Please, put away your knifes, sharp tongues, etc., I am trying to ask a legitimate question and have no view on the subject. In fact, I do not, and have not ever, owned a pre-64 Model 70 although I would like to some day.

I am curious how people stack up the quality of these two weapons in terms of the workmanship that went into the actions. I am not focused on which would make the better custom rifle, simply a heads up comparision of the quality of both in their original configuation. Thanks.

I have not handled nearly th enumber of M30's and I have pre-64 M70's, but the Rems were significantly better finsihed as a whole. There is more BS floating around the internet and in books and magazines regarding the pre-64 M70 than any other gun I know of. Don't get me worng-I like the action, but the condition in which they left the factory was often atrocious. Deep tooling marks eveyrwhere, way out of square actions, so-so wood to metal fit, etc. etc.

I know that it is sacrelidge to say it about the M70, but I am just relaying my life experiences. And I have handled a bunch of them from the earleist to the latest. For osme reason people get very emotional and defensive when someone dares to speak ill of the finish quality of the rifles. I have looked at them with folks I knew and they would marvel out loud at the quality and care that went into the fine rifles in "ye olde days" and lament the current state of affairs in the gun industry. They would then hand the rifle to me and I would see a gun that was literally finished worse than the typical M700 at WalMart. Seriously.

If you don't believe me, learn what to look fo rin fine guns. Then start taking apart some M70's and determining what exactly it would take to turn it into a fine custom gun. A Vz24 surplus Mauser will usually require less hand work to get it to top shelf quality.

The older Remingtons seemd better to me, but again, I have not handled many M30's.

Dear Mike:

Like Mr. Stokeld, I have owned some (six or seven if my memory serves me right) pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters, made from 1947 to 1958, but I am not a gunsmith. I sold them all because, I, too, was deeply unimpressed with the poor machining within the receiver as a whole, the rough cone breach, etc. and also noted some design flaws. On the plus side, they were all quite accurate, having an excellent barrel, trigger and safety.

I cannot speak to the Remington Model 30 actions, having never owned one, but merely looked them over at some gun stores.

This is a bit outside your question, but most of the 1898 Mauser actions from the better plants were considerably better machined than the pre-64 Model 70's based upon my limited experience, and have some design features that are better than a Model 70 in my opinion. For those reasons, I will only use an 1898 Mauser action or a similar modern variant, like Mr. Satterlee's actions, when building a rifle. The model 30's may be just as good.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

I've owned, shot and built custom rifles on the Remington 30 actions - I like them very much, indeed. They are the highest development of the action which originated as the British Pattern 13, and evolved through the U.S. M1917, becoming, after WW1, the basis for Remington's bolt action sporting line. The best of them are the later 30S Express actions, which were cock-on-closing and had the bolt guide rib added. I snap these up whenever they are available at reasonable prices, even if suitable only as an action for use in building something. The only drawback to these actions (if you consider it such) is that they are somewhat heavy, but that makes them perfect for dangerous game calibers and cartridges (my .458 is built on a 30S Express).
There is, of course, one last, ultimate example of this action: the Remington 720, but those are quite rare. This rifle, apparently only made in 1940 and part of 1941, is further refined with a re-designed bolt stop and shorter, straight bolt handle. I consider myself lucky to have 2 of them, and would certainly love to find more.
I like the pre-64 Model 70, too, but wouldn't trade a 30S Express for a similar Model 70.
FWIW...
mhb - Mike

What MHB said! I like M70's, but the M30 is the best action for building a big bore.

Rich
DRSS
Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost...

Mark up another Model 30S fan.

Chalk up another vote for the 30S.. Mine will soon have a new life as a 458 Lott. Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
I have not handled nearly th enumber of M30's and I have pre-64 M70's, but the Rems were significantly better finsihed as a whole. There is more BS floating around the internet and in books and magazines regarding the pre-64 M70 than any other gun I know of. Don't get me worng-I like the action, but the condition in which they left the factory was often atrocious. Deep tooling marks eveyrwhere, way out of square actions, so-so wood to metal fit, etc. etc.

I know that it is sacrelidge to say it about the M70, but I am just relaying my life experiences. And I have handled a bunch of them from the earleist to the latest. For osme reason people get very emotional and defensive when someone dares to speak ill of the finish quality of the rifles. I have looked at them with folks I knew and they would marvel out loud at the quality and care that went into the fine rifles in "ye olde days" and lament the current state of affairs in the gun industry. They would then hand the rifle to me and I would see a gun that was literally finished worse than the typical M700 at WalMart. Seriously.

If you don't believe me, learn what to look fo rin fine guns. Then start taking apart some M70's and determining what exactly it would take to turn it into a fine custom gun. A Vz24 surplus Mauser will usually require less hand work to get it to top shelf quality.

The older Remingtons seemd better to me, but again, I have not handled many M30's.

my thoughts exactly, the winchester p64's seem to have an orgasimic following to many, many of the ones i have looked at looked like they where machined with a dull butter knife, or by some communist machining mosins, I for one don't get that excited about the pre 64 winchester. The FN and husky mausers, browning safaris on FN actoins seem to be much better built.

So, what about the Remington 725?

I have only owned a couple or so Remington Model 30's, but have owned a large number of Winchester Model 70's, including at least 10-12 of their "Pre-War" products.

Apparently I am the only one who experienced this, but I found the machining quality, wood, and fit of both to be about equal before the war. After the war, the care in making everything had slipped, whether rifles, cars, you name it. And the Model 30 wasn't even available as new production after the war.

^To me the advantage was always with the Model 70 because they were lighter (though not light by today'standards) somewhat slimmer, and therefore handled more to my liking. The Model 70s also seemed to have the better trigger.

Having said that, If I had a choice today between a Model 70 and a Model 30 in the same chambering and the same condition, I would take the Model 30. Why? Because they are relatively rarely available when compared to the Winchesters.

That last comment also indicates what was the apparent preference of the day for most American riflemen...they seemed to prefer the Winchester products if one can judge by the numbers sold.

Think about it, why would Remington drop the Model 30 and bring out the Model 720, if the Model 30 was the preferred (better) rifle over the Model 70 for the very short time they were available simultaneously?

MHO, YMMV

in Frank DeHaas's words, "the Cadillac of the Enfields"-

http://www.kelseygraphics.com/gpbill/m720_1.htm

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=6496361

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=78669102

I would find it very appropriate if someone would leave me a 720 in their will.

When both Remington and Winchester were making M-17s,Remington ones were considered better made.

on the whole...
the winchester has the better shaped stock, in general

the remington is the better, in my opinion, and the safety is AT LEAST as good

but, sigh, the prices are coming closer to the same... m30s have doubled in the last year

and tip burns http://www.burnsgunrepair.com/ chopped up a perfect remington 30 in 30-06 to make cindy garrison a .416 taylor...

quote:

Originally posted by downwindtracker2:
When both Remington and Winchester were making M-17s,Remington ones were considered better made.

Maybe SOME Remingtons were considered better made....but didn't Remington also operate the Eddystone plant?

quote:

When both Remington and Winchester were making M-17s,Remington ones were considered better made.

Winchester marketed a '17 after the war, also, Model 51.

the one imperial sporting rifle [win model 51] I handled was a double trigger Springfield with Winchester markings.

sure looks like a Springfield safety on those- I was identifying it as an Enfield by the bolt handle, and maybe the rear bridge.

I trust ya, I wonder what the history is.

I've only owned one model 30 , but I loved the look and feel of the rifle.

Weagle

Well I love my Model 70s.. I haven't been impressed with the Used pre 64s I have seen on the rack locally and most are the ones that some lady hocked after her husband died...

never owned a Model 30, but I have ONE Enfield in 30/06.. Winchester Action, Remington Barrel and sporterized... accurate as a varmint rifle and built like a 53 Buick!

If Model 30s were still being made, I'd have a lot of them....

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by downwindtracker2:
When both Remington and Winchester were making M-17s,Remington ones were considered better made.

Maybe SOME Remingtons were considered better made....but didn't Remington also operate the Eddystone plant?

What were the draw backs of the Eddystone action? I ask because I own an Eddystone action that I had to use the lathe to turn a relief groove in the shot out barrel to remove it. Is it still a good action to build a 375 Weatherby on?

458 Lott


My 375 H&H will be on 30S as well.

Keith

quote:

Originally posted by olcrip:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by downwindtracker2:
When both Remington and Winchester were making M-17s,Remington ones were considered better made.

Maybe SOME Remingtons were considered better made....but didn't Remington also operate the Eddystone plant?

What were the draw backs of the Eddystone action? I ask because I own an Eddystone action that I had to use the lathe to turn a relief groove in the shot out barrel to remove it. Is it still a good action to build a 375 Weatherby on?

Like so many other things related to guns, cartridges, etc., I think much of the drawbacks are a matter of preference and opinion.

Most Eddystone actions, like most of the low-numbered Springfield '03 actions, are perfectly okay for any practical use. SOME of the Eddystone actions are reported to have been brittle in the same way and for the same reason(s) as SOME of the low numbered Springfields.

I only mentioned them because the ones made by Winchester have NOT been identified as having that problem (nor have the ones marked Remington). So, I find it hard to buy any claim that the Remington-made M-17s are all better made than the Winchesters...an over-broad generalization, IMHO. Remington did make the Eddystones, after all.

Even if the Remington M-17s were all better machined than the Winchester-made ones, which has not been my experience with them, I'd rather have one with some machining marks than one that is dangerous because it was improperly heat-treated.

Anyway, there are a few ways the old-timers used to evaluate the likely safety of the Springfield '03s and the P-17s for rebarreling, which seemed to bear up under time and use.

(One was to look for the punch marks that indicated the action had already been rebarreled by Ordinance one or more times. It was felt that if it had already outlasted two barrels, a third one would likely not be much danger if loaded sanely. Another way was to look carefully at the front action screw hole under a magnifying glass. It seemed the "brittle" actions often started to fracture/chip at the edges of the hole, and any cracking there was taken as a sign of a "bad" one.)

I personally have used Eddystone actions for cartridges like the .450 Ackley Mag loaded "BTTW" (B----s to the wall) with no problems so, properly chosen, they seem to do fine.

Rather than bad-mouthing either Winchester M-70s or Remington M-30s, I prefer to simply say they are both excellent rifles, neither absolutely better than the other in the field , though certain characteristics of each may cause an indivdual to chose a different one than would another person.

It should be fairly easy to see how many people preferred the M70s and how many preferred the M-30s when they could have chosen either one, just by looking at the sales fugures for the few years both were simultaneously available (1937, '38. and'39?)

Have owned a few 30s and pre64s, have handled more. In quality between PREWAR 70 vs. 30, there is no preference, both are very fine. Postwar 70s not quite as well finished of course.

quote:

Originally posted by weagle:
I've only owned one model 30 , but I loved the look and feel of the rifle.

Weagle

I am proud to say that thanks to a great friend this rifle now resides in my gun closet. i was even able to harvest a couple does with it last year in MO. it is one of my very favorite rifles - for who passed it on to me and also for it being such a well made and classy rifle.

There is a Mod 30,257 Roberts with a mounted Redfield 3x9 scope at Cabelas in Buda, Tx. The action is in very good condition and slick and smooth, the wood isn't much to talk about and the sights have been removed. Price is $399.

I think the reason for the M-70's appeal is LOOKS! From profile, the Rem 30 looks pretty dowdy...Many do not know that Winchester commissioned Tom Schelhammer to design the M-70 stock...the rest....as they say...is history For certain, the 30 is a fine action...I always had the uncomfortable feeling that the 70 was a souped up Springfield....HAR!...but like them!

I've owned both and my feeling echo the sentiments expressed above. No doubt the Winchester is a little sleeker and sexier, but the quality in the 30S speaks volumes. I let my 30S go a decade ago and it is one of my few gun regrets.

I agree 100% with Cummins Cowboy on his comments about FN and Husky mausers as they are the cream of the crop, especially the FN supreme.

DW, what is wrong with the idea of a souped up Springfield?