I would like to put together an accurate hunting rifle on a pre-64 featherweight action (257 Roberts). Google searched pre-64 model 70 action blueprinting and came across a website called pre64win.com. They charge $499 for their blueprinting service, here’s what they have to say about it:

“This service prepares a rifle action for precision barrel installation by correcting minor variations and imperfections in Winchester's production machine work. The blueprinted action is smother and more precise than is possible using Winchester production tolerances, which can deviate from nominal by several thousandths of an inch. In a blueprinted action, the machined portions of the action which are centerlined on, concentric to, or perpendicular to the bolt bore are all trued to this axial centerline. When the barrel is installed, this ensures the bore and chamber are also properly aligned to the axial centerline of the bolt.

Blueprinting is accomplished by establishing the true centerline of the receiver bolt bore and then truing all other critical surfaces of the action to this centerline. The blueprint process is completed in a lathe with precision tooling and fixtures, and can set the machined tolerances of the receiver and bolt to within +/- 0.0001"

Blueprinting includes the following machine work and services:

Re-cutting and truing of the receiver barrel threads
Re-cutting and truing of the receiver bolt lugs
Re-cutting and truing of the receiver face
Lapping of the bolt lugs to the receiver lugs
Re-cutting and truing of the bolt face
Finish restoration of all surfaces
This service can be added to any action purchase, or can be purchased as a stand-alone item, if you wish to send in your action for blueprinting.”

Does anyone know anything about this outfit, and does this blueprint service seem right and reaonable? I’m not looking for D’Arcy Echols level work, but do want good accuracy. This gun will include a Krieger or Bartlein fast-twist featherweight-ish contour barrel and a Miller-Bansner or Echols Legend stock. I’ve read pre-64 actions were made very well to start with, but I don’t want to leave anything to chance with this build. Any thoughts an/or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Send it to Chad Dixon at Long Rifles Inc. he's in Sturgis. He did a M70 for me a while back. He has videos on his website detailing the entire process.
John

LRI is hard to beat quality and price wise.

At first blush, 499 seems a bit much for what should be four hours work, but when I think about it, maybe not. Bluing alone, with prep, is going to run around 200 bucks, so I reckon 500 for the full meal is not unreasonable. To what extent it will impact the performance of a hunting rifle is hard to say. Depends how bad it was to begin with. Pre-64's can often benefit from a reduction in clearance between the bolt and receiver bridge. The bolts are often not round and a little sloppy in the receiver. The rear of the bolt is deflected upward when the rifle is cocked. I notice, in the description, they mention re-cutting of the "receiver bolt lugs". I take this to mean the locking lug seats (I much prefer it when they get the terminology right). They then say they lap the bolt lugs to match. Unless some action is taken to center the bolt in the receiver bore, this is poor practice. Much better to establish the bolt centerline and machine the lugs perpendicular to that; then deal with alignment in the receiver bridge. Again, the benefits from this sort of remedial work for a hunting rifle are difficult to quantify and depend on how bad it is to start with. Regards, Bill

quote:

At first blush, 499 seems a bit much for what should be four hours work

For good machine work now days seems reasonable.

Heck most auto shops get more then 100 dollars an hour.

Other tradesmen get that or more.

Big waste of money!!!! The pre 64 action is not rigid enough for true bench rest treatment; just put a good barrel on it (Douglas air gauge), bed it correctly, Yes, I have both the K and B barrels; again, not worth the wait and extra $. In fact one of them was not even straight, but that's another story.
Now, some guys have the $ and just want to say they have had such and such done; fine. I don't.
But yes, nowadays, gunsmiths charge 100 an hour. At least.

And if they do not sleeve the bolt, any attempt at making it 'true" to the centerline is hogwash. Be wary of all gunsmith's claims. Remember, there is no standard, test, or certification for them!

Alas, I'm afraid I have to agree with DPCD but not for the reasons he stated. Blueprinting an action, complete with sleeving the bolt, used to be worthwhile when trying to turn A Rem M700 into a benchrest (BR) gun. Now with an abundance of BR quality actions readily available, it makes little sense to buy an M700 and have it blue printed. Then, there is the M70. It is a hunting rifle--not a target action--no one wins BR matches these days with a M70. Most M70s are capable of excellent hunting accuracy just as they we're made. Another consideration is barrel weight. A FWT barrel is not a target barrel and, regardless of maker, will never shoot like a heavy target barrel. Also, hunting bullets are not target bullets. At reasonable hunting ranges, a stock M70 action, FWT barrel of good quality shooting hunting ammo is perfectly satisfactory, but it never will shoot like a BR rifle no matter what's been done to it.

I would first assess reasonable requirements. If you want a hunting rifle, the M70, or dare I even say it, a Mauser M98, is more than satisfactory. If you want to head shoot elk at 1000 yards--something the gun press seems to promote--you'll need a 20+ pound cannon and have to carry a shooting table to shoot it from.

Lastly, I do not disparage the quest for accuracy. Accuracy is good and builds confidence, but accuracy expectations must be match with the choice of components and the size and weight of a rifle. I would wager that under field conditions, i.e., shooting prone over a backpack versus shooting on a concrete bench, and shooting in the wind you'd be hard pressed to tell much difference between your M70 and a precision rifle weighing 2 or 3 times as much. Bottom line: if you want a FWT hunting rifle, go with your M70; if you want a long range sniper rig, invest in a BR action, heavy barrel, and big optics.

Alas! RA agreed with me for the first time in 52 years! That alone is reason to celebrate. Of course, he is right.

past "squaring" the face, it's a waste of time and money to try and make them a benchrest gun. Now, don't get me wrong, a pre-64 can shoot very well .. but each one was a thing unto itself, "hand" made, and not nearly up to the inherent quality of a current FN m70 - which I would recommend - you can buy a brand new m70 fwt in 308 or 25-06 for like $1400, and it WILL outshoot and out feed a pre-64 frankenrifle

and if it has to be a bob, rebarrel that, it will be a better result

Thanks to all for your comments and recommendations! Much appreciated.

The two most accurate rifles I’ve ever owned (and shot) were old wood stocked Rem 700 ADL sporters in 308 and 222 (both had bedded actions and floated barrels). A friends Wal-mart special 90’s era Tupperware ADL ‘06 shot almost as well, and all three could Consistently shoot under half MOA with good loads. That’s where my expectations lye- around 1/2 MOA, not bench rest accuracy under 1/4 MOA. I can kill deer out to 300 yards (which is about as far as I care to shoot big game and Coyotes) with a 1.5 MOA rifle, and I could get along quite nicely with any of the current crop of cheap Tupperware sporters in 243 or 6.5CM, and likely enjoy the accuracy I’m looking for. However, I’ve long admired the model 70 and the 257 Roberts and “want what I want” so to speak. Quarterbores leave a lot of metal on a featherweight barrel compared to a 270 or ‘06. When I really think about it, I would most like to put my first shot where I aim. Where the second or third or fifth shot goes isn’t nearly as important.

quote:

Originally posted by ColoradoMatt:
Thanks to all for your comments and recommendations! Much appreciated.

The two most accurate rifles I’ve ever owned (and shot) were old wood stocked Rem 700 ADL sporters in 308 and 222 (both had bedded actions and floated barrels). A friends Wal-mart special 90’s era Tupperware ADL ‘06 shot almost as well, and all three could Consistently shoot under half MOA with good loads. That’s where my expectations lye- around 1/2 MOA, not bench rest accuracy under 1/4 MOA. I can kill deer out to 300 yards (which is about as far as I care to shoot big game and Coyotes) with a 1.5 MOA rifle, and I could get along quite nicely with any of the current crop of cheap Tupperware sporters in 243 or 6.5CM, and likely enjoy the accuracy I’m looking for. However, I’ve long admired the model 70 and the 257 Roberts and “want what I want” so to speak. Quarterbores leave a lot of metal on a featherweight barrel compared to a 270 or ‘06. When I really think about it, I would most like to put my first shot where I aim. Where the second or third or fifth shot goes isn’t nearly as important.

Here's food for thought. Nobody misses game in the field because their rifle and cartridge/load combo is lacking precision... even all the way out to 500 - 600 meters...



I know nothing of Pre64win.com other that their website. I have seen some of LRI's work in person and they seem to be competent at what they do.

The thing that get missed when blueprinting M70's is the bottom of the action especially the back face of the recoil lug and the bottom flat perpendicular to it (this can't be done in a lathe). Read this blog post by D'Arcy and pay attention to the first photo in it.

Converting a Pre-64 Model 70 action... Part 1

The problem rears its head when you bed the action tight and pull it out of the stock. Been there, done that and conspicuously cracked a stock through the recoil lug mortice. Very few shops outside of Echols do this or even know to true these surfaces.

I've spoken with LRI and they do machine these surfaces true and perpendicular on M70 actions as well as machining the entire bottom of the receiver flat. though be aware they machine the barrel tendon threads to 18tpi which is unique to their shop.

The other oft overlooked detail with M70's is the fit of the bolt sleeve to the bolt body. On M70's this fit directly influences the quality (consistency) of the trigger break. Most are just ok, I've inspected a few that have a rattle fit between the two parts, and have a few that fit quite snug (Ideal). Always inspect this before buying a M70.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
And if they do not sleeve the bolt, any attempt at making it 'true" to the centerline is hogwash. Be wary of all gunsmith's claims. Remember, there is no standard, test, or certification for them!

I do believe, when I make a bolt true to the centerline, regardless of what bolt it might be, it is exactly that.
Nonetheless, I do agree that a Model 70 is a poor choice for a Match Rifle nowadays; there are many better choices and probably always have been.
Still.... Many years ago, I decided to go to a Hunter Class BR match. I didn't have a hunter rifle so I put one together on a trued Model 70. I barreled it in 308 and bedded it into a wood stock with flat forend. I got the trigger down to 12 ounces and went to the match. I didn't shoot a 250, but I did shoot a 246 and two 50-5x targets. So it didn't suck. (It would have sucked even less except I made one three point blunder).
Sometime after that, when I started shooting "F" class, I shot a rifle I built on another trued Model 70. Maybe not the ideal but I won a surprising number of matches, against all sorts of rifles built on custom actions. So, the Model 70's can perform quite well, but even I don't claim they are a good choice for the best in accuracy.
In general, I would confine work to what was demonstrably necessary. If the threads are grossly misaligned, I would recut them. If there are cosmetic flaws, I would fix them. I always make sure the bedding surfaces are parallel and truly flat.
Today, I don't shoot "F" class or BR anymore. I do shoot metallic silhouette and both of my centerfire rifles are built on Model 70s. Shooting offhand, I'm bad enough they could as well be built on Italian Carcanos, mind you! Regards, Bill.

Saying that you can get an action and all it's associated surfaces to within .0001 tolerance is BS by itself. There's nobody in a gunshop going to hold those kind of tolerances. I agree that you can just face the front of the action and install a good barrel and you're set to go.

I noticed that .0001" claim. I was going to mention that claim; then I noticed they said "can", not "will". I suppose, if the stars are aligned, they could end up with tolerances to within .0001" Note, they did not say tolerances of .0001"
I agree that shops don't work that close, and most can't even measure that close. Regards, Bill.

Most cannot even measure to a tenth!

Would it not make some sense to, before doing all this 'blueprinting' work, actually do some measurements to see just how out of round, non-concentric, etc. things actually are? And has anyone ever taken a 'perfect' BR action and intentionally, one at a time, misaligned the lug seats, the receiver face, etc. to see what effect any of this has? Just wondering.
C.G.B.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
Most cannot even measure to a tenth!

Jim, I did some testing once, when I was working at the college, to demonstrate how much relatively small variations in temperature could affect measurements. I set my micrometer on a 1 inch standard. I then set the mike on the bench (it was about 65 degrees in the shop) and cupped the standard in my hands for a minute. As I recall, this was good for a couple tenths, at least.
One time, a fellow machinist in our shop turned out a shaft for some piece of drilling equipment. This shaft had four bearing locations on it and the tolerances were quite close (+/- .0006 or so). He didn't cool the shaft down while measuring these and ended up with bearing seats which were nearly .002 undersized. Wasted a 3ft.x 4 in. piece of 4140. Regards, Bill

This thread is a real breath of fresh air about blue printing. About time!

Back in my youth I was a inspector at Norther Pump in Mpls. Mn. We made 5 inch guns & missile Launchers for the Navy. I inspected parts that came of a boring mill that could swing 22 feet. If I reminder right I would figure steel would change 6 millionths of a inch per degree per inch of the diameter. We had a electric thermometer & figure back to 68 degrees.

Bill,

DPCD did put in the qualifier "if it hasn't been sleeved". I think he just meant that lapping the lug seats isn't truing the centerline. Hopefully I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I'm assuming you're indicating you've trued centerline of bolt and action in ways other than sleeving the bolt? I've heard of old Mauser smiths running three pins at 120 DEG through the rear receiver bridge to true the bolt, using Borden Bumps, and reaming the raceway and using an oversized bolt. Is there any other way to remove the slop from the bolt and rear bridge to keep the spring pressure from canting the bolt in the receiver? And do you think any/all those methods work? Thanks, Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
And if they do not sleeve the bolt, any attempt at making it 'true" to the centerline is hogwash. Be wary of all gunsmith's claims. Remember, there is no standard, test, or certification for them!

I do believe, when I make a bolt true to the centerline, regardless of what bolt it might be, it is exactly that.

Locating pins through the receiver, front and rear? More nonsense.
Matt is building a hunting rifle. All the talk about truing etc is just wasting time and money. DR said it above and it has been said before; there are no .5 MOA rifles in the field.

DPCD,

No, I wouldn't necessarily pay to have it done if I were Matt either. Just wanted to know if anybody's done it.

Wouldn't sleeve the bolt or put in an oversize bolt or Borden bumps.

Truing the front of the receiver, maybe yes.

I've heard good things about LRI as well. If you did want to have somebody true up the action "just because", I don't think that'd be a terrible place to send it.

Can't add anything about the firm's blueprinting, but Pre64Win sent me my 264 Win mag earlier this month, and their work is excellent. I bought the rifle with rough file marks on the receiver (covered up with a one-piece sight base), a failed polish job on the bolt and junk barrel and stock. Pre64 installed a take-off Featherweight barrel and sights, replaced the damaged trigger finger piece, engine turned the bolt and repaired the receiver perfectly. The blue job is faultless and (to my eye) as original. Their work was timely and price was as agreed. I hope my work on the walnut stock comes at least close to the quality of theirs.

I had Greg Tannel true a short-action G-series for a rifle that I haven't gotten around to finishing. I don't believe that Greg is currently taking on new work.

Was it necessary? Maybe, maybe not. The donor rifle shot groups like a shotgun so having the action blueprinted eliminated a few potential causes.

All in all, if I'm going to go to the trouble building a custom rifle, I'm not going to worry about saving a couple of hundred dollars. If "good enough" was the standard I was going for, I'd go buy a Walmart rifle and get on with my life. "Custom" and "common sense" don't belong in the same conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodhits:
I had Greg Tannel true a short-action G-series for a rifle that I haven't gotten around to finishing. I don't believe that Greg is currently taking on new work.

Was it necessary? Maybe, maybe not. The donor rifle shot groups like a shotgun so having the action blueprinted eliminated a few potential causes.

All in all, if I'm going to go to the trouble building a custom rifle, I'm not going to worry about saving a couple of hundred dollars. If "good enough" was the standard I was going for, I'd go buy a Walmart rifle and get on with my life. "Custom" and "common sense" don't belong in the same conversation.

Greg is overwhelmed for as far as the eye can see. My hunting buddy has a Sako 22-250, and a Kimber 84M both barreled and bedded by Greg. They are both incredibleley accurate!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
Most cannot even measure to a tenth!

Jim,
my inletting isn't the question here! .. that is, i am assuming you mean .1 not .0001

When a machinist uses the term, tenth, he means a tenth of a thousandth of an inch.
When a gunsmith uses the term, tenth, you have no idea what he means.
When a carpenter uses the term, tenth, he means a tenth of an inch.
It is all relative the to the base line unit of measure.
Me, not falling into any of the above categories, I never use the term at all. Makes it simple.
Or just write it down; .0001.
Another comment; if you have a rifle that shoots groups the size of a basketball, no amount of "blueprinting" will help.
And another; true, custom and common sense are mutually exclusive terms.
And another; the pre 64 Model 70 was and is, not a precision piece of hardware to start with. They used lead hammers to straighten the receivers after heat treatment. They were just average quality Industrial Age products. Even cheap rifles now will outperform them. But some worship them.They are just hunting rifles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skl1:
Bill,

DPCD did put in the qualifier "if it hasn't been sleeved". I think he just meant that lapping the lug seats isn't truing the centerline. Hopefully I'm not putting words in your mouth, but I'm assuming you're indicating you've trued centerline of bolt and action in ways other than sleeving the bolt? I've heard of old Mauser smiths running three pins at 120 DEG through the rear receiver bridge to true the bolt, using Borden Bumps, and reaming the raceway and using an oversized bolt. Is there any other way to remove the slop from the bolt and rear bridge to keep the spring pressure from canting the bolt in the receiver? And do you think any/all those methods work? Thanks, Steve

I use dovetailed inserts to center the rear of the bolt in the receiver bridge. Can a Model 70 perform like a fine custom action? Maybe not, but I enjoy trying. I've actually won with them, against a whole bunch of more modern custom actions. Regards, Bill

I'll go back to the OPs comment of an "accurate hunting rifle". With minimal load development effort (assuming you know what you are doing), I have been able get at least a 1/2 dozen factory rifles in the last 10 years to shoot sub .9 moa at worst and most sub .75 and another ~4 rifles re-barreled with douglas barrels to shoot anywhere from .3 to .6 moa.

Just looking at the "worst of the factory rifles" the difference between .9 and .25 moa is .65 moa. That is a difference of expected diversion from point of aim at 500 yards of 1.7" on a 10" target.

That is a long winded validation of of David Reed's comment.

If you want an accurate hunting rifle in a Pre-64 model 70, I would invest no more than getting a decent trigger, a douglas barrel, and a bedding job.

Spend the rest of your efforts and dollars on a top quality, load development, practice, and your hunting expeditions.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
When a machinist uses the term, tenth, he means a tenth of a thousandth of an inch.
When a gunsmith uses the term, tenth, you have no idea what he means.
When a carpenter uses the term, tenth, he means a tenth of an inch.
It is all relative the to the base line unit of measure.
Me, not falling into any of the above categories, I never use the term at all. Makes it simple.
Or just write it down; .0001.
Another comment; if you have a rifle that shoots groups the size of a basketball, no amount of "blueprinting" will help.
And another; true, custom and common sense are mutually exclusive terms.
And another; the pre 64 Model 70 was and is, not a precision piece of hardware to start with. They used lead hammers to straighten the receivers after heat treatment. They were just average quality Industrial Age products. Even cheap rifles now will outperform them. But some worship them.They are just hunting rifles.

it was a joke, Tom ..

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Kobe:
Most cannot even measure to a tenth!

Jim,
my inletting isn't the question here! .. that is, i am assuming you mean .1 not .0001

When I was a full time machinist, a "tenth" meant a "tenth of a thousanth

Jeff; yes, so was my comment about it. And to make sure people knew what the terms mean to different disciplines.
As in, for a race car driver, a tenth is a tenth of a second. To a reloader it is a tenth of a grain.
It all depends on context.
And again, if a gunsmith uses the term, you never know what he is talking about. I don't know of any of them who can measure to a tenth. (Not that it will be helpful in any way.)
Ok, one.

Posting for D'Arcy - don't shoot the messenger.. ;-)

____________________________________________________

I’m again asking Baxter to post these pics for me as I’m too dense to learn the process.

The subject matter and comments in this thread is interesting to say the least. To blueprint or not to blueprint, to gimbal indicate the bore or just use a steady rest or use just the 3 jaw, solid pilot reamers or removable pilots, bedding pad the fore-end of float the barrel. Pillar bed the recoil pad or just change the magazine spring ????

Much of this work is akin too investing. It requires some attention to detail, some risk, some luck and patience over the long haul. Compound interest and striving for accuracy are similar disciplines.

I have hundreds of similar targets shot by myself, my team and my clients. Nothing comes free.

LX-1 blueprinted by design at the factory, 375 H&H 100 yards



Click for Pic




Another 375 H&H crummy old B-printed 70

Click for Pic



375 H&H CorBon action B-printed by design

Click for Pic



Same CorBon

Click for Pic



Same Damn 375 Corbon

Click for Pic



4I6 Rem Barreled for me by Gene Simillion, B-printed Burgess 3UE, Haven’t a clue why Gene charged me an extra $250, damn it !!!!!!!!!

Click for Pic



Crummy old B-printed M-70 300 Win 1/2” dot

Click for Pic



300 H&H

Click for Pic



Crummy Old M-70, had to adjust this one with a lead hammer after It was blueprinted, 3/4” dot

Click for Pic



Again a crummy old B-printed M-70. The white square is 1” this is a cluster of two, 3 shots groups shot at 100 yards with a 3X Leupold. The FMJ group is the higher of the 2 groups

Click for Pic



LX-1 375 H&H B-printed during birth. Three 3 shot groups fired with one each 300 GR TSX, one 300 gr Flat Nose Barnes and one Woodleigh 300 gr Hydro into EACH group at 100. Scope correction made after the 1st group on the left was shot

Click for Pic



One each of these into each three shot groups above



375 Ruger chambered on a crummy old Pre-64 M-70, hardly worth the effort, anyone seen my lead Hammer ?????

Click for Pic



300 Wtby. Badly designed but B-printed Mod-70, 200 yards 1 “’square

Click for Pic



Defiance Action, 1/2” Dot

Click for Pic



Same rifle and load at 200 yards

Click for Pic



Same rifle 200 yards

Click for Pic



Junk B-printed 7mm Rem Mag again made on a 70, hardly worth the effort really

Click for Pic



B-printed Hartmann and Weiss Magnum 98 action and boy did this receiver need it. I then chambered it for 505 Gibbs, this is one of many similar groups shot during load development, not at 100 yards but 50 yards with iron sights and a bullet I designed with Barnes

Click for Pic



Seems to have worked

Click for Pic



I also helps immensely if you can shoot

Load development goes hand in hand when striving for a 1/2” hunting rifle built on out dated mass produced decoy weights

Mod-70 again, ready for the trash heap

Click for Pic

Thanks for proving my point that pre 64 Model 70s are sloppy and imprecise pieces of hardware until rebarreled and blueprinted.
However, all the ones I have had would still kill any game at which they are pointed. I did have a 220 Swift once that shot 4 inch groups but the throat was burned out.
Again, all this is irrelevant under hunting conditions; read the thread. All these groups were fired from a bench rest under perfect range conditions. No one is saying good groups are not possible with a Model 70; usually with a new barrel and bedding work. The question is, is it worth it, and to some, it is. I do know lots of people who just take factory rifles (gasp) into the field and kill stuff all the time.
There is room in this sport (and it is, just a diversionary recreational sport), for everything from HIGH end DW rifles, down to $400 Wal Mart ones.
How much does your scope reticle subtend at 400 yards? Think about it.
And can't post on AR? Was he banned?

I mentioned in my original thread, that I wasn’t looking for D’Arcy Echols level work, but Darcy Echols level work surely is second to none! I’ve sat and listened appreciatively of everyone’s comments, and respect everyone’s opinion, but I’ve been following D’Arcy’s blog and posts on AR for years, and figured (hoped) he would chime in. Boy, did he ever. Thanks D’Arcy!

Have owned many factory pre ‘64s and later Classics, all were acceptably accurate for most hunting purposes BUT none would shoot the kind of groups shown here on more than a rare occasion. The work that Darcy, Gene and Mark Penrod do to a 70 is unquestionably worth it IMO. Having rifles built by all of them over the past 20 plus years has without a doubt added immensely to my hunting and shooting endeavors. For many of us, good enough isn’t really good enough!

Just have to add another fact about pre 64 Wins that makes some owners angry, besides the receiver warpage; those were never made from forgings like many owners think.
They were made from bar stock, and fully heat treated (the reason for the warpage).
Only the post 64 ones are forged, and selectively heat treated.

And some of the post 64 actions are super crooked as well, or flawed in some other way. In fact, the very worst Model 70 I ever worked on was a post-64 left hander.
I'm making some you tube videos lately; showing techniques which can be used by a tired old man with tired, cheap, old equipment to produce reasonably OK work. (Will Henry's Workshop) I'll think about doing one on how I do a pre-64 Model 70. Problem is, I'll have to buy another old Winchester to do it. This isn't as easy as it sounds. For some reason, people don't seem all that anxious to get rid of these old anchors. Add to that the fact that I have to stretch that gun buying dollar, and you can see the problem. Regards, Bill.

Keep in mind that the pre-64 70 ruled the range in Highpower across the course match rifle competition as well as Palma competition pretty much up till 2000 when David Tubb introduced his T2K rifle. While scores today are higher than they were in the 80-90's, the improvements are primarily due to dropping of the .30 caliber rule, improvements in bullets, and a change in the rules to allow scopes. While the model 70 might be a little more time consuming to work over than a piece of pipe like a 700, they have other advantages that endeared them to the competitive highpower shooter.

John