OK. There is enough banter going around as to
when the model 70 will return.

Let's go one better. We are running the company
and are about to start-up again.

What changes do we make to the model 70 design?
I'll start. I want a better looking bolt handle. I also want a gas sheild more like the original military mauser sheild, but with a 3 position side swing safety. I'd also like to retain the mauser bolt stop/ejector assy.

quote:

I want a better looking bolt handle. I also want a gas sheild more like the original military mauser sheild, but with a 3 position side swing safety. I'd also like to retain the mauser bolt stop/ejector assy.

Ok, why start? Why not a Mauser with these features?

Thaine,

Because the model 70 receiver has a smaller diameter, a better trigger mechanism and the front action screw has a better placement, thus enjoys better bedding. It can also be argued the model 70 tang makes the action more stable in a stock.

My own personal favorite is the model 70 dual dovetail Leupold mounts/rings are perfect for me.

Other than these, I'd retain the rest of the mauser! I see you got my point! I'd also like a one-piece triggerguard with an inside-the-bow release too.

better trigger.....adjustable for creep
three action lengths
1. 223 length...scaled down
2. 7 X 57 length (also for 308 Win length
3. Magnum length....375 H&H and 30-06 length same as Remington....longer throw for all long cartridges

Agree with stronger bolt stop.....beef up the existing one instead of looking like a Mauser.

I actually think the MRC is better despite the complaints of 500 grains (what does he know anyway!)

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
better trigger.....adjustable for creep
three action lengths
1. 223 length...scaled down
2. 7 X 57 length (also for 308 Win length
3. Magnum length....375 H&H and 30-06 length same as Remington....longer throw for all long cartridges

Agree with stronger bolt stop.....beef up the existing one instead of looking like a Mauser.

I actually think the MRC is better despite the complaints of 500 grains (what does he know anyway!)

I like numbers 1 & 2! Don't care much for magnums, especially the H&H versions. The existing bolt stop precludes a proper gas sheild. It will need redesigned at the very least! I like the mauser style, but could live with the MRC design.

Your too late. Its already been done by Timan, and quite well I might add.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Your too late. Its already been done by Timan, and quite well I might add.

Maybe? We are discussing mass-produced actions for the average Joe. Not severely priced hand-mades from a material such as titanium which some of us think is redundant. Who needs a rifle THAT light and which must be coated to prevent galling?

Unless I missed something, his actions lack the improvements offered by the Winchester design,
being all mauser? The Winchester receiver, is itself, an improvement over the Mauser design!

From what I have seen posted here, Timan's work is "best quality". So I have no arguements there. And I wish him well in his endeavers, however, titanium is not my cup of tea. Neither are 6 grand actions, even if the work justifies the pricetag!

I'll submit that the MRC 1999 incorporated some of the best features ofthe M& and improved on them by bringing in some of the great gas-handling (where the M70 falls short in my opinion) features of the M98. Save for the bolt release, a very well executed update of the M70. And reasonably priced too.

M70
1. Lower receiver rails
2. Ejector.
3. Front guard screw placement and recoil lug

M98
1. One piece bottom metal design
2. Upper receiver design and appearance of the 1909 Peruvian Mauser in several different lengths.
3. M98 bolt design with unslotted left lug.

Mannlicher
1. Bolt stop

Other
Some sort of integral receiver sight base that would double as the rear scope mount base.
Front scope mount base to be on the barrel.
Or an integral scope rail on the LH side of the receiver.
Single set trigger.

Bolt with a 3 position safety arranged something like the original Lee Enfield bolt mounted safety.

quote:

1. One piece bottom metal design

yes....absolutely

quote:

Originally posted by Don Slater:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Your too late. Its already been done by Timan, and quite well I might add.

Maybe? We are discussing mass-produced actions for the average Joe. Not severely priced hand-mades from a material such as titanium which some of us think is redundant. Who needs a rifle THAT light and which must be coated to prevent galling?

Unless I missed something, his actions lack the improvements offered by the Winchester design,
being all mauser? The Winchester receiver, is itself, an improvement over the Mauser design!

From what I have seen posted here, Timan's work is "best quality". So I have no arguements there. And I wish him well in his endeavers, however, titanium is not my cup of tea. Neither are 6 grand actions, even if the work justifies the pricetag!

Timan's actions aren't all "six grand", nor are they all made out of titanium. They take many features from Model 70 and many features from Mauser and lump them together in a wonderful action.

As far as being unable to afford one, you wouldn't be able to afford a winchester or a remington either if they did not have economies of scale built into them. What I mean by that is that those companies had sufficient cash provided by risk takers that allowed them to build up such an inventory that they could afford to sell their wares at a "reasonable price" I am quite sure that if Timan had the money to build up an inventory of his actions he would buy the machinery and supplies in sufficient quantities to get price breaks, as well as hire labor at a price that he could pay and still make some money.

You asked about the action, not about the business of making one or how much they cost. I stand by my original statement. Timan makes an action that not too many purists of either the Model 70 or the Mauser 98 could argue with. Not only that, he is equiped to customize them even more if that is what you want.

http://www.satterleearms.com/375_length.htm

Just toss out the model 70 blueprints and build Mausers.

Make 'em on modern CNC's in a brand new factory in Eastern Europe.

22,

I went to the site and found what appears to be an improved mauser? The only thing close to the model 70 is the 3 postion safety?

Mass produced for the average Joe? 3-4 grand.

By the way, I can afford his actions, but I'm
in the camp that just can't justify that much money for a rifle!

I'd be just as content having an HVA mauser with a Dakota safety installed. Or even a BRNO 21H?

If I opted to spend the money, I'm sure Matt Williams could make me exactly what I want also.

Not looking for an arguement, buddy, he just doesn't make what I'd want..

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Just toss out the model 70 blueprints and build Mausers.

Well....possibly but we've been there before.....the M-70 is a Mauser.....slightly modified.....

I'll agree with a new bolt stop design.......and a better trigger adjustable for creep, a straight down verses a swept back bolt handle.....but all in all, the M-70 is an upgrade to the Mauser.....no question about it!

Why do you think winchester nose dived in the first place? Because you were building rifles for the average joe, and weren´t doing it as good as remington or ruger. And the market is flooded with average joe rifles, and average joe isn´t buying many new rifles these days either which compounds the problem.

I think that if you wanted to try and come back into the market, you need to develop the matallurgy to make something super strong, and instead of trying to develop the perfect homer simpson rifle you should try to make something like the sauer 90 or 202.

Well, the 202 is a little exotic for the average joe schmoe, but if winchester were to bring a super strong, super hard sauer or heym style reciever, threaded with a mauser barrel thread, and use their bolt smoothness, it would be a hit. I´d even bet that they would make the recievers for you much cheaper than you could make them there in the US, and you could barrel them up andstock them there.

I wouldn´t bet my hand on making the same old thing that sent me into bankrupcy, I´d bet my hand on something new. Why copy a german design fram last century, copy a german design from today.

Do you guys still make barrels anymore, or were you contracting them out too? Just a question.

quote:

Originally posted by murkan mike:
Why do you think winchester nose dived in the first place? Because you were building rifles for the average joe, and weren´t doing it as good as remington or ruger. And the market is flooded with average joe rifles, and average joe isn´t buying many new rifles these days either which compounds the problem.

I think that if you wanted to try and come back into the market, you need to develop the matallurgy to make something super strong, and instead of trying to develop the perfect homer simpson rifle you should try to make something like the sauer 90 or 202.

Well, the 202 is a little exotic for the average joe schmoe, but if winchester were to bring a super strong, super hard sauer or heym style reciever, threaded with a mauser barrel thread, and use their bolt smoothness, it would be a hit. I´d even bet that they would make the recievers for you much cheaper than you could make them there in the US, and you could barrel them up andstock them there.

I wouldn´t bet my hand on making the same old thing that sent me into bankrupcy, I´d bet my hand on something new. Why copy a german design fram last century, copy a german design from today.

Do you guys still make barrels anymore, or were you contracting them out too? Just a question.

quote:

copy a german design from today.

The new German designs are ignored in the US. New German designs seem to be different just to be different. Witness the recent straight pull Mauser bolt gun. They could not give them away here.

If the Germans inovate something of value it will sell.

Oh yes barrels are still made in the US. The best barrels in the world....
If you knew a little more about the US market you would not have to ask.

With regard to the bolt sleeve deflecting gas more like the Mauser, Winchester already made a change. The M70's produced during the last few months had a projection on the left side of the bolt sleeve to deflect gases coming down the left raceway, away from the shooters face.

legacy mauser, but with no front ring, heat treated from there..

the end...

the legacy mauser was dual sqaure bridged, oberdorf style bottom, aadjustable trigger, 3 pos safety, and commercial cocking piece... add a good bolt handle, and you are done.

smaller action? for me it's hogwash... the m98 will take anything from a 550 express to a 22-250 with ease, and ONE stock to fit.

in fact, a 22-250 m98 and a 448 lott m98 vary in 3 things, and only ONE of them is a inventoried part. mag box, bolt face, and rails.

if we are "redesigning" for a startup, the MINIMUM parts required in inventory is the right answer.


Now, to really

let's have a remake of the 1903 springfield.

oberndorf bottom metal
3 pos safety
1 piece bolt
.100 larger in diameter action
.050 larger bolt
no cut-off on the side.

hart,
Not to nitpick, but I'm gonna nitpick! Actually, Winchester started incorporating the bolt sleeve with the flange on it in 2003. I have in my possession a SS Classic WSM which is of 2003 manufacture, with the flange. It has the lowest serial number of any Classic I have ever seen with the flange. MOST all Classics manufactured from 2004 on had the flange. There are exceptions. I don't think I ever saw a left-hand Classic with the flange. I've also seen one or two rifles that I think were of 2004 or later manufacture, and weren't left-hand, which didn't have the flange. Apparently design upgrades were not necessarily always phased in uniformly, although generally speaking, they were.

quote:

Originally posted by mudstud:
hart,
Not to nitpick, but I'm gonna nitpick! Actually, Winchester started incorporating the bolt sleeve with the flange on it in 2003. I have in my possession a SS Classic WSM which is of 2003 manufacture, with the flange. It has the lowest serial number of any Classic I have ever seen with the flange. MOST all Classics manufactured from 2004 on had the flange. There are exceptions. I don't think I ever saw a left-hand Classic with the flange. I've also seen one or two rifles that I think were of 2004 or later manufacture, and weren't left-hand, which didn't have the flange. Apparently design upgrades were not necessarily always phased in uniformly, although generally speaking, they were.

I've heard a lot about this "flange" on the model 70's, but have yet to see one.

In fact, I was supplied blueprints in Jan. 2004 of their current bolt shroud and it made no indications whatsoever of anykind of a flange.

If somebody has pics.....I'd love to see them.

tg1,
OK, you've called me on this one before! I never even had a digital camera until deer season last fall, but now I gots one! As soon as I get home, in about 7-10 days, I'm gonna take some digital pixs and email them to you! This will have to suffice, since I don't know how to post them on these boards. But you welcome to post them if you like. In fact, I will take pics of all three different types of bolt shrouds that I know of on M70 Classics. Just hang on for a few days, they will be coming!

The link Woodjack posted kinda shows the flange in the pic of the 3-position safety, it is sort of visible on the opposite (left) side of the bolt shroud.

Have a great one!

I think Ol' Bill Ruger already did it.

And before you flame me, I have a '57 Supergrade, and have owned several M77's, current preferred rifle is my MkII in 270.

The Winny is nice, but it ain't a patch on my 77Mk II

quote:

Originally posted by mudstud:
hart,
Not to nitpick, but I'm gonna nitpick! Actually, Winchester started incorporating the bolt sleeve with the flange on it in 2003. I have in my possession a SS Classic WSM which is of 2003 manufacture, with the flange. It has the lowest serial number of any Classic I have ever seen with the flange. MOST all Classics manufactured from 2004 on had the flange. There are exceptions. I don't think I ever saw a left-hand Classic with the flange. I've also seen one or two rifles that I think were of 2004 or later manufacture, and weren't left-hand, which didn't have the flange. Apparently design upgrades were not necessarily always phased in uniformly, although generally speaking, they were.

You are pobably right. I only heard about the flang sometime before they closed. I had bought a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation M70 super grade after they closed thier doors and it had the flang on the shroud, but unfortunatly had to send it back because of a bad barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by mudstud:
tg1,
OK, you've called me on this one before! I never even had a digital camera until deer season last fall, but now I gots one! As soon as I get home, in about 7-10 days, I'm gonna take some digital pixs and email them to you! This will have to suffice, since I don't know how to post them on these boards. But you welcome to post them if you like. In fact, I will take pics of all three different types of bolt shrouds that I know of on M70 Classics. Just hang on for a few days, they will be coming!

The link Woodjack posted kinda shows the flange in the pic of the 3-position safety, it is sort of visible on the opposite (left) side of the bolt shroud.

Have a great one!

Based on that pic I saw, it does look somewhat different than the norm, but it doesn't look like it completely blocks up the rear receiver bridge........Am I correct on that?

I've noticed on these boards that a lot of people are trying to pin down a date on the manufacture of model 70's based soley on the screw being left in or out on the bolt shroud.
They've jumped all over the place on the use and non use(is that a word lol)of the safety screw on the shrouds.

I've heard from quite a few folks that they would refuse to buy one, unless it had the screw......That's just plain nuts, if you really understand how they work.

The screw is a take-off from the good ole 03 that liked breaking the firing pin retainer nut and launching the firing pin back at the shooter.
Here's the big difference though, so you fellers can still get some sleep at night with the non-screw models.
The firing pin on the 03 had it's dead stop based on bottoming out in the inside of the bolt body, against the firing pin retainer nut, which cracked and broke. This is how the firing pin protrusion distance was also determined.
The model 70 bottoms out where the cocking piece hits the bolt shroud, so the firing pin never touches the very bottom of the bolt body. This is why you don't here of these things breaking and planting the firing pin between your eyes.

The pre-war model 70's used a very similiar firing pin spring retainer, like the Springfield, but they too bottom out on the bolt shroud.

This is a classic example of engineers that really didn't have an independent thought between them. They copied the Springfield on the sleeve lock as well.....Hell, they're even interchangable.
Once these guys made this upgrade to the bottoming out position of the firing pin, they didn't bother to remove the screw.

From a machining standpoint, it sits in a plane all by itself, so it requires a seperate machining operation and fixturing method different from every other operation on the shroud.

That my friends is why it was dropped, but being the big company that USRAC is, they took a while of deciding whether to leave it or drop it.......Kinda like putting your right foot in..pull your right foot out...Shove your big head in and shake it all about.....



Now.....get me some good pics.

Could someone please post a picture of a “firing pin retainer nut†on a 1903 Springfield bolt assembly? Never seen or heard of one of those.

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
Could someone please post a picture of a “firing pin retainer nut†on a 1903 Springfield bolt assembly? Never seen or heard of one of those.

I should have rephrased that to mean "firing pin spring retainer nut".....

I've referred to as a nut, but YMMV.

If I had my camera handy, I would post a pic of the one I have here, but its at home.

Hmmm--

I guess I'd have to say several things...

1. If I wanted a Mauser, I'd buy a Mauser. (I have a number of them, so don't assume I'm saying I don't like Mausers...) It's just we are talking Model 70's, which are a different aesthetic kettle of fish.

2. I LIKE the trigger, and the bolt handle on the Model 70's just they way they are (were). I've never had any trouble removing the creep from my M70 triggers. But then, I never had any real trouble removing the creep from military Springfield and Mauser triggers either.

3. My current Model 70's are hunting rifles...a pre-war .300 Mag, a pre-war '06, and a post war early FW .270. I've owned and hunted with all of them at least 30 years, a couple a good deal longer than that. None have EVER let me down in any way, anywhere. So, why would I want to change them? That's easy; I wouldn't.

4. With good loads, they are all three scary accurate for factory hunting rifles. For a BR gun, I'd probably buy one of Jerry Stiller's RB/LP/drop-port guns, but that's a whole 'nuther field.....

5. So, I guess any changes I'd consider making would have to be to keep production costs as low as possible.

Most steps in that direction would probably lead towards some clone of the 1965 "new" Model 70. I don't wanna go there, so in MY new Winchester Company, we'll just make the old pre-war Model 70. I suspect if we don't try to make a different model to suit every individual, the economies of scale and the existing market might keep us afloat if we could avoid the union problems some companies seem to generate..... If not, c'est la vie, c'est la mort.

quote:

Originally posted by triggerguard1:

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
Could someone please post a picture of a “firing pin retainer nut†on a 1903 Springfield bolt assembly? Never seen or heard of one of those.

I should have rephrased that to mean "firing pin spring retainer nut".....

I've referred to as a nut, but YMMV.

If I had my camera handy, I would post a pic of the one I have here, but its at home.

Perhaps even better you should just leave the word “nut†off. There is NO “nut†on a 1903 firing pin. There is the firing pin “sleeve†and the striker, which is the separate piece that sometimes broke off causing the condition you spoke of. It was pretty rare but did happen on occasion.

It’s the striker that would sometimes break though, NOT the sleeve, or as you call it the “nut.â€

A nut is a threaded fastener.

fyj,

A nut can also be a football player that lost the national championship to a gator!

Buckeye = worthless nut?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Slater:
fyj,

A nut can also be a football player that lost the national championship to a gator!

Buckeye = worthless nut?

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:

quote:

Originally posted by triggerguard1:

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
Could someone please post a picture of a “firing pin retainer nut†on a 1903 Springfield bolt assembly? Never seen or heard of one of those.

I should have rephrased that to mean "firing pin spring retainer nut".....

I've referred to as a nut, but YMMV.

If I had my camera handy, I would post a pic of the one I have here, but its at home.

Perhaps even better you should just leave the word “nut†off. There is NO “nut†on a 1903 firing pin. There is the firing pin “sleeve†and the striker, which is the separate piece that sometimes broke off causing the condition you spoke of. It was pretty rare but did happen on occasion.

It’s the striker that would sometimes break though, NOT the sleeve, or as you call it the “nut.â€

A nut is a threaded fastener.

Well just to be argumentative, please explain exactly what a "striker" is.
There is a firing pin, cocking piece, firing pin spring, firing pin spring retainer(sleeve or nut), bolt shroud, sleeve lock, and safety, less the springs, screws and detents.

Does the combination of a firing pin and cocking piece, coupled with a firing pin spring constitute a "striker"?


Bottom line is that you obviously understood the piece I was referring to and the fact is.......that's the piece that broke, causing the firing pin spring to disengage from the firing pin and send it on a straight path back to the shooters face.
Most of those "sleeves" were too hard, but the real reason was piss poor design. The firing pin should have never came to rest on that particular part, rather it should have bottomed out on the bolt shroud like the model 70 did.

As far as your definition of a "nut".....

Normally, the definition would be a small square or hexagonal metal block with internal screw thread to be fitted onto a bolt.

The 03, as well as the pre-war used a cylinder that had an oblong broach cut, while the firing pin had the appropriate milling done to it to capture this cylinder after it was pressed on and twisted 90deg.....not a thread, but close to a nut.

I promise from now on......I will try not to mention my nuts anymore on this thread.

Mr. Williams,

The “striker†is the correct term for the separate firing pin tip used on 1903 Springfield rifles. Refer to ANY manual on those rifles to check that if you wish. And while your in those manuals try to find any reference to a “firing pin retainer nut.â€

1903 strikers are not installed by “pressing them on and twisting them 90 degrees.†The spring is compressed with the sleeve in place and the striker is slipped onto the pin body from the side. You then ease off on the spring compression and the sleeve encloses and contains the striker base with the pin body tip recess holding it in place.

Perhaps you and I have different understandings of proper and accpeted mechanical terminology but I have never heard of a sleeve being referred to as a “nut†before, especially by someone claiming to be a machinist, and the fitting of the striker on an 03 firing pin assembly IN NO WAY resembles a nut.

Have a nice day.

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
Perhaps you and I have different understandings of proper and accpeted mechanical terminology
Have a nice day.

since some posters enjoy pointing out my spelling errors, I'll ask

what does accpeted mean, and do you have to say that with a lisp?

Funny, how one can argue both sides of proper and accpeted mechanical terminology (that's jargon, right?) and still come off looking like an

quote:

ir·ri·tant (ĭr'ĭ-tənt) Pronunciation Key
adj. Causing irritation, especially physical irritation.

the rest, which is willful misunderstanding, is just nutz

quote:

Originally posted by fyj:
Mr. Williams,

The “striker†is the correct term for the separate firing pin tip used on 1903 Springfield rifles. Refer to ANY manual on those rifles to check that if you wish. And while your in those manuals try to find any reference to a “firing pin retainer nut.â€

1903 strikers are not installed by “pressing them on and twisting them 90 degrees.†The spring is compressed with the sleeve in place and the striker is slipped onto the pin body from the side. You then ease off on the spring compression and the sleeve encloses and contains the striker base with the pin body tip recess holding it in place.

Perhaps you and I have different understandings of proper and accpeted mechanical terminology but I have never heard of a sleeve being referred to as a “nut†before, especially by someone claiming to be a machinist, and the fitting of the striker on an 03 firing pin assembly IN NO WAY resembles a nut.

Have a nice day.

I was referring to the assembly of the pre-war model 70, but after rereading my post, I can see where it was misinterpreted......nothing like a dozen interruptions during the course of my post to loose my train of thought.

Once again......you know what I was referring to right??


For the record I'm not claiming to be a machinist.......I'm a master crafstman of precision machined parts..there's a difference.


Let me ask you something FYJ, do you ever get tired of being the thorn in a lot of people's ass?

I do appreciate the fact that you've pointed out my lack of mechanical properties though, pertaining to methods of attachment, fixturing, and fastening.....I'm so much better for it and I feel as though I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express for a week.

I've got some programming to do in 4th axis that while I felt pretty confident of a mere 15 minutes ago, It might be prudent for me to run this by your expert mind to decipher whether or not I've got it right. I surely wouldn't want to push a button on anything in my shop right now with the limited amount machining skills I posess.
This will be a pretty limited program of only 2,000 lines of code, so it shouldn't take long for you to give me the run down right?
I'll need speed and feed reccomendations for 1018 using TICN coated, 4 flute, 3/8 Hanita varamills, taking .200" depth of cuts. I'm going to be climb milling, but I might need some recommendations on ramp angle for a 2inch interpolation for the .200 depth.
What's your thoughts?
I need this as quick as you can get it to me.

I can see how a guy that gets caught talking out of his ass on a subject he knows absolutely nothing about might consider someone who calls him on his bullshit to be a thorn in his ass!

Why don’t you take a breath and go take apart a 03 bolt (assuming you have one) and then come talk to me about how they go together and what the parts do and don’t do.

I can fully understand now why you choose to be a defender of our moderator when he starts telling his tall tales. I think they call that birds of a feather flocking together, or something like that!

If you are such a “master craftsman†of “precision parts†then why did it take you so damn many years to figure out that bottom metal is supposed to have a draft on it so it can be inletted properly, and that Remington BDL bottom metal should be designed to take BDL mag boxes?

Mr Williams

Can your company build model 70 actions? You have fantastic cnc goodies.

quote:

I've got some programming to do in 4th axis that while I felt pretty confident of a mere 15 minutes ago, It might be prudent for me to run this by your expert mind to decipher whether or not I've got it right. I surely wouldn't want to push a button on anything in my shop right now with the limited amount machining skills I posess.
This will be a pretty limited program of only 2,000 lines of code, so it shouldn't take long for you to give me the run down right?
I'll need speed and feed reccomendations for 1018 using TICN coated, 4 flute, 3/8 Hanita varamills, taking .200" depth of cuts. I'm going to be climb milling, but I might need some recommendations on ramp angle for a 2inch interpolation for the .200 depth.
What's your thoughts?

Surface feet of about 600 and feed rate of .006 per rev. Increase feed as it allows to .012 if you can get there.

BTW, replying to fyj is a mistake as he's merely a troll here.