Pre 64 Model 70 300mag Lyman 2.5 Alaskan scope

[JmacD]

As jmr40 said, it's probably a 300 H&H Mag. In fact, I'd bet good money that's what it is for a couple of reasons. First, Roy Weatherby didn't develop his 300 Weatherby Mag until 1944 (according to my "Cartridges of the World" book). And second, Winchester didn't introduce their 300 Winchester Mag until 1963. Yet (also according to my "Cartridges of the World" book) Holland & Holland introduced their great 300 H&H Mag in 1925.
Obviously, I prefer my superb 308 Norma Mag (introduced in 1960) over all of them.

I’m going by memory, but wasn’t the 300 win different because it would fit in a “standard” length action(‘06 length) as opposed to a 375 H&H “mag” length?
I know it’s sacrilege, but there is a part of me that wants to build a custom 300 PRC on a pre-64 model 70… but hey, I’d also like to drop a Cummins diesel from a dodge into a ford…
As to the OP, that’s a mighty fine rifle… I’m on of the younger(mid30s) set that loves real bluing and a pretty piece of furniture…

 

[.308 Norma]

I’m going by memory, but wasn’t the 300 win different because it would fit in a “standard” length action(‘06 length) as opposed to a 375 H&H “mag” length?

Yes sir, that's what I've read. However, I personally believe that at least part of the reason Winchester came out with the 300 Win Mag in 1963 was because they just didn't want to come out with a 30 caliber magnum rifle chambered for a cartridge with someone else's name on it, namely the 308 Norma Magnum - which had been around since 1960, would work in a 30-06 length action, offers nearly identical ballistics to the 300 Win Mag, and has a full-caliber length neck.
I'm a little biased towards the 308 Norma Mag of course. However, the truth is I had two different 300 Win Mags before I got my 308 Norma Mag. I liked them both and knew full well a 308 Norma Mag wouldn't do anything either of my 300 Win Mags wouldn't do - except make me as happy!

 

[Offfhand]

M-70's Marked .300 MAGNUM, such as my rifle shown in post#8 were chambered for .300 H&H cartridge. As noted in post, at that time the H&H version was the only .300 Mag so there was no need to add H&H to barrel marking. With the advent of other versions of .300 Mags, such as .300 Win Mag it was necessary to identify them more specifically to avoid confusion. Winchester's belted mag family included the .264, .300, .338 and .458 Win Mags, which were designed and developed to fit and function in "standard .30'06" action lengths. The H&H Mags required longer actons and magazines, so M-70 actions were made to accomodate the longer cartridges, as shown here compared to standard M-70 action. Overall length of receivers were the same. View attachment 1089040

 

[LuckyK]

I will be gald to shake your hand anytime . I am on the old Taylors Chapel road witch is the first road north of Knightens X-Roads.

 

[LuckyK]

M-70's Marked .300 MAGNUM, such as my rifle shown in post#8 were chambered for .300 H&H cartridge. As noted in post, at that time the H&H version was the only .300 Mag so there was no need to add H&H to barrel marking. With the advent of other versions of .300 Mags, such as .300 Win Mag it was necessary to identify them more specifically to avoid confusion. Winchester's belted mag family included the .264, .300, .338 and .458 Win Mags, which were designed and developed to fit and function in "standard .30'06" action lengths. The H&H Mags required longer actons and magazines, so M-70 actions were made to accomodate the longer cartridges, as shown here compared to standard M-70 action. Overall length of receivers were the same. View attachment 1089040View attachment 1089062

Really super nice !!!

 

[LuckyK]

My books say mags where in 24-25-and 26 inch. This is a model 70 NOT M70 No M on this weapon anywhere. Thanks

Like I said ,I am in no way considered or claim to be, nor have the knowledge to be called a collector . In saying that My M70,(The M ment for model or M for built for Military contract ?) Sorry just a county boy.

 

[LuckyK]

Welcome to the forum!
I’m originally from Anniston, Al. My Dad from Weaver, Al. And my mom from Nightens Cross Roads area between Piedmont and Hokes Bluff.
I’m 66 so I’m sure we know a lot of the same folks.
Reply
Wonderful collection you have. Almost what I have! ...
I might look you up the next time I’m through that neck of the woods!

I'm right here at Knightens X-Roads for almost 35 years Come on by anytime.

 

[4v50 Gary]

M-70's Marked .300 MAGNUM, such as my rifle shown in post#8 were chambered for .300 H&H cartridge. As noted in post, at that time the H&H version was the only .300 Mag so there was no need to add H&H to barrel marking. With the advent of other versions of .300 Mags, such as .300 Win Mag it was necessary to identify them more specifically to avoid confusion. Winchester's belted mag family included the .264, .300, .338 and .458 Win Mags, which were designed and developed to fit and function in "standard .30'06" action lengths. The H&H Mags required longer actons and magazines, so M-70 actions were made to accomodate the longer cartridges, as shown here compared to standard M-70 action. Overall length of receivers were the same. View attachment 1089040View attachment 1089062

@offhand - G&H scope base?

 

[Offfhand]

Yep, G&H's lever release scope mounts were ( And I suppose still are) standard equipment on G&H custom rigs like these M-70 Winchester .300 and .375 H&H's.