I get a lot of questions about making 375 and 300 H&Hs, and they always ask about the pre 64 Winchester. So for edification, here is one showing how they modified the receiver to fit the long H&H cartridges into it. Remember that there was only one receiver length before 1964 (and even then only one until about 1990, and it was made long enough for the 375). That was the 30-06 length receiver and they blocked it off for shorter rounds, (Hornet is another topic), and modified it for H&H.
You can see they had to cut away part of the receiver at both the bridge and ring ends. The post 64 Model 70 was redesigned longer to fit the 375 without alteration, and also was the first Model 70 receiver to be made from a forging.
Now you know.

dpcd is absolutely correct. Winchester had to open up their standard length Pre 64 M70 action for the 300H&H and 375H&H cartridges. So while the 300 and 375 H&H were 'factory produced' they went through the same process as is done on standard Mauser M98 actions to open them up for the 404 Jeffery and 416 Rigby. The opening up process for longer cartridges is virtually identical.

A couple of other images of a Winchester factory produced pre64 M70.

Note the shortening up of the front of the feed ramp/lower locking lug recess area to extend the front of the magazine box.

quote:

and also was the first Model 70 receiver to be made from a forging.
Now you know.

All the post64 M70's are forged recievers, so the pre's are what...machined from stock?
Were the bolts forgings or machined from stock?
bb

Yes, receivers were all machined from solid bar of cm steel 9 7/16 x 1 1//2 x 1 7/8ths. It weighed 120 ounces before and 19 after. through 75 machining steps.
Bolts were forged to get the handle section bent, and then went through several machining operations. Winchester was never known for it's efficiency in manufacturing which is why it almost went under and had to abandon most of the pre 64 firearms designs as being too expensive to make. While Remingtons were all designed for efficient mass production.
Post 64 bolts are two piece with the body made from bar stock and the handle is cast and brazed on with a collar over the cocking cam area.
One of the poor design features of the Model 70 was the Springfield cone breech; they changed that in 1964, but now are back to it.

From stock, I believe. I have been tasked with duplicating a prewar H&H receiver a couple of times and there is a lot of metal removed. To me, it would have made a lot more sense to chamber for the Newton cartridges, which actually fit the receivers, and leave the H&H numbers in England. Regards, Bill

quote:

One of the poor design features of the Model 70 was the Springfield cone breech; they changed that in 1964, but now are back to it.

I agree with this and think Winchester should have adopted a counterbored breech, like the Dakota or the Kimber (or the Arisaka; to give credit where due). Regards, Bill

quote:

One of the poor design features of the Model 70 was the Springfield cone breech; they changed that in 1964, but now are back to it.

True that back in the day a lot of hand work and machining to achieve a goal but evident in the finished product..... I think.
DP and Leeper why do you consider this a poor feature?
DeHass thinks it is advantageous and an asset to loading.
bb

He is wrong (his argument is is largely theoretical) and if he was right, then every small arm ever designed would use it; they definitely don't. If it was a good idea, I assure you that Mauser would have adopted it; they didn't.
No amount of hand work can compensate for the fact that the cone breech design leave more of the case head protruding than a flat breech design of the Mauser, and furthermore gives gas more room to do bad things.
Compare to a 98 Mauser.
No comparison to modern design like a Rem 700. Or as indicated above, even the Jap Arisaka.
As for hand work achieving quality; in the case at Winchester, it was the route to it's demise. Pre 64s are not as good as everyone believes. The attraction is more of a cult than based on facts. Not that they are bad....

Tom Burgess always said that the H&H receivers were a slightly different heat treatment and temper that of the 30-06 receivers.
When ever I tapped or milled on one the H&H receivers yes there were tougher than a 30-06

FYI, back in the day when I used to re-machine 30-06 receivers into the H&H shape. I would move rearward the magazine box and front ring cut by .050" to slightly increase the length of the feed ramp. and the upper ring.

J Wisner

That is interesting information. It does seem odd that a company would make one receiver tougher, via heat treat, yet, would produce others with inferior characteristics. I'm willing to admit, I don't know. Regards, Bill

Thanks gents for the photos.
An interesting and educational post.

quote:

The attraction is more of a cult than based on facts. Not that they are bad....

Sounds like the Harley Davidson Story!

You know that there rumors out there that the M70 is an improved Mauser design !
Just saying.
BB

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:...in the case at Winchester, it was the route to it's demise.

Among other goofy decisions by the company dating back to early 1900's. The Rexall Drug/Hardware Store plan didn't help at all.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Pre 64s are not as good as everyone believes. The attraction is more of a cult than based on facts. Not that they are bad....

Get ready for your black eye...!

I'm definitely not worried. I use facts, a technique often ignored by some.
Not that there is anything wrong with them; I have owned many of them, and other Pre 64 Winchesters.
The fact is that you can't make rifles using those methods any more and still make money.

Hi,

Agree about the superiority of the design of the Mauser M98 over the Winchester Pre 64 actions. No doubt about that. I have rifles with both, icluding a nice Pre 64 (made in 1953/54) 375 H&H. All original. Bought used but well cared. A FANTASTIC shooter, VERY accurate. And feed all his 4 cartridge in the magazine as if it had not any cartridge feeding!!! And eject all fired cases very possitively!! Like it a lot!
I have a question: Somewhere I saw a modified bolt sleeve for a Pre 64 with a M98 type flange added to help to divert the gases and particules from the shooter face, in the event of a ruptured case or a blown out primer. But I cannot find the pictures or the article about it.
Do you know something about it?

Thank you!

PH

I've seen custom jobs that had the gas shield welded onto the Model 70 shroud. But since most guys using modern brass and won't rupture a case like early cartridges did, it is not needed.
Don't get me wrong,, there are many things about the Model 70 that are very good. I'm not saying the 98 is better in every way.
We copied the 93 Mauser when we designed the 1903 Springfield, and made several changes; some to avoid paying royalties, Which we had to do anyway, and we did; $100K to Mauser. Almost every change from the Mauser made it worse.
It was the 98 that had the better breeching system. Too late by then, and Winchester copied many features of the 03 Springfield; the bolt shroud, and breeching system salient among them.
It's mostly theoretical; in practice it works very well as everyone knows.

Hi dpcd,

Agree, of course. I like my Winchester 70 375 H&H pre 64. Since I purchased the rifle in 1992 I have made more than 1200 shots, recorded, with it, 250 factory, handloaded the rest. Of course more than 90% at papers...The other 10% at big game, mostly culling Red Deer and Wild boars, some for trophies, plus some wild cattle.
Never a single issue! It is one of my favorite rifles, and one I have total confidence in its behavior and performance.
Anyway, I always wandered about a GOOD Mauser 98 375 H&H...

98 Mausers in 375 are also weakened considerably when opened up and I have seen a whole bunch which had set back the lugs. A lengthened 98 (done using two actions) is fine, of course. Regards, Bill

Right; 98s are not ideal in H&H length and need alterations; much like the pre 64 Model 70; never designed for the H&H cartridges. Which is why the first thing they did in 1964 was to make them all, H&H length.

Just trying to learn here. It would seem to me that the lug seat would set back before the lug due to being weakened by removal of supporting material. Why would the lug all of a sudden be the compromised component? Both surfaces have elastic properties but if the lug is more so seems it would deform no matter what support is behind it. Educate me please.

Hi,

There are MANY 375 H&H made with Mausers M98 Standard. Most original H&H and other first rate british makers were made that way. If the convertion is made correctly, there are no problems. And in all H&H originals 375 Mausers I have seen, the lower lug support in the action does has more than enough material. Say again, if made CORRECTLY.

Best!

PH

Correctly is a subjective term; most 98 conversions are done by reducing the length of the lower lug seat. If the receiver was on the soft side to start with, this does not help, and you might get lug set back. So, done correctly, on a soft receiver, won't work.
Which is why I move the rear of the box as far back as possible, thereby reducing the amount of lug seat that has to be removed.
So, KDA, yes, we are talking about the receiver lug seat; no one is referring to the bolt lugs; the lower lug seat definitely is compromised. However, by starting with a known good action, like a 1930s Oberndorf, then you are assured that there will be no problems. And FN did it too, with their post war 375s.
Another note that means a lot; the Winchester was always made from CM steel, whereas the 98 was always made from case hardened low carbon steel. Until post war. It seems that every country making them followed the original German TDP.
CM steel is far more forgiving than the old materisl and methods. Which is why no one makes receivers like that any more.

I should have clarified that I was speaking of the lug seats. I have seen this set back on FN rifles and on original H&H rifles. I have not seen it on Interarms MKX rifles.
I opened up numerous 98's for the 375, back in the day, but have not done so in the last 20 years. Modern actions which are long enough out of the box, are a better choice by far IMO. Regards, Bill

Mark X lug seats have a LOT of metal removed..more than a well done conversion of the contract 98. Stands to reason that heat treatment plays the role here. I've been in the business full time a heck if a long time and have only seen se back on VERY few 98's and FN'/s More FN;s than 98's!

In the 60/70's popular cartridge was the 7mm Sharp and Hart. This round develops hideous pressure...And...the FN's were about 24 Rockwell. Almost guarantees a set back.

When in doubt, send the actions out for re heat treat.

Thanks to all for the education.

Here is what D’Arcy Echols had to say on the matter here on AR 19 years ago:

“I prefer to use the newer Model-70 for the 375 length calibers however if the a Pre-64 is the action of choice I will find an action chambered for 30/06 or 270 rather than a factory std magnum or long magnum. By doing so allows me complete control over the dimensions when altering the bolt face and allows me to obtain a longer (appox. +.070) bullet ramp without the razor edge at the top of the ramp and gives you a much thicker lower recoil lug seat. I do not "go the the rear, Hmmm ?) any more than to clean up the back wall of the action just ahead of the middle guard screw but do control the over all I.D. of the new mag well opening. I do not install a new magazine box that is longer than 3.600 for an I.D. OAL. The longer ramp also allows a shallower feed ramp angle which helps eliminates some feeding issues. When machining the underside of the feed rails I have more metal to work with on a 30/06 action than on the factory magnums. The top and side loading gate can now be opened up for ease in loading but you'll have to install custom scope bases when you open up the top side as the original rear scope base screw pattern is now missing a partner.

Rockwell hardness test on many, many dozens of actions post war, pre-war, Std and Mag length has convinced me that some Model-70 actions are just way to hard and I have had these actions drawn back before starting any major metalwork with no ill effect.

Any of the technique's mentioned above should not be attempted by an amateur hobbyist and only by the hands of a competent professional. This conversion is not as simple as the web makes it appear.“

http://forums.accuratereloadin...=115101808#115101808

He is right, but the ideal COA is to eliminate the middle guard screw and move everything to the rear and use a one piece TG.
A mod which I literally did just last week on a Model 70. PTG bottom. Wyatt box. No locking lug seats were harmed in the process.