The fault is mine Allen. I have little disagrement with your views on riles. Unfortunately my replies have sometimes been unfairly critical which wasn't my intent.

Following are a few comments about M70's not made earlier. They are derived from 40+ years of off and on enthusiasm for Model 70's. I recognize that there are posters in this forum who are real experts in the subject, and any remarks I have are made with the utmost deference and respect for their considerable experience.

First, I generally concur with the observations concerning superior fitting and parts integration of 'Pre-War' vs. 'Transition' vs. the later years. I concur also with the sentiment that no Winchester factory rifle can compare with the work of better custom makers, say, post 1960 or so. The Winchester rifles of the 1930's and early 1940's certainly had superb fit and finish for factory production of any era. But anyone who believes they were superior to all others should examine a Remington Model 30 of that same period.

That said, my several custom rifles by makers of a bygone time are all on Pre-War actions. One of these came with a modified bolt handle, but the rest all have the factory Pre-War profile. None gives the slightest scope clearance trouble. No doubt this is due to my stocks having straight combs and consequent higher mounts. (Hint: An old Buehler mount having "high" rings is lower than contemporary Talley mounts having low rings on standard bases!)

Much of the adverse reputation of the Pre-War bolt handle profile derives from an earlier era when scopes were low-mounted on rifles having stocks best suited for iron sights. Anyhow, irrespective of stock design, many of today's scope objectives will not permit mounting low enough to give trouble with a Pre-War bolt handle. So, for anyone like me, who considers the Pre-War bolt handle one of the supreme achievements of American industrial design (hyperbole intended), later versions just won't do.

The Pre-War's wing safety is indeed problematic with scopes. For a custom rifle, replacement with a later bolt sleeve having the side-swing 'dog leg' safety should not be an obstacle. Expensive? Yes. But the parts are available -- at at price. And the expense against the cost of a multi-$k project? Insignificant. Many of these will clear a Pre-War handle without additional work. For the rest, a little nick will do the trick and not be discernable even by the cognoscenti.

Otherwise, there are still Tilden safetys around -- although these have not been entirely satisfactory in my experience. And if the rifle is to remain in its original low-comb configuration, with classic Lyman 48 or Redfield 80 receiver sight, just leave that wing safety as is. Winchester's original 1936 analogy to thumbing a M86 off half-cock was valid then and is equally so today.

For M70's of any vintage, be sure you're getting a trigger/sear that has not been 'improved' by some long-ago smith or owner. There is something about M70's that the fellows of the '50s just couldn't leave alone. And ususally the first thing they futzed with (and futzed up) was the trigger. Grinding off the trigger sear engagement is commonly found and ususally means having to junk the trigger. Buy another one from the bozo breaking up M70s for auction on eBay. Then hope it is not 'futzed up' too.

If one absolutely must have a later M70 as the basis for a custom rifle, please benefit from observations I (and no doubt others here) have made. First check engagement of the extraction cams. Engagement is visible as the bright spot on the receiver cam surface. More is better, but required precise fitting which was apparently not in great supply during the 1950's. Also, this is one place where lapping bolt locking lugs and other 'blueprinting' work can be detrimental, resulting in minimal extraction cam engagement. Sure, mill the receiver face square. But mill or grind on the locking lug seats? Not on my rifle!

Ditto the cocking cam. Trouble here is a sure sign that the firing pin/striker assembly is not original to the rifle.

Please *look* at the receiver bridge on your prospective bespoke piece. Is the top - where any rear scope base will eventually sit - square to the vertical axis of the action? Or, is it canted to the right, as are so many of these supposedly superior early 50s actions? If you're having custom bases made as part of the metalwork package, any irregularities here will be corrected (right?) in the finished job. But if you plan on using out-of-the-box bases, this condition if present is guaranteed to cause a problem.

Look at the striker-sear engagement surfaces. I once owned <groan!> a short-magnum (458) rifle having its striker engagement face machined fully 30 degrees crooked! Right from New Haven it was, too.

And I suppose everyone here knows about the occasional receiver which was sprung from a too-tight middle guard screw, bottom locking lug scored from too-tight front guard screw, top lug scored from too-long scope mount screw, locking lugs and/or their seats galled from who-knows-what kind of mistreatment, mis-fitted or parts-swapped safety catch, stripped scope mount threads, receiver cracked at the bolt stop spring mortise, concealed rust below the stock line, etc., etc. The point here is that these rifles all are now a half-century old or nearly so. Few have escaped all hazards of use and handling. Most of them are very good indeed, but many come with warts. Here I will avoid the inevitable comparison between custom rifles and women, but you rascals are free exercise your imaginations!

Good luck, and good shooting.

Jim

cr500, there is a big difference between Rare and Desireable.
In the pre-64 the most rare I feel would be the 7.65 and the 9mmPara along with the 300 Savage.
For me I would love to find a 250-3000 or a 264 in a Super Grade, that would make my day.

Cr500

I think the jury is still out on the favorite era of the M70's. Some favor pre-wars others might prefer a late 40's early fifties vintage. In my estimation, they are all pretty darn good. The actions made at the end of the run seem poorly finished by the earlier standards.



All of the model 70's are the same action length. The actions were adapted to different cartridge shapes changing internal parts and in some cases, by addition machine work to the action itself(long magnums).



To convert a short standard action to a short magnum action would require a magazine box(3 3/8" length, no partitions, 1 verticle crimp 1 1/2" from the front of the box), a short magnum follower,bolt face remachined for magnum cartridge, extractor reshaped to fit mag. case, and standard extractor collar. The action feed rails should be remachined to accommodate the magnum case.



The action modification may or may not be practical depending on whether factory replacement parts are available to you. If so, it's not a difficult change to make provided you also have access to a competent gunsmith. Otherswise, it might be a better idea to just start your project with a short magnum action.



Just my own opinions, btw. None of it's gospel.

I will check the serial number to make sure it was not one of the ones made very late in the run. I would only want the gun for the action ,trigger and stock. The barrel is shot out so I would like something like a 50 Alaskan or something like that. I cant do much on the action myself but have good gunsmiths who will have to do it for me.

Just for the record I saw a standard grade prewar in .405WCF at a Tulsa show maybe five years go.

Thanks Allen. I will check the serial number. If it is somewhere in this range ,I will snap it up.
Jeeze not another gun I realy dont need but gotta have.

Speaking of rare M70's I know where an original .22/3000 is and not one but two original 8x57's are at. The scary part is that the .22/3000 is caried in a truck everyday and used as a ranch gun!

Just want you guys to know that you are officially making me nuts with all this talk of $500 pre-64 model 70s at gunshows. I have never seen anything even approaching this sort of price at all of the East Coast/Mid-Atlantic gunshows I have ever been too. I guess regional demand is truly quite variable. I could practically buy an airline ticket to fly out to the mid-west shows and buy a rifle and still be ahead at those prices.

-BB

The best model 70s are from 36-45, Prewar. And then 45-47, Transition. The best machining, metal, fit and finish of course being on the early prewar models. Now those did have the awkward safety as did the transition years, undrilled rear bridge, and bolt clearence issues when using a scope, but as far as quality, those are the best. After that, it's mostly the guns made prior to 51 or 52. After that they started hollowing out the bolt knob, metal changes, etc. The later ones have the tappered tang too(done as a cost savings measure)unlike the cloverleafs on the prewars and transitions. Most rifle makers today when working on the later actions will reshape the tang to resemeble the early cloverleaf design.

Regarding the rare rifle, someone mentioned two 22-3000. Not sure if that was meant to be a 250-3000 or not. But I would be highly suspicious of anything in the ultra rare category, especially anything like a 22-3000 that wasn't even catalogued. There are so many fakes out there it's ridiculous. So before you decide to drop 15k on an 8x57, 405, 9mm, or 7.65 Argentine, you better be ready to have the barrel x-rayed and some serious provenance, as 999/1000 are for sure a fake.

I bought a 1948 M70 this weekend at a local gun show for $525. It's an '06 and hasn't been bubba'd in any way. Looks like it's been scoped since the day it left the gun shop. A very nice original rifle, I couldn't pass it up. BTW, the price included a very nicely mounted Weaver K4.

Pre-War, The rifle I saw was in .22/3000 which is basically a .22/250 before Remington legitamized it. I agree with you to be very cautious with any ultra-rare M70, this one however still has the invoice! I realize that invoices can be faked also but one has to remember that Winchester activly seeked special orders at certain times so anything is possible.

The 2 8x57's I would bet my life on that they are original, the owner is a son of a famous Winchester engraver and he had a facination with 8x57's. Claims one was built for him while he worked there and one given to him as he left. Come to think of it if you were a faker what better aliby than having your dad work for Winchester?!?!

Have to agree with prewar70, the early guns are really superbly fitted and finished, fully equal to $15,000 custom rifles today. I frankly have not seen much difference in polish, blue and wood finish between Super and Standard Grade, both are outstanding.

I don't care for the pre-wars as much as the Model 70s from the early 1950s, at least for customizing. I'd replace the bolt handle, bottom metal, and blueprint and otherwise refine a pre-war in any event (the same stuff I'd have done to a post-war), plus the pre-war receiver does not lend itself as well to the construction of custom scope mounts, and I'd want to replace that awkward dog-paddle safety and bolt sleeve as well. Such is not the case with the post-war guns, and the steel is just as good, and the heat-treating is often better.

Don't kid yourself, the pre-war guns were beautiful specimens in and of themselves as far as factory rifles go, but they are by no means in league with a custom Model 70 that's been rebuilt and refined into a "$15,000" (or more) full-house custom rifle from the likes of Gene Simillion, David Miller & Curt Crum, or D'Arcy Echols. Those guys take the Model 70 action to a whole 'nother level, and the best of the pre-war factory rifles would only merit a sloppy-seconds award (from every standpoint of consideration) compared to one of those masterpieces.

AD

I saw two early 50s model 70s for $510 each asked at the show Saturday.
I think I should have bought them.

From a customizing standpoint, I agree with you Allen, that the postwars probably take a little less work and it's also not a fair comparison to the custom rifle of today that are made by the greats. But from a model 70 perspective, just based on overall quality, I don't think there is any question that a prewar was put together better than a postwar. I guess I should add IMHO of course. Here's what blows my skirt up about the prewar rifles: early receivers mainly prior to serial 19,xxx, had the charcoal-blueing which is very difficult to reproduce even today (they used sperm oil , crushed bones, other goofy ingredients but the results were awesome), rust-blued barrels, integral front sights as opposed to soldered, good, dense walnut with 20 lpi hand checkering, later switched to 18 and finally machine cut, every step of the process was done by a different craftsmen that put their quality assurance stamp on dang near every part of the rifle. Inletting and wood to metal fit was outstanding, and not only did they look great, but they actually shot great too! Headspacing, land cutting, I could go on forever but I better stop. In fact, I think if there were someone making rifles like this today, it would be called a Dakota . I will leave you with this, I once heard that a test (somewhat informal) was conducted were several prewar and postwar model 70s were put in front of a group of blindmen and they had to choose the very best rifles, interestingly, all went with rifles made prior to 1940, except for one, and he swears he was set-up.

I tell you what men, I have a pre-war ( serno in the 37,0xxrange) in 300 H&H and the fit and finish defiently better than any otehr, especially the ones made during the last years of production. I also have a custom shop circa 1959 in 338, and the pre-war feels a lot smoother and slicker. Of course it could be the H&H cartridge that we all know feeds like no other, but the proof is in the bulls eye and that pre-war can shoot! jorge

PS: I'd still trade it for an Echols though

vigillinus, I will agree that a mint pre-war is an awesome gun in the metal and wood work but to compare it to a 15K custom is not even close.

Allen, put a mint low number prewar next to a $15,000 best custom rifle today and there is little to choose between them in metal and wood finish.

I am a big fan of Pre-war M70's and have owned several. However, if there are not obvious differences in metal and wood finish between a Pre-war 70 and somebody's $15K all-out custom rifle, somebody got screwed!

It tells me you have never seen or handled a "best custom" rifle. Period.

Chuck

I used to collect pre-64 Model 70s avidly. In fact, I was a contributor to Rule's Model 70 book, and am listed as such in that book. I've owned many pre-war 70s, and in fact I've owned Model 70s from EVERY production year (all 27), from 1936 thru 1963, and all grades, from regular production grades thru Super Grades and true, documented Custom Shop specimens.



I've also owned the "$15,000" modern, non-factory custom Model 70s.



All I can say is, even the very, very best of the factory-original pre-64 Model 70s would come in last place (from EVERY standpoint of consideration) compared to a modern, top-end, custom, "$15,000" Model 70 built by one of today's top custom craftsmen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply NOT familiar with the work of said craftsmen.



The pre-war Model 70s were nice rifles, but they were PRODUCTION rifles. They were NOT lovingly assembled by little old men in angel costumes who caressed, stroked, and kissed every part into some semblance of holiness. They were men who were highly-skilled alright, but they were working against the clock and fighting against obsolecent equipment and proceedures in order to produce a rifle that could sell for a reasonably competitive price in the marketplace. The bean-counters rufled the roost even then!



AD

That reminds me of someone telling me I could not tell the difference if flavor of beers. We did a blind fold test, and he was partly right, HE could not tell the difference, but I could.