I'm looking at building a custom .375 H&H and want to use a stainless action. I have a few questions and hope that someone with more expertise than I can answer them.

I understand that one of the primary structural differences between the pre '64 Model 70 and the new Classic deals with the bolt. The pre '64 has a forged bolt/handle assembly, while the Classic has the bolt handle silver soldered to the body. Is my understanding correct? If so, has this attachment arrangement caused many problems? Would tig welding the handle to the body be a viable option?

Thanks in advance.

The current Model 70's bolt handle arrangement has been misrepresented, misunderstood (subject to uniformed assumptions), and outright lied about - even on these forums - and is usually portrayed as though it were assembled in the same manner as the Remington 700, which means simply placed against the bolt body and soldered on. Nothing could be further from the truth, and quite honestly, the post-64 (same as the present version) Model 70 bolt handle assembly is one of the strongest and best-engineered ever for precision AND great strength.

This from Stuart Otteson's book, "The Bolt Action", pages 218-219:

'The bolt is made in two pieces, not three pieces as reported in some magazine articles. There is no brazed-on bolt head. The body is machined from chrome-moly steel bar, with integral locking lugs at the exreme forward end and the rear turned down and straight-knurled. The bolt handle is investment cast, with a collar at it's base which is forced onto this rear section with a pneumatic press. Interference from the knurling engraves the collar, forming a sturdy mechanical joint, which is then copper-brazed.

This excellent fabrication technique was developed for Winchester by the Edward Russell Co. of Wallingford, Connecticut. The process is very precise. Small copper-alloy rings are laid on the bolt rims. Capillary action draws these completely into the joint and no clean-up is necessary after removal from the furnace. More important, by using the high-temperature alloy (about 2000 degrees F) the bolt can later be heat-treated without affecting the joint. Also, the copper alloy creates a far stronger bond than possible with lower-temperature sliver-brazing processes.

Although they are investment cast, the knob and part of the shank of the bolt handle are contour-turned on a special lathe and the knob then knurled. While it would seem easier to directly cast-in the knurling, as Remington does the checkering on the Model 700 bolt knobs, the Model 70 knurl pattern would require a four-quadrant die to clear the diamonds, this leaving four parting lines.

While some may regret the passing of the forged bolt, there are advantages to the new construction besides lower cost. It can be machined to a precision not practical with the previous (pre-64) one-piece bolt, thus permitting a more uniform and concentric alignment of bolt, receiver, and barrel. Problems of off-center primer indentation are now practically non-existent.'

You don't need to change the bolt handle on your Model 70.........

AD

[ 09-09-2003, 19:01: Message edited by: allen day ]

Thanks for the info. I feel a lot more informed and relaxed now.

Allen-

Thank you for that excellent update. I am feeling a lot better about my Model 70 Classics now.

As an interesting side note, I was in the local sporting goods store a couple of months ago when a gentleman walked into the store with a brand new model 700 he had purchased the day before. In its unfired condition, this man was carrying the bolt handle in one hand, and the rifle in the other. There was also a very unpleasent look on his face.

Chuck

Now, if they would just skip the (bolt knob) knurling step completely!

[ 09-10-2003, 02:20: Message edited by: Glen71 ]

Glen, I couldn't agree with you more!

AD

Allen,
As much as I admire Stuart Otteson's evaluations, I have to say- What a load of crap! It sounds like Otteson was repeating a passage from a Winchester brochure!
While the manufacturing process is much as described I have to make a couple of comments.
First, the base of the handle is fitted to a knurled portion of the bolt body but the fit is so poor that there is often no "mechanical joint".
The M70 handle attachment does occasionally fail and I have repaired numerous of them over the years.
This joint splits the cocking cam and is another problem. If heat treating was truly possible subsequent to brazing, it would have been nice if they had done some!
All in all it is not a terrible system but to portray it as a great improvement over the one piece bolt is simply BS. It was done this way to make manufacturing easier and that is all. It was not done to make possible a superior product of greater precision. Regards, Bill

In design in can be made to work pretty well, but in practice, they do tend to slack off a bit. But, with that said, I'd rather have a two-piece bolt that was machined to tighter tolearances, than a one-piece that was not.

No matter how you want to cut it, a one piece bolt will not be made as accurately as a two-piece design for reasons of fixturing of the part during the machining process alone. If you do become so fortunate as to fixture it well, you'll lose it's integrity in heat treat. The basic geometry dictates this.

I sure wouldn't lose any sleep over my Winchester bolt handle coming apart.

As was mentioned above, the cocking cam with the joint running down the center of it's surface is a piece of crap. What you have now is two pieces of metal scatching against each other when the bolt is cocked. There is no smooth helix for the cocking piece to slide against.

I was sure disappointed after disassembling the bolt after buying my stainless classic.

Hart

A gunsmith friend of mine and I were talking about the new WIN 70 classic receivers. He says they are machined from castings, and I thought they were machined from forgings. Maybe I was thinking about their "hammer forged barrels". The Wins only show big gall marks (underside) from the cutters. Haven't really looked too close, but haven't noticed any casting pits. Anybody have an answer?

[ 09-10-2003, 08:05: Message edited by: jnrifleworks ]

When I get home I'll post a photo of a winchester bolt as Allen was discribing it.

I'll again defer to Otteson. On page 216 of his book, "The Bolt Action", the post-1964 Model 70 receiver is illustrated in-process. It starts as a precision-forged steel billet that is machined to final form, although today CNC equipment has replaced the older, 1960s-era milling machines. The receiver is NOT investment cast, however some of the small parts of the action are.

Otteson is a very well-qualified and sharp engineer, and his interpretations are quite accurate, even though his cold, hard, unbiased conclusions might go against popular vote on occasion. He does indeed blow a lot of old wives' tales right out of the water, and his efforts in "The Bolt Action" would be very hard to upstage, and would take years of disciplined study to replicate. Technically, he completely overwhelms and outclasses Frank De Haas.

Bill, if you've had post-64 Model 70 bolt handles come off, you've reached a conclusion that confuses a possible quality control problem with a design problem. The bolt handle design is very sound, but if certain fabrication proceedures are not carried out properly, structural integrity can be compromised, no question about it. I'm convinced that such problems are rare in the extreme. I've been shooting post-64 Model 70s for over twenty-five years, and I've never had such a problem crop up, nor have I heard of anyone else with this sort of problem. But then I've hardly seen it all when it comes to Model 70s or any other rifle......

Quite honestly, and I don't care how well-engineered or carefully-built Winchester would have made the post-64 Model 70, many people would still find it less-than-perfect, and inferior to the pre-64. Legendary products become a whole lot more legendary and a whole lot more desirable after they've been discontinued. Where were all the buyers before 1964 whose cold, hard cash could have kept the Model 70 in production in its original form?

The pre-64 is always made out to be a product that was lovingly put together by little old men wearing angel costumes, but it had it's share of glitches and then some. I used to collect them avidly (see Rule's Model 70 book) and hunt with them extensively. I'll never forget the new-in- the-box 1953 Featherweight .308 I wound up with one time that had a receiver bridge so out-of-square that it was impossible to mount scope bases on even if you wanted to, and customizing would have been impossible. Chipped receivers and warped bolts and receivers from improper heat-treating, out-of-square actions, action screw hole spacings that are way out of spec - these are some of the problems I've seen with pre-64s over the years, even though most of this stuff gets swept under the rug.

Are those problems commonplace? More so than you'd think, but they're still rare. About as rare as post-64 bolt handles that somehow pop off.......

AD

This only my opinion. Some of the old machines are good, solid, reliable and accurate tools. It is more the operator than the machine. AMT uses full CNC, but there stuff isn't bringing top dollar. In a mfg process, having "dediactad machines", can make for good quality and effecinicy. They don't need to be $200,000 mills. My WIN 70 that just cam in has terriblye gall marks on the underside. Obviously a dull tool on a Horozontal mill. The top is beautiful. I would rather have this than casting pits. The process could certainly be brought up to date, but sharpening the tools and following the prints would probably be a better first step. Also, the saftey wouldn't go on on the out of the box gun. A little work on the cocking piece solved that.

The post 64 handle when attached properly is very strong.

My father has a mid 70's model that he bought from the owner to get it off the streets.

It was a 375 H&H that some one rechambered to 378 WBY. The owner was using a 20 gr overload of H205 and 300 gr bullets. You just dip the case full of powder don't you?. He said after the first shot he had to tap the bolt handle open to get the empty case out. The second shot did the gun in. Both locking lugs were sheared off, the bolt came backwards and the root of the handle contacted the reciever. The pressure kept the bolt moving to the rear and the reciever then cracked from the bolt handle notch into the sear pin hole. The rear of the tang is bent sideways about .100".

The bolt handle is still sound, even though the action and bolt body is ruined.

I may not like the cocking cams and the shape and method of attachment. But it is strong as the pre 64 M 70, which was a one piece design.

Jim Wisner

Allen and Jim,
I agree the joint, if produced as designed, is very strong. A truly good engineering concept does not allow quality control issues to be quite so common. If the joint was truly a press fit (and on some individual actions it is)and the brazing was complete (as it can be) then it is a fine joint.
As Matt mentioned, there is little doubt it is easier to set up and machine a bolt without the handle. Judging from the results though it is fairly easy to screw it up too!
Otteson described the process and perhaps a sample action and did a fine job of describing it. He did not, however, see the number of sample actions that would come through a fairly busy warranty shop. So he described a successful execution of a manufacturing technique while I saw the failures.
If the fit is good and the silver soldering well done the Remington handle is unlikely to come off either but it's certainly still not a great system.
I would rather have a stub and the extraction cam machined as part of the bolt then have the handle welded on (didn't Husqvarna do this? Or was it BRNO?).
Anyway, the original question was- Has the method of attachment caused any problems? The answer is, Yes it has. However, if the joint is done as intended, it should be just fine and the gunsmith can ensure this to be the case. The nice thing with the post 64s is they are a full length action and a good fit for the H&H. Regards, Bill.

While I have not seen a Post 64 M 70 bolt handle break off it's possible.

I am familar with what they look like in the shop pans when sent out to the heat treaters for brazing. At the time that I saw them they were not under any real quality control effort at all let alone some advanced system.

An effort has been made here to put a positive spin on a brazed together bolt. It's not working with me. A much better idea is what Ruger does by casting the bolt in one piece.

Never mind the comments about making it true or straight. That can be done either way.

Thank you all for your informed insights. I have learned an exceptional amount on the Model 70's. And Matt, even though it wasn't your intention, I think that you have made a sell on your bottom metal because I am going to go ahead with the project.

Wrong thread!

AD

[ 09-14-2003, 18:39: Message edited by: allen day ]

Back in the early 70s I set the lugs back on a post 64 Model 70 using one of my "special compressed triplex loads". Yes, thankfully the action did not shatter. It took a liberal application of a 4 pound shop hammer on the bolt handle to get it open. The handle is still where it was before the incident. I'd say the action certainly did its job all the way around. And by the way it was a tack driver before I screwed it up.

AD

Wrong web-site

It sure looks like Nesika Bay and BAT are onto something, finish machining after heat-treat. Both of them do CNC machining operations and hold tolerances every day that would be impossible with fixturing and conventional machines, in a reasonably timely manner. Bolt fluting, anybody?
A new bolt for a Nesika is rumored to cost $600.

Not just bannanaed but oval as well. Seems hard to start out with a round billet and end up with such a mess. To be my own Devil's Advocate, I have put good barrels on untrued Rem 700s and win 70s and had them shoot like the wind. Unbelivibly well. One barrel I was going to toss for being so warped. A big bend in the middle. It has won several matchs now and shoots better than 1" at 300. No truing on the action, Push feed M70. 308 Palma 30" tight bore 13" twist, OLD PAC-NOR barrel sitting on the pile for years. I think a lot of attention is put on perfection of the components of the rifle. I say do as much as you have $ for. But it dosent have to be a $4000 bench gun to shoot well. There are a few things to get right: chamber, throat, crown, trigger, bedding, ammo, shotter, and day.

Just to clear up what triggerguard1 was saying. 15-5 stainless steel is hardened in an oven not quenched. We heatreat 17-4ph stainless at my work to 900 degrees with very little movement. How it sits in the oven can have an effect.