose. This should provide better gas sealing in the event of a case/primer failure.

All being said, my preference is a Dakota 76 with the shroud to bolt lock.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

quote:

A product's value is what you are willing to pay for it.

What a person is willing to pay is one way to measure exchangeable value.

Perhaps a better word would be utility.

What ever floats your boat.

Water.

I've always wondered why you don't see more full customs using Dakota actions as they seem to be superior in most every way over the winchesters. I'd be interested in hearing what Mr. Wiebe says about that.

Seems like Dakota wins on this one. From what I was told, Dakota has now been bought out by Remington. And, unless you are a Remington dealer and/or seller, it is virtually near impossible to get your hands on one, if you are an independent buyer in the market.

I would have to do my research BUT I believe that Dakota fixed a lot of the problems that the Pre 64's were having correct?!

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
What is strange to me is that (hopefully knowning this), why doesn't somebody offer these actions at a reasonable price where they can make money and a sportsman can afford to buy one. Why does it seem to be that for every little accessory or add on or feature a manufacturer has to charge an extra 10 times the total cost of adding it on.

The problem is that the makers can't seem to stop themselves from taking away one or two of the things that make a Mauser what it is.


Okie John

well, in fairness to the pre-64s, I wouldn't say they were "having problems" from a functional standpoint. Sure, we all hear about the theoretical "weakness" of the coned breech and gas handling. However, it will take the Dakotas many more years to achieve the record that the old 70s developed in some of the most harshest hunting conditions in earth. If you don't believe that look at the histories of a few folks like Pinnell and Talifson in Alaska, Wally Johnson in Africa, Hal Waugh in Alaska and Finn Aagard in Africa: all used pre-64s for many, many years. I've actually researched the rifles those men used, and talked to some of the men who worked with those men I mentioned. I've used them almost exclusively now for 30+ years without a single problem. Stuart Otteson in his book "Bolt Actions" said pre 64s feed, extract and ejection system could hardly be improved upon and said the receivers were "a work of art in solid steel." Having said all of that, I'd like a Dakota: just couldn't justify the cost over the winchester and as I said before, on paper the Dakotas are probably better in the breeching. Just my 2 cents worth.

quote:

Originally posted by devere:
I've always wondered why you don't see more full customs using Dakota actions as they seem to be superior in most every way over the winchesters. I'd be interested in hearing what Mr. Wiebe says about that.

Ah.....why add to a debate that really has no rock solid answer

According to the third Speed book on Mausers the last 1930 Mauser design contained a coned breech as they recognized it offered feeding benefits.

Well...doesn't surprise me...human nature is "Since it ain't broken, let's fix it"?

Why not just a brand new action from granite mountain?

Mike

Can't throw any rocks at GMA..just wish they hadn't "improved" the guard screw hole spacing

With Dakota under Remington, are the currently produced Dakota rifles suffering the same poor QC and problems that the Remington rifles are experiencing?