The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing What is so great about a Pre-64Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| What is so great about a Pre-64 | Login/Join |
| <Guest> |
Everybody keeps saying that the Pre-64 Model 70s were so great. That they were built better, work better, last longer, etc. All subjective. What objectively makes them better. Blue | ||
|
| one of us |
Kev-Go to a gun store and slowly and carefully examine a Pre-64 or several, then examine ANYTHING else; think about simplicity, reliability, field stripping and "feel". Then come to B.C. and shoot some of my nearly 50 yr. old rifles and BEAT the groups of any of these abortions such as Tikkas, Blasers, Steyrs and the domestic crap. Then, go buy a couple and forget about gun problems, forever. | |||
|
Moderator |
Fit and finish is not subjective. If you've ever handled a well fit and finished gun compared to current production wears, then there is no need to discuss the issue. If you haven't, then when you come across such a gun, and with a diserning eye look at the wood to metal fit, and the function the action to see how smooth it is. Have you ever ridden in a Mercedes vs a Honda? Is there a difference in the fit and finish of the vehicles, and the ride? Is it subjective, or definatively different? You could take a modern off the shelf bolt gun, have a good smith go through the action to smooth it up, re-finish and re-blue the external metal work, take a reasoanable piece of wood to make a good stock, and only add $2-3k to the price of the base rifle. If you're lucky, you'd get 1/2 your money back when you sell it. Or, you could get a pre-64 in good condition for 1/2 the price of a customized modern gun, have an actual collectable rifle, and sell it for what you paid, if not more. Any more questions? | |||
|
one of us |
Quote: Okay, I'm going to get my flame suite on here before I get going, but the pre-64 isn't necessarily the best thing going. Many sing high praises for them, but the metalurgy in respect to their heat treating at times lacked a lot to be desired. All to many front receiver rings split open like a bannana because they were too hard. The underside where your bedding is hiding out was normally the finish of a corncob, which is far worse than they're producing now. They were a little too short to be made into 300H&H's or the 375 because the mag box was too short. They're solution was to remove the material from the front of the mag box, reducing the amount of material behind the locking abutments. Not too hot an idea there either. The good parts were that they were the right length for the 30-06 size cartridges. Fit and finish was better for the most part. The added lug on the bolt stabilized it, and made it smoother than anything being made today, and better than just about anything made then. Bottom metal was steel Extractor was spring steel Trigger and sear were machined, not casted by Matel Follower was machined steel, not plastic, aluminum, or sheet metal The mag boxes were heavier duty as well So there you have it....the good the bad and the ugly. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Hmmm. Makes me want a Springfield '03 sporter. | |||
|
| one of us |
...or a 1917 (Enfield) sporter ...or an FN Mauser ...or a Rem 30 There are options. If you look you'll find a damned fine Rem 30 in 30/06 that will outshoot the Win70 for less money, sometimes FAR less money. This is said by no Win70 expert but I recall discussions that the Win70's were sometimes a bit larger than spec in terms of diameter as to alleviate any pressure problems. That's a vague recollection from readings here some time ago and I may very well be wrong. I will retract that with anything that appears to be knowledgeable to the contrary. Just some food for thought. Reed | |||
|
one of us |
Interesting comments, I think some people will always cling to what was the best and close their eyes to anything that might be better. CRF aside I like my mid 80's 700 better than any mauser or pre 64as far as fit and finish. one thing i don't like about the 1917 and I am not sure about the rem model 30 is I hate a cock on close bolt set up. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: If you have to ask maybe you will never know. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: I realize that's a common sentiment but I know my gunsmith has my main sporter adjusted where you don't hardly notice. That aside, I consider it to be safer, albeit a small fraction in terms of extracting a live round, and it also applies all available force to extraction with no power going to cocking. This comes in handy on those rare occasions where one must extract a sticky case. It's very much different from what most people are used to but I still like it very much. Reed P.S. Rem 30's (& 720's too I believe) were cock on open. | |||
|
| one of us |
I've never owned but handled many Pre-64 Winchesters, and my observation is that each one of them were better crafted firearms that what is available commercially today. At the risk of sounding like an old crumedgoen (for the record, I'm a middle-aged crumedgeon), you can say the same thing about alot of other products that were formerly hand fitted and finished and are now pure 'assembly line' products. My biggest beef is that, largely because of the hype surrounding them, pre-64 M70's are just too expensive. The crack about the '03 Springfield sporter was my sarcastic way of saying that the things that are "great" about pre-64 M70's are certainly not unique to them. | |||
|
| one of us |
Last few Remington Model 30's I have seen for sale were not exactly cheap. | |||
|
one of us |
Not being a Winchester expert (as you can tell from my handle), I always thought the only big deal on the pre 64 Model 70's was that they were closer to being a real Mauser than the post 64 models. Isn't that when they went to push feed? I've got a friend with two pre 64's and I really don't see any "major" improvement with them, the blueing is nicer than the later stuff, a little better polished metal, one has nicely fit wood but the other doesn't, same with the checkering. You probably had a better chance of getting a decent shooter pre 64 before they got into cost cutting. I don't believe I've seen one that compares with the standard of the FN Mausers of the period though in fit, finish or function. However, good marketing will tell, and never bet against a moving market. If I could buy one really cheap I would, then sell it to a Winchester collector and go buy a couple of 50's vintage FN's. Flame on. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: As with everything, it's relative. When I say cheap I mean $400 to $700 for a 30/06 chambering in fair shape or better. After all you wouldn't want to hunt with a mint/100% collectable...at least I wouldn't. How is it relative? That's about the same price range for most factory rifles from your nearest dealer. I maintain it's a bargain as I consider it a FAR superior example of workmanship than the current factory offerings in the same price range. As for MOA capability, while some of the new manufacturing techniques "cheapen" the product, they can often times improve the accuracy. Of course that's at the cost of other areas of workmanship such as finish inside the action as it applies to feeding and functionality. Food for thought. Reed | |||
|
| one of us |
"wouldn't want to hunt with it"...... If you can't hunt with it, its a POS. Might as well have a sharp stick propped up in the corner. Wow, my stick is really, really sharp and it cost a lot too. Want to see my collection of Cabbage Patch dolls? | |||
|
| <allen day> |
The pre-64 is all about performance, quality, reliable function, and durability. It is, for my money, the finest production rifle ever turned out by any factory, with the old FN Brownings, Model 720 Remingtons, and old pre-1972 Sakos being right up there with it for off-the-shelf quality. Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith didn't love them without reason, and these rifles have literally been used around the world to take all of the world's big game species for nearly seventy years. When it comes to bolt-guns, the Model 70 is THE African standard, and many PHs have used them day-in and day-out for their entire hunting career, and without failure. One of my friends picked up a pre-war Model 70 in .30-06 at Kenya Bunduki in 1964, at the conclusion of a safari. This rifle carries a two-digit serial number, and spent twenty-seven years in the riflerack of a Landrover, working 'most every day of the year--year after year--collecting meat, on game control, for self-defense during the Mau Mau uprising, and being lent to clients for safari use. Heaven knows the actual use it's been put to, the history it's seen, and bag record it carries, but I do personally know for a fact it's just as functional and reliable today as when it was new--it just doesn't carry the same amount of finish! I'd dearly love to own it.......... But that rifle showcases the worth and durability of the Model 70. If someone told me that I could only own one big game rifle for the rest of my hunting career, and the price of that rifle had to be less than $1,000, I'd go with a pre-64 Model 70 standard grade in .30-06 in a heartbeat. There would be no second choice. With the old Model 70, the steels were the very best to be had; the barrels were painstaking crafted; the feeding, extraction, and ejection systems, plus the safety, bolt-release, and trigger system have yet to be excelled; and up until 1956, when the short-mags were introduced, the magazine system was the best, too. That big, flat-bottom receiver is far stronger and more resistant to flexing than any Mauser, and the steels (mentioned before) are much better as well. The bolt can be very simply taken apart without tools or gimick proceedures, and just about all of the metalwork is of milled-steel construction, including the triggerguard/flooplate assembly (Featherweight excluded). Some of those pre-64s weren't heat-treated that well, as Matt stated, and so some of them were TOO hard, but the vast majority were A-OK. The current 70s are a little longer, so they lend themselves better to certain cartridges, and the heat-treating is better, but they really need to be rebuilt to get the most out of them. The pre-64 is good right out of the box, and Winchester never sent out an untested rifle. A few didn't shoot very well, but the vast majority did, and with today's ammo, they shoot even better. In have little interest in reworking some old Mauser--make mine a Model 70. I won't hunt with anything else........ AD | ||
|
| one of us |
Quote: There is a good reason for that belief - the older rifles just aren't as accurate as the new ones, irregardless of the manufacturer. There are some design traits in the Pre-64 M70s that just make them have less accuracy potential. To name only one is the way the barrel is shaped to allow the forward stock screw to attach. A lot of the Pre-64 mystic is simply nostalgia. No argument that "hand fitting" can make rifles (and other mechanical objects) function well for a specific set of conditions. And each person has in their mindset a set of conditions they hunt within. For some folks the Pre-64 is a perfect fit to those conditions and the Hunting accuracy is more than acceptable. But the very best thing about them is their "Resale Value". As long as people "think" they are worth more than a new rifle, their cost will continue to rise. Obviously a good thing for a person who has a bunch of them that they want to get rid of. They are nice rifles and work OK(most of the time), but certainly not perfect as some folks believe. Heck, they aren't even Stainless and Synthetic!!!  | |||
|
| One of Us |
One thing that no one else has mentioned is that they have more style than James Bond. If you tell someone that you have a Remington 700, or a Browning A-Bolt, or a new Model 70 they won't be impressed. But if you tell them you have a Pre '64 Model 70 you'll get their attention. I got mine in 30-06 for a 303 Brit and 75 bucks and it'll shoot sub MOA all day long. That's all I need for hunting. | |||
|
| one of us |
The question of what is so great---and the differences of opinions as to whether they were great was around before 1964--thats why there is a distinction of pre-64. Winchesters and Remingtons brought about the same price in those days. Winchester was using machined parts and hand cut checkering. Remington had stamped checkering and stamped parts but could get about the same money. Take the plain Jane model 12 shotgun and put it next to a 870 Remington and many think the Remington looks better and would select it at the same price. As kids,my brother had an 870 and I had a model 12. We argued them all the time and neither one of us ever changed the others mind. The 870 with the stamped checkering and shiney varnish did look good. Winchester would price themselves out of business if they raised their price to be in line with their manufacturing costs--Remington wasnt going to raise their price---they had no need to. So Winchesters only option was to cut costs. They did in 1964. This situation exists in lots of things. Lots of folks can't tell the difference in solid wood and veneer furniture. Sometimes the veneer does look better. I have a friend that is a very good craftsman. He is an excellent gunsmith. One of his other interests is working with rawhide. He made his own equipment to cut rawhide with a beveled edge. Produces the best rawhide items you will see. He will spend hours making ropes,bridles and other accessories. But it won't sell for what it's worth---nylon stuff much cheaper. Compare store bought bread to the modern day bread machine made to the real stuff grandma kneaded by hand. Apparently most don't think it's worth the difference. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
A lot of the "paper" hunters are more interested in statistical accuracy than anything else (they mostly hunt paper targets), and they'll sacrifice quality and function for what they assume will be a rifle of more inherent accuracy. And quite honestly, a surprising number of consumers know of no other way to evaluate a rifle than groups on a piece of paper off of a bench. But the funny thing is, I've owned scores of pre-64 Model 70s for over twenty-five years, and with but two exceptions, I could always get five-shot groups out of them that were right at an inch at 100 yds., and sometimes even less. All it took was good ammo and sometimes a trigger job; very seldom was any bedding work needed. Such accuracy may not be the best for hunting pocket gophers or statistics, but it's surely good enough for any sort of big game hunting anywhere in the world. I'm amazed at some of atrocious, junk rifles guys buy now days for the sake of cheap, out-of-the-box accuracy. The accuracy might be there alright, but the rest of the rifle's missing! Not so with the Model 70............ AD | ||
|
| one of us |
blue, To answer your question one must define what is desirable to a particular person. The "pre 64" M70 rifles were considered by some to be the finest production rifle made in the USA during a certain time peroid. It was not the biggest seller ever. Early in it's history there were far more Springfields etc. sporterized that would function about the same. Later sales of Rem autoloaders far exceeded any sales figures of the M70's in the 50's and 60's. So the pre 64 M70 had a niche and it filled it well. Most rifle people have their own priorities. Some have gone from collecting pre 64's to rating hunting, for instance, as the greatest goal. Thus they now look down on others who might target shoot or collect and carry plastic handled guns. To each his own. I know a youth who was given a pre 64 Winchester M94 as an heirloom. The first thing that he did was to have a scope put on it. Later I heard that he did not care for it as he liked to throw his gun down on the ground and wanted only SS and plastic for materials. So we each have our own taste and the right to it. One does not have to agree with others. There is a small group of rifle afficiandos who still rever the pre 64 M70's. Nice rifles. One of the best ever. | |||
|
| one of us |
...The accuracy might be there alright, but, the rest of the rifle is missing...that is probably the funniest remark I have ever read on this forum; I have been roaring with laughter for the past several minutes. This is also an extremely accurate comment on the state of affairs vis-a-vis current factory production rifles, even the high priced semi-production ones such as Dakota are NOT what they are claimed to be, IMO. The single thing about old '70s that I like most is that you could pick them up, out of the box and use them w/o any bullshit and they worked-every single time, period. I have owned '70s that were well used and not pampered and showed it; yet, they shot sub moa groups with factory ammo and they NEVER malfunctioned. I do not buy and own rifles to impress anyone as I do not have the least interest in what anyone thinks of me, I buy and use what works. I have as much respect for paper shooters as I do for hunters and I recognize that there are horses for courses, but, NO rifle that I can think of does as many things superbly well as have old '70s. This may be why so many of my younger acquaintances in this game have started out mocking my opinion of these rifles and then, within a short time, started asking me where they could find one to buy. I have an acquaintance here in Vancouver who was born in Kenya and is a PH there. He has frequently tried to buy my magnum '70s, but, they were promised to friends. I have shot his Holland&Holland bolt action .375 and my .375 '70 both feels and shoots better. It isn't nostalgia, snobbishness or investment value to me, it is FUNCTION which combines with low cost in these rifles as in no others. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
I agree about trying to impress. I've never found anyone up on the mountain or in the deep bush who's worth impressing. I buy stuff because it works and is well-made, and I buy such equipment to please myself and no one else. I'm interested in honest quality, reliable function, durability, good balance and handling, plus satisfactory accuracy. If a rifle can provide those things, I ask for very little else, and the old 70s surely can provide all of that. The only way to make one better is to have an honestly skilled custom riflesmith turn an action from one into a custom job that's built for serious use, but he'd better be good or else you've wasted your time, money, and a quality action as well. When I was a 22 year-old kid and new to the custom rifle game, I had one psuedo custom riflemaker (he was all I could afford!) here in Oregon turn a good pre-64 Model 70 action into a piece of somewhat attractive, yet highly disfunctional junk in the form of a complete "custom" rifle--built just for little ol' me! As it turned out, that particular action was better off attached to the rest of the original rifle as it came from the factory! AD | ||
|
| one of us |
An entertaining thread to be sure! As for "objective reasons" for the Pre-64's superiority, I don't know many gun nuts who are "objective" about the guns they buy! I do own a few M70's, and I have an opinion as to why the Pre-64 is held in such high regard. It was conceived, designed, manufactured, and tested to be the very best rifle that Winchester could produce. The 1964 version was redesigned to be easier and cheaper to make, in order to sell at a price that marketing and accounting dictated. Which rifle would you rather own? | |||
|
| one of us |
I've been there, too, as I bought a re-modeled .270 FWT. made by THE custom rifle builder whhen I was 22 in '68. It was a very nice rifle, but, it was simply too fancy for a working forestry guy and backpack hunter. I then bought my original .338 and althhough it has been oil finished and glassed, it still puts them where I look and it's safety and trigger are BETTER than my Dakotas.....pretty impressive for a factory gun from any maker. | |||
|
| one of us |
If one does a Google groups search in rec.guns on this subject and commnets by Bart Bobbit, one can find things like: Quote: If one goes to the firing line achived forum and searches on this subject for posts by the late great Gale McMillan one can find things like: Quote: I have read enough gun posts by these guys to know they are the best posters I have read on the internet, and yet they are on opposite sides of this question. So it may come down to a Ford vs Chev, moly vs non moly, etc kind of personal preferance. | |||
|
| one of us |
Since the Pre-64 M70 is a true Classic, is it possible that it can only be truly appreciated by those with Class?....  ....DJ | |||
|
| one of us |
I may be wrong, but wasn't the L.G. Gale McMillan the chap who introduced the "Talon" action with a breeching system almost identical to the Mod. 70. This action had the inferior Rem. 700 style recoil lug and was over-priced, but, it was an attempt to duplicate the 70 in functional terms, talk about a "marketing ploy". I have never seen one fail under very heavy load experimentation withh primers falling out, but, I have had 700s with expanded bolt face recesses, broken extractors and frozen pin ejectors, both from over loads (not mine) and rust on packtrain trips. The safety, c'mon, I have used these rifles in conditions from over 100*F to -40*F and never had a problem with a safety. Now, the Remmy trigger has allowed how many accidental discharges, there are how many lawsuits? Why do these various specialty shooters have to replace so many parts on the vaunted 700? The U.S. Army snipers used Mod. 70s in VietNam before they were issued 700s and reported a high level of satisfaction with them, so, it ain't Ford or Chevy---it's Toyota! | |||
|
| one of us |
I ended up with a pre 64 supergrade in a trade, 30-06 cal. It's a shooter for sure, and I like the supergrade stock very much .... that said, I think the Browning safari grade guns are better finished. | |||
|
| <allen day> |
Hunting requirements and benchrest requirements are two different things. The funny thing is (as in, "the rest of the story"), the Model 70 action has been used as the basis of more Wimbleton-winning, 1,000 yard high-power championships than all other rifles combined--a fact that the benchrest cowboys always ignore and conveniently sweep under the rug. From what I see at our rifle club, it's STILL heavily used by over-the-course high-power shooters. I know my old custom riflesmith and national high-power award winner Glen Pearce of Casa Grande, Arizona always used Model 70 actions as the basis of his own rifles, as did Jim Cloward of Seattle, who used one of his own making to actually win the 1,000 yd. Wimbleton in 1976. Benchrest counts but high-power doesn't, I guess! Which discipline is more closely related to hunting, anyway? Here's another thing they leave out: Most of the same benchrest-type accurizing and blueprinting techniques that can be applied to benchrest-type actions such as the Model 700 can be applied to the Model 70 (including a Wolfe firing pin spring, if you wish, to replace the "weak" factory unit), and such blueprinted 70s will shoot groups up there with the best of 'em, and I mean sporter-weight custom hunting rifles that'll keep five shots under a half-inch with premium hunting bullets at 100 yds. Such accuracy with the kind of deep-bush reliability that the Model 70 brings to the table is a very, very tough combo to beat, and it transends paper accuracy for its own sake every time. AD | ||
|
| one of us |
Nothing that I can see. The action is too short, they were typically bedded for shit, as most developed cracked stocks (at least 80% of the ones I have seen, shot, handled) maybe that was just because they were used instead of closet queens of a collector. Inletting was far more variable than today's rifles as is accuracy. The ONE GREAT thing abou the pre-64 is this though, THE TRIGGER! It is the cat's meow and thank all that is righteous and holy, USRAC has retained it!!!! Hey it is like this. When you were young you lived in a crappy little house, but you really do not realize just little and crappy till you visit the same home 30 years later! That is the phenomena of the pre-64 Model 70! It wasn't that great! Hell I think a M1903 Springfield with custom bottom metal is 10 times the rifle. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Since Allen replied to my thoughts, I suppose it is appropriate that I reply to his. Actually, Allen and I agree on quite a few things, but the wording is slightly different. I've found "braggarts" to be more interested in shooting their mouths off than in either hunting or shooting. (they mostly brag about anything at all, just give them a lead), and they'll sacrifice reliability and accuracy for what they assume will be a rifle of more braggability. And quite honestly, a surprising number of braggarts know of no other way to evaluate a rifle than how much it costs. But the funny thing is, I've owned scores of all kinds of rifles for over fifty years, and with few exceptions, enjoyed hunting with most all of them. Very seldom is any work needed on rifles today or from those made back long ago. Mostly it is in the mind of the owner that it "needs" xxxxxxx done to it, to make it just right. Excellent accuracy is always the best for hunting pocket gophers or statistics, and it's sure good enough for any sort of big game hunting anywhere in the world. To attempt to belittle "accuracy" as foolish tells a lot about the person making the statement. I'm amazed at some of the very attractive, extremely well made, low cost rifles guys buy now days for the sake of out-of-the-box accuracy and reliability. The accuracy is wonderful as well as the rugged reliability and overall quality of today's rifles! No need for me to slam on the Termite Food stocked Rustable Blue Steel Pre-64 M70s, because they were indeed fine rifles "of their day"(or should I say of their Allen Day  ). It is just that there are so many better rifles made today.Not slamming on anyone that owns one. If you like them, I'm all for it. Keeps those old rag Pre-64 M70s out of the way in the Gun Shops. So as I said in the beginning, Allen and I agree on quite a few things, but the wording is slightly different. | |||
|
| one of us |
Would you please tell me, and anyone else who is interested, exactly what contemporary rifles you find to be so superior? I have missed this, probably too busy out in the bush, but, I honestly want to know. Thanks. I am glad that you are kind enough not to "slam on" me, may I ask how much of your hunting has been in Alaska, B.C., the Yukon or the N.W.T.? I am curious as to how much real wilderness experience you have actually using a rifle everyday? My experience has certainly led me to far different conclusions than yours has done for you. | |||
|
| one of us |
One of the previous posters said it best, the M70 as it came out in 1936 was the best rifle that Winchester could build - they designed it and THEN set the price. The way Mercedes used to be made until a few years ago. Now both Winchesters and German cars are priced first and then designed and built to that price point. My regular hunting rifle for decades has been a 1941 Super Grade '06 with a Lyman Alaskan in Stith mounts that do not require any extra holes in the rifle. At 9 3/8 lbs. it is really too heavy - the design of the 70 was heavily influenced by Townsend Whelen who was a big strong guy. Most shooters have never seen or handled a pre World War II M70. The fitting and finishing, even on the Standard Grade leave alone the Supers, just about equalled the best you can get today in a $15,000 full blast custom job from someone like Fisher, Miller or Echols. I also have two custom rifles on pre-64 actions. I suppose it is also necessary to say that in addition to all their superlative functional qualities, they exude gallons more glamor than any other production rifle !!! | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: It's almost as good as a M98! | |||
|
| <allen day> |
I'm also lost as to what, of the current list of production rifles, is so all-fired well-made, and better-built than the pre-64 Model 70? Stuff like the Savage 110 and Browning A-Bolt are little more than accurate junk. The Remington 700 isn't nearly as good as the ones made up until the late 1980s, the current Sakos are more complicated (that striker assembly is incredibly over-engineered) and not nearly as well made as the ones produced up until 1972. Any comparison between the old FN Brownings and the current Japanese-built Browning A-Bolt is an ignorant joke, and the equivalent of vulger affrontery to the very concept of fine riflemaking. The only production rifle that I can think of that's actually better-made than it was forty years ago is the current Weatherby Mark V--an excellent rifle for the money, no question about it. Rugers are OK and a good value if you rework the trigger and get lucky and actually latch on to one that'll shoot...... AD | ||
|
| one of us |
I currently have only two pre-64s. Both are pre-war and neither is as issued but they are two of my favorite rifles. One is a target rifle in 30/06. It is an honest sub 1/2 moa rifle. I have fired 1 inch 10 shot groups at 300 meters with it, Claw extractor and all. The other is on it's second barrel in 308 Norma. It's one of the most accurate hunting rifles I've ever had and is absolutely reliable. This one came to me from my Dad and I like to carry it for that reason as much as any other. It's glass bedded because the stock had split. It has a post war bolt because Dad lost the original when he fell off a sheep mountain (The guy he was hunting with still speaks of hearing a yell then seeing his hunting partner fly past him about 10 feet out from the ledge he was on. Dad and the rifle hit on a scree slope some 50 feet or better further down. They slid to a stop about 20 feet from the BIG dropoff! For two weeks after this incident Dad would wake up with a yell every time he went to sleep.) These actions are a bit harder than the new actions which would explain why the lugs don't gall. In truth some of the very late pre-64s were not always all that nice. The actions were rough the stocks homely. The checkering was cut but looked like it had been done with a knife and fork. Nonetheless, it was a long step down when the 1964 model came out. Try as they might, the gunwriters of the day just couldn't put a positive slant on it. Some didn't try very hard! There is a lot of talk about how much better today's barrels are but I've seen little proof of this. Those old barrels were straight and they were chambered straight. Moa accuracy was common as dirt. My target rifle started out as a standard model 30/06. It came with a Redfield receiver sight and with this sight I was able to shoot 1 inch five shot groups with Winchester 180 Silvertips. A classic combo which really worked. Regards, Bill. | |||
|
| one of us |
Quote: Hey kut, Since the thread is on Pre-64s, I find "nearly" any Stainless and Synthetic rifle superior to the old Blue and Wood rifles. This is because I've spent enough time carrying them in the hot and humid Southeastern USA to realize Blue Steel and Termite Food aren't the "best" materials for "my" hunting. And I don't have close-minded loyalty to any one brand in particular. Not here to "slam on you" at all. If you like the M70s, I'm glad for you. I've read enough of your posts to realize you have spent a lot of time afield. And your jobs have placed you there more than most of my jobs have. But if we got to comparing numbers of kills, then I'd get into the "braggart" area I so detest and would make your head count look like a Rookie. I've not killed the same things you have and do enjoy your posts where you talk about a "specific kill". Best of luck with your M70s, you'll need it! (Devil made me do it!) | |||
|
| <JOHAN> |
Quote: I have to agree. Mausers is my own favorite Cheers / JOHAN | ||
|
| one of us |
Hot Core, I'd like to hear you brag. Chuck | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing What is so great about a Pre-64
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |