posted 13 November 2015 00:41

(I just moved this from the big bore section as that's where the subject got started)

I'm wondering if anyone knows if the lower recess for the locking lug is milled out to make room for the long magazine for the long H&H cartridges on a pre-64 M-70 as it is in a '98 mauser. I have De Haas's book and remember reading about this feature in Mausers but nothing about mod 70's.

I have a 70 in 300 H&H and one in .243. The 243 obviously has a shorter magazine, but it looks like the back edge of the recess is the same on both except for one thing. Because of the larger diameter of the H&H case the angle on the ramp extends back less, but otherwise they're close. The edge between the top of the ramp and the recess is sharp on the mag but has a flat on top on the 243 of about 50 thousands; other than that I can't see a difference that might affect the strength noticably. Anyone have opinions on this?

it looks to me that the tapped hole for the lug bolt in the bottom of the receiver, just forward of the bearing surface of the lug recess, would weaken it a bit and would be better off in the recoil lug, but I don't claim to know what I'm talking about there.

Comments would be appreciated. I'm not really concerned, but curious. Thanks.

I'm really working the grey cell here but I seem to remember that the pre-64's were .30-06 length and were opened up a bit. Can't say if it was in front or in the back as I've never seen one. I believe the Post 64's were longer and didn't require that much metal removal. Hope this helps.

Yes it is; all Model 70s were made on the same length receiver, and after 64, it was longer. Oh, I see that is what fara said.
Does it weaken the receiver? Sure. Does it make any difference in use? No.
What problem are you trying to solve?

The lower locking lug seat on the pre-64 is milled away to a considerable extent. In addition some metal is removed from behind the top recess as well to provide more room for loading but not enough to make any real difference. The amount removed from the bottom is substantial and undoubtedly affects the strength of the action. Another reason not to hot rod a pre-64 Magnum IMO.
Winchester could have easily avoided this by chambering the 30 Newton instead. Similar performance, they already loaded ammunition for it and it fit the action.
Regarding the front guard screw location: Winchester located the screw in the recoil lug on the Model 54 but moved it on the model 70. I think they were right in doing this. Regards, Bill

No problem at all, dpcd; I read the comments about Mausers and 375's on the big bore forum and was curious.

Thanks for all.

All pre 64 were the same length, the short cartridges have a filler in the magazine...Many a pre 64 has been converted to a 300 Wby or 375 and 300 H&H, the pre 64s were factory modified to the 300 and 375 H&H...You have no problem and any decent smith can do such a conversion..The best 300 H&H I ever owned was a converted 30-06 pre 64 mod. 70 with an original factory barrel..Be sure and have them cut the half hole cut in the rear of the front ring and modify the side of the rear ring and add a new follower and magazine, along with the regular conversion, I have seen these conversions left out so many times and they are need for feed and function...To make a long story short, just do what Winchester did..I have never seen a Win. in factory persuasion in those two calibers give anyone any problem, not one!

OK- got it, many thanks.

Couple of photos of a pre64 Win70 opened up for the 375H&H. I copied and saved these from a forum post somewhere, can't remember if here on AR or somewhere else.
They give a good idea of the amount of work on the lower lug recess.