Mod 70 308


PDA






USMC8541
December 31, 2011, 05:54 PM
I was perusing the local gun store and asked to see a 1976 Winchester Mod 70 in 308. I really like the looks of the rile. How was the quality of the Winchester model 70 in 1976? How does this rifle stack up to a Pre 64> Price is 400.00

If you enjoyed reading about "Mod 70 308" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MMCSRET
December 31, 2011, 06:19 PM
I have M70 from 1973, bought it new, shot out the throat and had it rebarreled to 338-06 in '93, Got a 1977 FWT 308 that is a beautiful rifle and fine shooter. I would not and have not hesitated on '70's vintage Model 70's. Have had several but currently only the two, all were good rifles.

joed
December 31, 2011, 07:31 PM
Nothing wrong with any post model 70 I've ever owned or shot. The only thing I can say is any of them from 70 to 95 that have a wooden stock benefit from having the barrel free floated.

I'd buy that rifle in a heartbeat. It's not in OH is it?

USMC8541
December 31, 2011, 07:43 PM
Not in Ohio, I think I will try and get it after the holidays. The wood looks nice, after looking the rifle over, I think it compares well with anything made today. Of course I will expect to get at least a 2" 3 shot 100 yard group at the range

AABEN
December 31, 2011, 09:36 PM
Jump on it that is a good gun.

USMC8541
December 31, 2011, 10:10 PM
Yea, I will probably sell about 12 rifles and just keep this one. I will list them here to give all first crack.

sgtstryker
December 31, 2011, 11:07 PM
Hey Marine..that wasn't a Winchester you were plying your trade as an 8541..mine was a fine M40A1 out of Q town armory, back in 82-83...The Winchester is still a fine rifle and good deal.

USMC8541
December 31, 2011, 11:31 PM
It's true the first bolt action I fired was an M40A1 in 1982 ,My previous experience was with a Remington nylon 66 a 22 I sorely miss. Biggest thing I ever killed before the Marine Corps was a Jack rabbit. If I remember correctly it had a McMillan stock, hart barrel and new Unertl scope. Nothing wrong with that rifle, although we did wear the firing pins out pretty quickly. Love the 308 and right now I don't have one.

788Ham
December 31, 2011, 11:57 PM
sgtstryker, USMC8541,

Thanks for your service! I was a swabby back in 67 - 71, hauling Marines around in Riverine boats off the coast of Nam, on the USS Gunston Hall LSD - 5. Welcome home!

sgtstryker
January 1, 2012, 03:56 PM
Aargh, matey, same to you..I have fond memories of being on the Newport LST, Austin LPD and the Nassau LHA. It was more fun being the passenger, believe me..

jmr40
January 1, 2012, 04:16 PM
Winchesters from the 70's were spotty. Some were as good as any, some could be rather poor. $400 is probably more than I'd pay unless I knew the rifles history. Winchester was bought out by a group of investors who made a big push to improve quality starting in 1980. The rifles made from 1980 on up to around 2000 were some of the best Winchesters, and some of the most under-rated and under-valued. I often see very good rifles from the 80's and 90's priced between $200-$300.

By around 2005 or so quality started to slide again and guns made between 2000 and 2006 are also questionable. The new rifles made since 2008 when FN took over production are better built than any Winchesters, from any era.

I'm not sure excatly when Winchester started offering both short action and long action rifles. This may be a 308 built on a long acton, which would also make it less desireable. If it is a short action, I'd be more likely to buy it.

sgtstryker
January 1, 2012, 04:26 PM
That's good information on Winchester. Thanks.. That is a topic I am ignorant of. I do have a couple lever actions that shoot well.

USMC8541
January 1, 2012, 07:37 PM
What would indicate upon inspection of a poor example, short of firing the weapon?

sgtstryker
January 1, 2012, 08:08 PM
Well, USMC8541, have you ever seen a .308 in a long action? Don't think I have. Should be easy to spot, tho.. Also, if I'm remembering correctly, the M40A1 has a modified Winchester trigger group. It was sweet.

joed
January 1, 2012, 09:02 PM
I think I need to move nearer to jmr40! I haven't seen a model 70 at those prices since the late 80's.

I owned a nice one from the late 70's that I still regret selling. Beautiful rifle but a 7mm RM and I preferred the .300 Mag I had better.

Another (and my best model 70) is a Stealth produced in 2005. Bought it days after it was announced they were closing the factory.

You just have to look at what you're buying. If something seems wrong then pass. All my rifles are Remington or Winchester. You could get a lemon in Remington too. The gunsmith that builds rifles for me tells me it's the same with all makes, there are good and bad produced every day.

HamiltonSD
January 1, 2012, 10:32 PM
I have a 1975 Model 70 in 30.06 and it is my favorite rifle ever. The closest thing I've had to a match rifle for accuracy. They just feel right: very balanced, and a very sweet bolt action. Mine loves 180 gr. Remington Core-Lokt SP Ammo.

In good condition $400 is good price.

jmr40
January 1, 2012, 11:47 PM
Well, USMC8541, have you ever seen a .308 in a long action? Don't think I have.

Winchester offered only long action rifles for a very long time. Shorter cartridges such as the 308 used a spacer block in the magazine. I'm not sure when they offered a true short action. I think it was sometime during the 70's.

Tikka currently only offers their guns in a long action, including the 308.

The Army sniper rifle for decades has been a 308, but specifically built on long action Remington 700 actions. This was done for 2 primary reasons. The heavier bullets could be seated farther out allowing more room for powder. These rounds would not fit in a short action magazine. This also allowed them the option to simply re-barrel the same action and change bolt faces to upgrade to 300 Win mag. Which is exactly what they are doing. The army is phasing out the 308 in favor of the 300 mag and simply rebarreling the guns they have.

I think I need to move nearer to jmr40! I haven't seen a model 70 at those prices since the late 80's.



The Stevens 200, Weatherby Vanguard and Marlin XL-7 have killed used gun prices. The gun and pawn shops are filled with good old guns that cannot be sold. 99% of the guys coming in look at a 40 year old used rifle at $400 and a brand new Marlin, Vanguard or Stevens for $250-$350 and will pick the new gun every time. In order to sell the old guns the prices have to be equal to or less than what these guns are selling for. I can't say that I blame them. Many of these old guns are just fine, many are not. Why take that chance when they can buy a brand new gun, made with modern CNC machining for $300 that is literally guarantee to shoot 1" groups.

The new FN produced Winchesters have also hurt all old Winchester prices. Lots of guys think they can get $400-$500 for an old 1970's Winchester. And some guys are still paying those prices. That gun may have a lot of sentimental value to someone, but it would be foolish to spend that much when they can get brand new Winchester for $650-$700. The new Winchesters are far better than anything ever offered by Winchester.

USMC8541
January 2, 2012, 12:17 PM
After going through my gun safe I have decided to just be happy with a smith & wesson mod A mauser I have.

sgtstryker
January 2, 2012, 05:51 PM
I continue to learn much here. Never had a long action .308 in my hands. I do remember when the Army changed to the M24 back in the 80's, it was quite a load with all the accessories and hard case. It has served them well. Never thought much about the action, til now. Thanks, I am sincerely red faced. Not sure if those Army guys can take the pounding from the .300 WM tho..? just kidding.

joed
January 2, 2012, 06:00 PM
Winchester offered only long action rifles for a very long time. Shorter cartridges such as the 308 used a spacer block in the magazine. I'm not sure when they offered a true short action. I think it was sometime during the 70's.

Tikka currently only offers their guns in a long action, including the 308.

The Army sniper rifle for decades has been a 308, but specifically built on long action Remington 700 actions. This was done for 2 primary reasons. The heavier bullets could be seated farther out allowing more room for powder. These rounds would not fit in a short action magazine. This also allowed them the option to simply re-barrel the same action and change bolt faces to upgrade to 300 Win mag. Which is exactly what they are doing. The army is phasing out the 308 in favor of the 300 mag and simply rebarreling the guns they have.



The Stevens 200, Weatherby Vanguard and Marlin XL-7 have killed used gun prices. The gun and pawn shops are filled with good old guns that cannot be sold. 99% of the guys coming in look at a 40 year old used rifle at $400 and a brand new Marlin, Vanguard or Stevens for $250-$350 and will pick the new gun every time. In order to sell the old guns the prices have to be equal to or less than what these guns are selling for. I can't say that I blame them. Many of these old guns are just fine, many are not. Why take that chance when they can buy a brand new gun, made with modern CNC machining for $300 that is literally guarantee to shoot 1" groups.

The new FN produced Winchesters have also hurt all old Winchester prices. Lots of guys think they can get $400-$500 for an old 1970's Winchester. And some guys are still paying those prices. That gun may have a lot of sentimental value to someone, but it would be foolish to spend that much when they can get brand new Winchester for $650-$700. The new Winchesters are far better than anything ever offered by Winchester.
You may have a point about the new cheaper guns dragging the prices down. I'd have a hard time throwing $400 down for an old model 70 that may need a new barrel vs a newer rifle. I may have to start looking for another model 70.

I've had a hard time with some of the prices the pre 64 model 70's are going for. Those guns are awfully old and probably have been shot to death. Then I think about the better steel on the newer ones and I wonder why people buy the older ones.

Interesting about the long action used in the Service. My friend was a sniper and had a .308. I thought it was just me but I remember it being on a long action.

Some people do not like a long action. I could care less as I look at it in the same way, there's lots of room for longer bullets. Some cartridges like the .257 Roberts are actually handicapped with a short action.

joed
January 2, 2012, 06:12 PM
Prices on older rifles also makes me wonder. I have a Remington 700 BDL VS that I bought new in 1978. I still remember paying $235 for it out the door. A few years ago I had a hard decision as it finally needed a new barrel. I rebarreled it with a Krieger and think I got away cheaper then a new rifle.

USMC8541
January 2, 2012, 06:43 PM
In USMC Sniper school we had two 82 Airborne troops that went through our training, they had M14 with leatherwood scopes. They could keep up until after 600yards.

thomis
January 13, 2012, 11:36 AM
Does the standard Model 70 featherweight stock come standard with raised cheek piece? i wonder if I could order one without the raised cheek piece on the stock..

Fullboar1
January 13, 2012, 12:54 PM
The Army sniper rifle for decades has been a 308, but specifically built on long action Remington 700 actions. This was done for 2 primary reasons. The heavier bullets could be seated farther out allowing more room for powder. These rounds would not fit in a short action magazine. This also allowed them the option to simply re-barrel the same action and change bolt faces to upgrade to 300 Win mag. Which is exactly what they are doing. The army is phasing out the 308 in favor of the 300 mag and simply rebarreling the guns they have.


I think you will actually find the reason the M24 (Rem 700 action) Sniper Rifles were built on long actions was because they were originally going to be chambered in 30-06 and who ever used those sniper rifles in the armed forces used standard case lots of 7.62 (308) Match Grade ammo (they dont load a special ammo with the bullets seated out farther just for snipers) or standard case lots of 7.62 ammo that others would use in other rifles like the M14.

USSR
January 13, 2012, 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmr40
The Army sniper rifle for decades has been a 308, but specifically built on long action Remington 700 actions. This was done for 2 primary reasons. The heavier bullets could be seated farther out allowing more room for powder. These rounds would not fit in a short action magazine. This also allowed them the option to simply re-barrel the same action and change bolt faces to upgrade to 300 Win mag. Which is exactly what they are doing. The army is phasing out the 308 in favor of the 300 mag and simply rebarreling the guns they have.

I think you will actually find the reason the M24 (Rem 700 action) Sniper Rifles were built on long actions was because they were originally going to be chambered in 30-06 and who ever used those sniper rifles in the armed forces used standard case lots of 7.62 (308) Match Grade ammo (they dont load a special ammo with the bullets seated out farther just for snipers) or standard case lots of 7.62 ammo that others would use in other rifles like the M14.

No, the .30-06 was never a consideration. The reason was that some in our armed forces wanted a .300 Win Mag instead of the standard service .308 round. The bean counters at that time refused to have more than one rifle firing anything other than the current service rifle round, but left the door open to rebarreling to the larger round at a later date by using the long action.

Don

Fullboar1
January 13, 2012, 01:58 PM
No, the .30-06 was never a consideration. The reason was that some in our armed forces wanted a .300 Win Mag instead of the standard service .308 round. The bean counters at that time refused to have more than one rifle firing anything other than the current service rifle round, but left the door open to rebarreling to the larger round at a later date by using the long action.

Don

Maybe you should rewrite Wiki, Sniper Central and a number of other websites content.

http://www.snipercentral.com/m24.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System

Quote:
"The rifle had a very quick development cycle as the US Army had decided it wanted to get snipers back into the US Army and was in the process of developing the B4 identifier and the school to award it. There was a major short fall of M21's which was the standard sniper rifle at that point of time and the Army figured it would need 10,000 sniper rifles of which they didn't have nearly that many M21's. So a new sniper rifle was developed at the same time and it was done in a record 22 months. The Weapon System Matrix Manager for the M24 was Major John Mende and he explains that the long action actually had nothing to do with the ability to convert to a .300 Win Mag but was a product of that quick development time. The rifle was intended to be chambered in the .30-06 as the -06 was a type classified munition for the Army unlike the .300 WM at the time. They wanted to have a high power load for the .30-06 eventually developed. As development of the system was moving forward they discovered that there was not enough .30-06 ammo in a single lot in the Army's inventory to test and develop the system so they quickly changed to the 7.62x51mm NATO (308 Win) and left the action the same as there was not enough time for the manufacturers of the stock and floorplate to make the change to short action. They also fully believed they would later do a product improvement update and convert all the M24's to .30-06. The fact that they could convert them to .300 Win Mag was an unexpected benefit to the SF groups and was never actually designed into the system".

USMC8541
January 13, 2012, 05:59 PM
Thats good info, In 1982 the Army was using their M14s

USSR
January 13, 2012, 07:13 PM
Maybe you should rewrite Wiki, Sniper Central and a number of other websites content.

Yeah, that would be pretty easy, as anybody can write whatever on Wiki, and then it gets repeated as truth for years. Think about it, the 7.62x51 was adopted in 1957, replacing the .30-06. The M24 was adopted for use by the U.S. Army in 1988. Why would they even consider a non-Nato round 30 years after it was fazed out? Sometimes, like with the pressure spec's for the 7.62x51 listed by the gov't, you've got to use common sense.

Don

If you enjoyed reading about "Mod 70 308" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!