I have a chance to buy a pre 64 action for a very reasonable sum, while I was doing some research on it I saw one writer suggest that the 64 was inferior in about every way to the current version.
Is he full of it or what? One of his complaints was that the steel is really tuff and they are hard to machine work on?
I would like to build a custom on it but I'm having second thoughts. I always thought the early Winny's were supposed to be good?
Thanx

I like them ALOT. I like that they are made of ALL milled parts. Milled parts do not function any better, but I just like them. They feed cartridges a tiny bit better than newer M70's. They are kind of historic, and they just plain look and feel good.

Only downside is gas passing. If a case head bursts, gas can make it back to the shooter. I would like to see an aftermarket kit for this (I e-mailed Williams...got no response. I will try again). I have some ideas for this.

Winchester Model 70 Pre 64

I considered it the utmost refinement of the Mauser action, and the first choice of many wanting custom rifles.

M 70 Pre 64 Lover
Roland

I have quite a few pre-64 Model 70's in original condition; they feed slicker than any Mauser I have. I rate them (my opinion) as the best ever action made. I can't argue the gas handling situation; they probably do lack a little in that area. But you'll never get a "best grade" Mauser to feed any better or slicker.

quote:

---

One of his complaints was that the steel is really tuff and they are hard to machine work on?

---

Vapodog
Tell us what you really think!
Odd thing is for all these years i've had experience with a bunch of different rifles but for some odd reason very little with Mod 70's and particularly the pre 64.

People can say whatever they want, badmouth anything they set their minds to. That doesn't make it good advice.

My experience can be summed up this way...I have WAY over 100 rifles. When I go to do SERIOUS hunting I almost always take one of my 3 pre-64 Model 70's. Sure, when I'm hunting casually, I-can-shoot-at-'em-every-season-stuff, I like to try other rifles.

But, when the chips are down I take my old reliable pre-64 Model 70's. A couple have gone along on over 45 years of hunts. The other has only been doing that with me for 36 years...it's the "tadpole" of the litter, to mix a metaphor.

Use any decent load and you most likely won't have to worry about escaping gas anyway. (And only a damned fool would shoot ANY rifle without wearing eye protection anyway.)

MY opinion, and I'm stuck with it.

Alberta Canuck

Do most people wear eye protection when they hunt? Not a comment about the pre-64 at all, I've never owned one. Just wondering after reading Alberta Canuck's post. I have no choice in the matter as I can't see without mine

Terry

quote:

---

I saw one writer suggest that the 64 was inferior in about every way to the current version.

---

Some turkey who's being paid to push the current product, no doubt!

I really doubt that the current ones are "superior in every way"!! For instance, we KNOW the current ones are NOT superior to the pre-64's in workmanship! We do know that the pre-64's are certainly not deficient in the way hey perform the tasks we ask of them!!!

Hey WestCoaster, A lot of people seem to have excellent luck with them. I had a good many complete Pre-64 M70s and they never met the level of expectation I had for them.

Your just starting with the action will eliminate some of the problems. The "Gas Handling" is a real issue, but less than it used to be due to vast improvements in the overall quality of cases. But, the potential is still there.

Since it is "used", you really have no idea at all about what kind of pressure(individual and repetative) it has been subjected to. It never really got through to me that some folks relish Overloading their rifles until I had access to the net. Some of the Loads people use push Proof Load levels. From this you get cumulative metal fatigue. I suppose you could have the action and bolt Magnafluxed to see if there are any hairline fizzures. But why bother with so many excellent "new" actions available that you can have first-hand knowledge of what it has been subjected to.

Worst off though is that some Pre-64 M70 actions were made with impurities in the steel and I've yet to find any credable source that Winchester ever recalled any of them. You can see this for yourself in P.O. Ackley's, "Handbook For Shooters & Reloaders", Volume II on page 36. And page 37 described some of the Pre-64 M70s 264WinMags blowing up with factory ammo.

Maybe it would be fine like the ones mentoned by the folks above who really like them. I do wish them well.

THe other problem with the Pre-64s is that there was a reason the post 64came about. The machinery used to make them in the 60s was so bad that the parts had to be shod togther. Making the 60s examples of the pre-64 spotty in the quality department. Something to think about before you take the plunge. Not all pre-64s are what they are hyped up to be.

I love the pre-64 Model 70 action. I love its big, stiff, flat-bottom receiver, fast lock time, high-quality construction and workmanship, safety and trigger system, integral recoil lug and it's classy style. It feeds better than just about any other action that's ever been produced, although a well-done Mauser 98 feeds just about as well, as does the current Model 70 and Dakota. Winchester's chrome-moly steel was the best gunsteel available at the time, and contributed much to the longevity and strength of that action, and the pre-64 was tested with 70,000 psi proof loads before shipping.

Downside: The gas system IS a weak point of the pre-64 action, and the current M70 Classic, Mauser 98, and Dakota are superior on that score. Even so, very, very few people have problems with blown up pre-64 M70s or gas leaks. A sensible rifleman will be quite safe with this rifle. I've owned scores of pre-64 M70s for over 25 years and have shot thousands and thousands of rounds thru them. To this, I've never had a problem with this action.

Some pre-64 Model 70 actions are TOO hard. They weren't heat-treated as uniformly or as well or by the same methodology as the current Classic, and sometimes the receivers are a bit crooked. Savvy gunsmiths will test these actions for proper hardness, and if they're too hard, they anneal them and have them properly hardened by special labs to bring them to proper specs. They'll also blueprint the actions for perfect uniformity. Most problems that are encountered are correctable.

P.O. Ackley was a third-rate riflesmith and the only psuedo "authority" to mention impurities in the pre-64 Model 70's steel that I'm aware of. Many of today's top riflesmiths who regularly use pre-64 actions for custom projects are lightyears ahead of Ackley in terms of rifle know-how, and these guys take a very scientific approach to rifle contruction. They even have destructive molecular tests conducted on actions, have them x-rayed, etc. I have NEVER had one of these guys EVER mention impurities in M70 steel, and they employ some of the very best, modern labs in the country for metalurgical work.

What Iron Buck says is also true: Not all pre-64s were created equal. I have found that those built from 1950 thru 1955 not only have modern features that work best with scopes, but the machining and general quality is also tops. My favorite pre-64s are in the 200,000 thry 300,000 serial number range.

AD

My experience with P-64s comes from the ownership of some 100 big game rifles over more than 40 years, including about three dozen P-64s from .243 to ..375. I have used these rifles in professional outdoors employment in the harshest conditions of B.C. and Alberta, in situations where confrontations with Grizzlies were a frequent occurrence, consequently, reliability was crucial. I have had them caked with mud, frozen in sub-zero temps for days on end and covered with bits of foliage, plastered with rain to the rifle's surface; in all of this, I have NEVER experienced a mechanical failure of any sort.

While I own and use various Mausers, from pristine '30s Oberndorf specimens to the various high quality Brno adaptations, such as the 21-H and ZG-47 as well as FN Deluxe and Supreme rifles; I have not experienced any superiority in these in functional terms, over the P-64s. I also own and use a Dakota 76, a Mannlicher-Schoenauer and a number of other rifles, I do not find any of these superior to the P-64, either.

I completely agree with Allen regarding P.O. Ackley and this is based on first-hand experience with his work. There has yet to be a perfect rifle/action designed/built, but, the old 70 is as good, on balance, as anything else and far superior to almost anything else. Gunsmiths of the ability of Echols, Burgess, Heilman, Waldron, Ottmar, Goudy, Weibe, Simillion and many others would not be inclined to use these actions if they were defective in any way as they would not risk their reputations, built up with years of hard work, by using inferior materials.

I have a .264 as do a number of experienced hunter/shooter/reloaders I know, mine has never given any problems and even with warm loads, performs perfectly. Very simply put, I have the ability to own about any rifle I care to, due to an understanding wife and I have chosen P-64s because they are so damned good, period.

If I have any regrets for the guns that I've built it's that more of them wasn't built on the pre 64 M70 action...it's as good as it gets.

P O Ackley was a man.....not a God.

The only serious criticism of the pre64, IMO, is gas handling and I have always been puzzled that none of the aftermarket parts men like Wisner et al have never offered a bolt sleeve with a gas deflector flange. J.K. Cloward modified a factory sleeve on one of my rifles, in fact, I think there was an American Rifleman short article describing this modification. It is not complicated and ought to be done routinely on any custom pre64.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC1:
Do most people wear eye protection when they hunt? Not a comment about the pre-64 at all, I've never owned one. Just wondering after reading Alberta Canuck's post. I have no choice in the matter as I can't see without mine

Terry

---

Same here!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Deguello:

quote:

---

I saw one writer suggest that the 64 was inferior in about every way to the current version.

---

Some turkey who's being paid to push the current product, no doubt!

I really doubt that the current ones are "superior in every way"!! For instance, we KNOW the current ones are NOT superior to the pre-64's in workmanship! We do know that the pre-64's are certainly not deficient in the way hey perform the tasks we ask of them!!!

---

Pardon me while I beg to differ. My dad's pre-64 Featherweight in .270 (he was and is a BIG Jack O'Connor fan), on which I have beaucoup trigger time, is not anywhere near as well-made as my recent production Model 70 (I'm left-handed, so I don't have any real incentive to own a pre-64). His pre-64, made in 1960 (serial #541XXX), has numerous checkering overruns, many visible grind marks, a half-assed aluminum buttplate whose wood-to-metal fit is equally half-assed, and then there's that goofy "bedding" setup with the screw in the barrel.

Yeah, the pre-64 Model 70 is a great rifle, but it has its shortcomings. That needs to be put into perspective.

You can wax nostalgic about what was that never happened, or you can face reality:

The pre-64 was a great gun, but it was manufactured on worn out machinery that goes back to the Spanish-American War.

The current Model 70 is a more practical gun, manufactured in a modern CNC manufacturing facility to closer tolerances than could have ever been imagined in 1937 (when the Model 70 debuted).

Terry -

Lots of hunters do not wear eye protection when they hunt, Lots of drivers don't wear seat belts, and lots of pilots don't wear parachutes.

It is sometimes rather inconvenient to wear eye protection in the field. It is also notably inconvenient to be blind in one or both eyes.

Anyone shooting a rifle from the shoulder should wear eye protection every time they fire it. Glasses aren't the only solution. Goggles are another. There may be still more. Answer is to look around a bit until the shooter finds something relatively comfortable, then wear it when shooting, ALWAYS.

It's kinda like being in a Texas Cafeteria or a San Diego McDonalds when some lunatic comes in and starts shooting all and sundry...after it happens it is a bit too late to say "Well, I bought protection...I just didn't have it on today."


Some Other Guy

You obviously have some interesting info that I wasn't aware of. (Not disagreeing, just about to ask...) As Winchester started making the Model 54 in 1925, and the Model 70 in December, 1936, what were they making on the same machinery that dates back to 1898? I would have thought the retooling for the Model 54 would have likely started the use of the machinery for that rifle. Guess not, eh?

Again, not trying to be disagreeable, just to learn, so please don't be offended.

Best wishes all,

Alberta Canuck

IN a word: Stainless.

if you like it then the new ones are better. if you dont like it, then other items decide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Some Other Guy

You obviously have some interesting info that I wasn't aware of. (Not disagreeing, just about to ask...) As Winchester started making the Model 54 in 1925, and the Model 70 in December, 1936, what were they making on the same machinery that dates back to 1898? I would have thought the retooling for the Model 54 would have likely started the use of the machinery for that rifle. Guess not, eh?

Again, not trying to be disagreeable, just to learn, so please don't be offended.

Best wishes all,

Alberta Canuck

---

I'm talking about their milling machines, lathes, forging equipment, etc. Many of these machines weren't specific to the Models 54 or 70. By the end of WWII, this stuff was just worn out (BTW, Winchester had trouble producing Garands during WWII in their former manufacturing facility).

quote:

---

Originally posted by WestCoaster:
I have a chance to buy a pre 64 action for a very reasonable sum, while I was doing some research on it I saw one writer suggest that the 64 was inferior in about every way to the current version.

---

The pre-64's looked and felt nice, but they suffer from 2 major flaws compared to current production model 70's with the claw extractor:

1. Poor gas handling in the event of a ruptured case. That means burning powder gases travel straight back into your face.

2. Poor metallurgy. In case of overpressurization, the pre-64's blow up like a hand grenade. In contrast, a military mauser will stretch but not blow.

Let the flaming begin.

There's no question that the Model 70 Classic has some real advantages over the pre-64, but even so, you have to be somewhat selective about the Classic you buy as well.

I still like the magazine system of the pre-64 best if I'm having built a .270 or .30-06, but for everything else, I'll go with the Classic.

AD

If you have put several pre-64's in a lathe, then you will find that they are no more accurate than anything else. THeir machine work can vary a good deal. THat being said, I do like them, but don't have any. I'm sure I will in the furture, but it just ahs not worked out that way so far.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
If you have put several pre-64's in a lathe, then you will find that they are no more accurate than anything else. THeir machine work can vary a good deal.

---

Exactly.

I too, like these actions. Anything that is an off-spring of the 1903 Springfield cannot be bad.

I will attest for the fact that you DON"T want to have any type of a case head accident with one of these rifles, and I speak from experience. That said there will always be a 270 Winchester on one in my gun safe and I wish there was also one in 300 H&H in there.

As others have said, be aware that the gas handling design leaves something to be desired and always wear safety glasses. I myself will also always use at least once fired brass on any hunting excursion. The one round that let loose was a faulty case which was new I am sure and thankfully happened at the range.

Thanx a bunch guys, mmmmmmmmmmm I'll thin on it for a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WestCoaster:
Thanx a bunch guys, mmmmmmmmmmm I'll thin on it for a bit.

---

They were a real good, basically well concieved action. They are also over rated.. as many other Mauser spin-offs of that time were every bit as good in many ways and in some ways some of them were better.

This criticizing of Ackley and comparing him to todays smiths is laughable. Especially considering that many of them were his students. Its no different than any of the rest of us, our kids inevetiably grow to become smarter than we are....get over it!

The man may not have built the finest rifles of his time, but he was responsible for landmark developments when most of "todays fine gunmakers" were still in diapers. Lets give credit where it is due.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Idared:I will attest for the fact that you _DON"T _ want to have any type of a case head accident with one of these rifles, and I speak from experience. That said there will always be a 270 Winchester on one in my gun safe ...

---

Hey Idared, The "logic" of letting the design of your rifle nearly blind you and then remaining a proponent of that same design seems a bit strange to me.

What am I missing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr: This criticizing of Ackley and comparing him to todays smiths is laughable. Especially considering that many of them were his students. ....The man may not have built the finest rifles of his time, but he was responsible for landmark developments when most of "todays fine gunmakers" were still in diapers. ...

---

Hey Wstrnhuntr, Excellent post.

I really thought there was only one person to be such a low-down, scum-of-the-earth, who obviously was so poorly raised as to say bad things(which are basically poor opinions and lies) about dead people - old (doctorate in theology, not Engineering) ken howl. But, from re-reading this thread, I can see two others share his same complete lack of character.

Sitting back and thinking about some of their other "Holy Grail" posts, it really don't surprise me.

A quote from that picture of the blown-up Holy Grail, "Model 70 Winchester showing the receiver ring blown off. Note holes drilled inside the receiver. These were done taking samples of the steel for analysis. Analysis showed an excessive amount of impurities resulting in judgement against the manufacturer."

---

Hey WestCoaster, Good for you.

Hot Core, if you want to throw a shot in my direction, just state it right to my face instead of directing it through a third party. And partner, I'll put my credibility and moral character up against yours any day of the week, so climb off of that wooden high horse of yours, quite trying to play matinee cowboy, and get real.

Your position is naive and completely unrealistic. The present day provides an excellent platform from which to view the past, and if it were so morally wrong to view those who have passed through anything but rose-colored glasses, then history would be unable to realistically take a look a back at any person or event and provide an objective assessment of anything that would benefit those living in the present. You don't have to be all that bright to understand that much.

I'll stand by my opinion of Ackley. I've handled a number of rifles he built, and they were all very amaturishly made compared to others from that era. I also think that he wasted his time designing nonsensical cartridges, and evidently the gun industry has agreed since none of them have been adopted by a major arms company to this day. Quite honestly, Ackley should have spent more of his time hunting. That experience would have taught his more about rifles and cartridges than all of his loading bench experiements put together.........

AD

"Holy Hot Core Grail" strikes again

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:
I'll stand by my opinion of Ackley. I've handled a number of rifles he built, and they were all very amaturishly made compared to others from that era. I also think that he wasted his time designing nonsensical cartridges, and evidently the gun industry has agreed since none of them have been adopted by a major arms company to this day. AD

---

I suppose that you would consider the 308 a nonsensical cartridge. As I recall he had a hand in develpoing it too. Maybe his guns were not pretty, but I dont think he really gave a shit about that. Not only did he serve his country in the ordinance dept, which Im sure gave him experience that few other so called "designers" can even begin to fathom, and in and of itself deserves at least some respect, but the man was a pioneer in the world of custom gunbuilding who benefited others in a huge way.

While all of the others were polishing up their magnum mauser actions as pretty as they possibly could with only one thing in mind, MAKING MONEY $$$$$$, P.O. busied himself doing things like testing millsurp actions for strength and founding what is now the most prominent gunbuilding school in the country.

I stand by my opinion of the man, while his ways may not fit in with todays standards of custom rifle building, he was still a very significant contributor to the field and deserves due respect as such. Im sure that many of those who benefitted from him, although they may differ greatly in opinion, still hold P.O. in high reguard for his achievments and dedication.

Your set of beliefs about P.O. Ackley is entirely your own, as is mine, but specifically, I consider Ackley's so-called "improved" cartridges to be a monumental waste of time.

I also think that many of his conclusions about Mauser actions carried just enough truth to get you into trouble.

AD

Originally posted by Hot Core

quote:

---

Hey Idared, The "logic" of letting the design of your rifle nearly blind you and then remaining a proponent of that same design seems a bit strange to me.

What am I missing?

---

What you are probably missing is that if a person lives long enough and shoots enough an accident can happen. I was unlucky enough that it happened to me but I was also lucky enough that I am not blind. Things like that happen and no one but me was injured. I can live with that. In case you didn't read my entire post I recomended wearing shooting glasses to make yourself more safe. I stand by that no matter what you shoot.

I won't condemn the Model 70 just because of the way they are made any more than I will condemn a Remington 700 for having a trigger that has one more piece than it needs in it. This piece floating around in it could possibly cause a problem or an accident. Just like many people say it is foolish to change the Remington trigger because it works, I guess you could say the model 70 works also. It isn't called the "Rifleman's Rifle" for nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:
Your set of beliefs about P.O. Ackley is entirely your own, as is mine, but specifically, I consider Ackley's so-called "improved" cartridges to be a monumental waste of time.

I also think that many of his conclusions about Mauser actions carried just enough truth to get you into trouble.

AD

---

Well, Im glad you didnt take my reply personal because it wasnt intended to be. Your certianly entitled to your opinion and I expect there is a certian degree of validity to it.

Have a great day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by allen day:I consider Ackley's so-called "improved" cartridges to be a monumental waste of time

---

Interesting that the link, between Mr. Ackley's efforts and great accomplishments along with those of his Wildcatting peers during "their time period", is not obvious to you on cartridges from the past 50-60 years.

I don't seem to remember during your constant "bragging" on the 300WinMag that the design is "a monumental waste of time" when compared to say the 300H&H.

Anyone who has any real knowledge of cartridge history fully understands that every cartridge introduced from the late 1950's includes aspects of Ackley's work. Much less Casewall taper and sharper Shoulders on all cartridges when compared to cartridges pre-Ackley.

---

Comparing "character" between you and me?

Well, once again we have a minority of "experts" who do not base their opinions on personal experience, if they have any REAL wilderness experience, and attempt to denigrate those who do by nit-picking and using partial quotes to support their foolish comments.

Western, generally, I respect you, but, your comments concerning my opinion of P.O. Ackley as a gunsmith, which tend to agree with Allen's are way off base. IF, you make a statement, you should as I did, support it with examples, IMO, and you do not do this. Who among the gunsmiths that I referred to were students of Ackley's, and how does his work exceed that of Echols, Heilman, et al?

The comments about his influence on case design simply are not factually based, the British and Germans were producing cases and cartridges which were both straight and sharp shouldered when Parker was in diapers, the .416 Rigby being one example. Most of the post-WWII cartridge development was a spin-off of work done in those nations and adaptations thereof by American wildcatters, Baden-Powell, E. Keith, C. Hopkins, Gradle, Gibbs, Barnes, Neidner and others; Ackley, while he certainly made a contribution was not the pre-eminent person in this situation.

His loading info., his gunsmithing workmanship and his bullet designs were nothing special and that is why I agreed with AD on this; it was not an attempt to denigrate the dead.....why bother? I found his work to be questionable when I read his books more than twenty years ago and thus think that he was not among the first rank of gunsmiths of his time or the present.

In his era, there were smiths whom I consider to have been far superior as riflemakers, among these, Tom Shellhamer is pre-eminent. I would also rate Dale Goens, Al Biesen, Earl Milliron, Len Brownell and Griffen& Howe as better at this craft than Ackley. Among barrel makers, I would rank Buhmiller as better and Bliss Titus and Bill Sukalle as at least equal. So, based on my experience with the work of these guys, this is why I made my comment.

I mentioned that there were other actions available in the period of time that the P-64 was available and named the ones that I actually own and use. Over-all, I agree, there are/were others as good, but, I would like to know which one(s) you consider better, I have a couple in mind, but, they were not available to the average Yank or Canuck in any real quantity, at the time.

So, my opinion of Ackley has not been altered, his cartridge "improvements" were not unique experiments and they are a p.i.t.a. to form and load while NOT producing any significant benefits to the average hunter/shooter. He was an interesting and controversial guy during his life and did make an undoubted contribution to the whole gun sport, but, many of his conclusions were questionable, try some of his recommended loads, for example.

Hotcore, Allen has more "character", hunting experience, rifle knowledge and general intelligence than you will ever possess. He is not infallible and neither am I, but, he is well worth listening to while you never have anything to offer except sniveling, unfounded criticisms of men who obviously know and do far more than you ever have or will.

Some of the great people in different fields have had the single quality of being able to put the whole act together.

Personally, when it comes to parallel sided cases I think Roy Weatherby is so far in front of Ackely there is no comparison. The reason is obvious because of the result.

A quick trip through these various forums will show a lot of people use Wby rifles, a lot of of people use non Wby rifles but chambered in Wby calibres.

In other words if this was a tennis match Roy Weatherby would have won the American Open and Ackley would be know as some player where it would be said...if only he could do this, or if only he play this shot better etc and etc.

When it comes to actions Roy Weatherby was again far in front of Ackley. Just look at the number of Wby rifles based on Roy Weatherby's action.

Ackley might have had all sorts of wonderful ideas on actions, but where they are those actions. If he was still alive those actions would still be in his mind or some drawings on a piece of paper. The same place where his cartridges would be.

Mike

Since we are now discussing poineering American gunsmith/designers, do not forget Charles Newton. Among many things, he designed the 30 Newton, a cartridge (and concept) just recently re-descovered. Belt-less, sharp shouldered, and minimun taper.

On a related note what do/would you pay for a pre 64 stateside, action or rifle?