I know this is the place to ask what may seem to some as a simple question.

I have a Mod 70 .338 WM rifle and also a PacNor 9.3 x 64 Brenneke barrel threaded for Mod 70.

Is there much alteration to do with the fitting of the `64 barrel,bolt face etc.

x64 has a .496 bolt face while the WM has .532. I'd be talking to someone before doing so unless you can get ahold of a regular 06 or 270 as a basis for the conversion.

He is right; your cases will fall out of the bolt during extraction. So it won't work.

Can/t the bolt face be modified to work? Im pretty sure Opening and closing a bolt face has been done?? just curious.

I have heard that the gurus bush the bolt face and recut to size?
I have a .270 M70 that could do then?

Yes; done many of them; but it's unnecessary work, and then you will need a new extractor too. Use your 270 and avoid a lot of extra work and expense.

Not to contradict the omniscient DPCD, but if you want (need) a 9.3x64 and have a .270, I say go for it. Every man and his dog Jack has either a .270 or .30-06, whereas the 9.3x64 is somewhat unique. Machining a .270 Win bolt face and for the 9.3 is not rocket science for a good gunsmith who can operate a lathe. Neither is bushing a .338 WM bolt face and machining it for the 9.3x64. Adjusting the extractor is not difficult. Later model 70s(post 68) in which the feeding is controlled by the magazine box lips and not angled surfaces cut into the receiver wall are pretty forgiving when it comes to feeding. If you want a 9.3x64 & know a proficient gunsmith, you should follow your desires. The 9.3x64 is an awesome cartridge and fully the equal of the .375 H&H.
Cheers,
Roger

dpcd thank you.

rogersgunworks ditto.
I must say I agree re the awesome `64. I actually have one already in a `98 that did start life as a .270 Win. BUT I do have the barrel that is threaded for the M70. I would rather use the 338 as I do like my 270 ha ha...why is life so fkn hard! I do have a love for M70`s

Why is life so hard. It's because we choose to make it so. In a carefree life, everyone would be armed with a .303 or .30-'06 and would never want for more. How boring.

Exactly that,I have a few vanilla`s..IE 270/30-06/308 but do like the not so vanilla calibres of which float my boat...I even have a 10.3 x 68 RWS built on a 602.

Please don't get me wrong: When I said, "use your 270" I certainly didn't mean SHOOT it!!!
I meant, CONVERT it to 9.3! Get rid of the 270; they are useless small bores and never should have been invented.
I meant that the conversion will be much easier starting with the 270 and you haven't lost anything by doing so.
I wouldn't be caught dead in the field with a 270, or 30-06 for that matter. What I hunt with has to be unique, and I will make sure that no one in camp has the same thing.
I can honestly say I've never fired a 270, but owned many of them; just to bust down for the actions. Got a pile of 270 barrels that I use for pry bars; the only good use for them.
So, RA, you actually didn't contradict me. You agreed. As usual.
RA; where did you learn that fancy word? Not at WVU for sure.

Much ado about such unnecessary things.

Long ago, I began shooting a 1953 Model 70 Featherweight .308 and it has served me well for decades.

I do have a couple big bores (.40 +) mostly for Africa. The above reminds me of the mantra of one of my college poker playing buddies -
"Never kick a winner" Applies to hunting dogs and women also.

Wildcat

9.3/338.

It exists; it's called the 366 Alaskan. A friend made one off the 358 Norma and called it the 366 Barbie in honor of his wife. He also made the 366 DGW from the Rigby case. That one is an absolute screamer.

That would be a good round.
As for using a 308 for everything in an entire hunting career; I can only say, BORING!!! The point is not just to kill stuff (and I know many hunters for whom that is the goal); for me it is to experience unique calibers.
Another comment; Just go with the 9.3x62.

The word "bush" has been mentioned in this thread with regard to bolt faces. What is the procedure to "bush" a bolt face, and exactly what is accomplished by doing so?

quote:

Originally posted by Kolo-Pan:
The word "bush" has been mentioned in this thread with regard to bolt faces. What is the procedure to "bush" a bolt face, and exactly what is accomplished by doing so?

Listen to the master.



Germane to this thread it would allow the diameter of the bolt face to be reduced to accommodate the 0.496" can head of the 9.3x64.

The video tells how to bush, or reline, the firing pin hole; not applicable here. What might be needed is to reduce the ID of the bolt face recess; not as easy on a Model 70 as on others. Again, it's much easier to open them up than close them. I've done many 700s.

Which is the purpose of the trailing comment addressing this procedure being specific to reducing the diameter of the bolt face. The mechanics of the procedure are 95% the same as what Greg is showing.

quote:

Originally posted by DavidReed:
Which is the purpose of the trailing comment addressing this procedure being specific to reducing the diameter of the bolt face. The mechanics of the procedure are 95% the same as what Greg is showing.

It's because he's a 'nitpicker'.

Ok, All I did was watch the video; reducing the bolt face on a Model 70 is nothing like installing a firing pin bushing. I think that might have mislead those who asked the question.
If you guys don't like my comments you have two options:
1: Do not read them.
2: Contact the Moderator and have me banned.
Nitpicker? I prefer to be correct, rather than, confusing.
Otherwise, my comments stand.

Here is a question for you DPCD

Those Winchester WSSM actions are great little actions. I have one is 22 WSSM, and I would like to have more. I don't understand why Winchester didn't turn around and make that great little action with a regular bolt face for some of the smaller cartridges that already exist. So the question is -- Have you made any thing with a WSSM action for a regular (non-magnum) cartridge by filling in the excess space? Would that also be termed "bushing" a bolt?

No but I have built several in 270, 7mm, and 300 WSM. And I do have the reamers for those.
But altering a Model 70 bolt for a smaller bolt face would NOT be termed "Bushing a bolt". Now, on a push feed one, you might use that term. I do not think that term is applicable in this case because there is no busing involved. I will give you the definition of the term from Webster: Bushing: A cylindrical lining for an opening (as of a mechanical part) used to limit the size of the opening, resist abrasion, or serve as a guide.
Quite appropriate a term for a firing pin hole; far less so for a bolt face, unless it is one like a Rem 700 or a push feed 70, in which you can actually bore it out and solder in a bushing. Then the term is a valid description of the process involved. Go ahead and look up the term for bushing a bolt face; all the examples are for bolts with an enclosed nose. Mausers and claw Model 70s are a different design. Yes, you do make a round "bushing" and solder it in the bolt face, then mil away half of it. In which case it is not a bushing any more, it is C shaped. I do understand why some might call it "bushing" as a verb. To me, it isn't.
These differences are not nits; they are full grown Lice.
Now, of course, anyone can use any term they want. And the firing pin bushing analogy is definitely confusing for those who don't know the difference. I prefer to be precise, and not confuse anyone. Again, don't like it; don't read this.

DPCD

I liked your post.

But I would suggest that if you are going to warn somebody not to read your post if they don't like it you might want to do so close to the start of the post instead of waiting to write "Again, don't like it; don't read this" as the very last sentence of the post. Otherwise, by the time one gets to the warning not to read it they have already read it!

It's all good; they can't help but read what I post, and then I get hate mail. And I can't stop posting either.
I was warmed last week to stop being sarcastic because it might give guys coronaries.
Anyway, I hope the OP gets his rifle built like he wants. Seriously, all I care about is helping guys get and build the rifles they want.

Is it safe to weld up the end and re-cut it?

quote:

Originally posted by Kolo-Pan:
DPCD

I liked your post.

But I would suggest that if you are going to warn somebody not to read your post if they don't like it you might want to do so close to the start of the post instead of waiting to write "Again, don't like it; don't read this" as the very last sentence of the post. Otherwise, by the time one gets to the warning not to read it they have already read it!

But how will you know whether or not you will like it if you haven't read it?

That's Catch 22.
I don't weld on bolt faces, even TIG.
Some can do the micro TIG.

I reloaded and tested my 9.3x64 and my 9.3x62 and contrary to some reports I never could get more than an extra 100 fps give or take 50 fps one way or the other, The 64 seemed to pick up more pressure quicker and lost accuracy quicker as loads increased..I tried a couple more 64s and gave up and went with the 9.3x62, a grand caliber.

I did build myself a 375x62 and got 2400 to 2500 fps with a 300 gr bullet, and it came close to the perfect caliber for me anyway, as thats what I always loaded my 375 H&H and 375 Ruger at, it was a marriage made in heaven, but I always came back to the 9.3x62 for whatever reason???????

Thats what I like about AR, today I learned the .270 is a POS and should never been produced! Well I be hornswoggled,

I still have mine!

Finally, some are getting the message; the 270 is useless and should have never been developed. Want to know why? There were better 7mm cartridges already available but After WW1, anything metric was shunned. So, Americans saw that 270 was not metric so it was ok. Don't tell me that a 7x64 wasn't better and already available. But Winchester knew that Americans would never buy anything marked MM.
270? Yuck. I destroy every one I get and use the barrels as pry bars. Of course, I rebarrel the actions to something worthwhile.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
.........Winchester knew that Americans would never buy anything marked MM. .......

Then why on earth did they come up with the 6.8 Western ?

I'll go metric when they invent a metric clock and calendar.

AS for the boltface. Trade the mag rifle for a 270 Winchester. They seem to be pretty popular!!!!!

Come on man! (I borrowed that from an idiot)
You know well what I mean. After WW1; in 1923.
Not 2023!
As for the 6.8 Western, that is DOA; definitely doomed to quickly die.
Sure, 270s are popular; by guys who heard about them and didn't now any better.
My analysis and comment stands.