Pre-'64 Winchester 70: shoddy, or the best?

[Rupestris]

In the latest edition of Field & Stream they cover the 50 Best Guns Ever. Coming in at number one is the Winchester Model 70 (Pre-1964 [pay attention, this is where I’m confused])

The article says:

…But the Model 70 has had a rocky road. Pre-WWII examples were fine but after the war the quality steadily declined, and the ones turned out before the old models demise in 1963 were shoddy indeed.
Winchesters then-president decreed that it must die because it was too costly to produce. In 1964 a new Model 70 that was cheaper and basically a good gun, but was big-time, serious ugly. Shooters beheld it and were outraged. Their fury…

If quality steadily declined from ’45 ‘til 1963, why wouldn’t shooters/hunters be more inclined to buy a Pre-1945, or '54 or whenever a noticable decline in quality became evident?

The way the article is written it sounds as though the 1963 model may have been a “shoddy†low quality firearm. In which case, I’d rank the rifle less than number one in the 50 Best Guns.

Please don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Winchester or Field & Stream. I am just confused as to how one could call a rifle shoddy and call it the best at the same time. Is there something about the 70 that I’m missing?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.
Chris

 

[Swamprabbit]

I really don't know for sure but it wouldn't surprise me that the quality went down in the late 50's or 60's. As for buying the '54, the issue with them was the flip safety getting in the way of scope mounting. Also, the M70 had better triggers on them. I had a '54 one time and it is one heck of a handly open sighted bolt action rifle. Great set of irons and a stripper clip notch.

Most of the pre-64 M70 stuff is, however, legend. They were great rifles for their time but, I would argue, that the new "classic" M70s are much better made.

 

[kaferhaus]

the pre-64s were expensive to produce, and not as accurate as the competing fodder from Remington and others. The post 64 model 70s incorporated several modern safety features, were/are more accurate and sold for less money...

Wihchester's mistake was the first ones came out with crappy wood, crappy checkering a boring finish.... the guns "looked cheap"... never mind the performance and safety was better, they didn't look good.

They've since long ago rifined the post 64 and brought it more in line. They now offer the "classic" version with the controlled feed (useless really) to get some of the die hards back into the fold..

I've been able to pick up some fine shootin irons cheap because of the early stigma of the post 64s...

Pre-war Winchesters were largely hand fitted, superb workmanship and beautiful. After the war everyone and their brother was trying to make a profit but surplus military rifles were all over the place and they had to try and cut costs to stay viable.. thus the 64 started the downhill slide... they were still nice guns, command a premium (that I wouldn't pay) but profits were down and a lot of the hand work was eliminated.

 

[thrifty7]

I think there may be some misunderstandings about the meaning of the words "quality", "shoddy", etc. American made firearms have undergone a fairly continuous reduction in the ammount of skilled hand labor that goes into their manufacture, for at least 100 years, and maybe much longer. At the same time, automated manufacturing techniques have continually gotten better. As a result we can still afford new guns, which tend to be stronger and more accurate, but less "nice" than the older versions. And of course, "nice" is in the eyes of the beholder. The model 70 is probably the most "typical" of this situation, but it has in general happened to them all, in varying degrees. To fully understand the difference you must see and handle several of each age group, and decide which you prefer. The differences tend to be small and subtle, and no deer or elk has ever escaped due to the age of the gun, (as long as we are talking about the same make, model and caliber, of course).
Just my opinion. Have a nice day.
Thrifty7

 

[BigG]

The Winchester brand has always had a mystique, but I remember people complained with each shortcut that was taken. In effect you have several generations of Model 70s pre-64. The very very creme, the next best, the next best, etc., among real Win fanatics. The 1963 era guns had some pretty plain walnut stocks, unless you lucked out. They are cool, yes, but you pay a big premium for it. It's more of a collector's item, else, why would people pay BIG bucks for a Model 70 in 35 Rem or other obscure caliber. Not that great as a bolt gun but a RARE collector's item.

I also believe the early Model 70's had the acorn shaped safety that precluded low scope mounting. Although I'm no expert.

 

[buzz meeks]

I know what F&S is getting at but I just bought a 1961 Winchester 70 in 30-06 and I would defy anyone to fine a smoother feeding rifle for anywhere near the $400 I spent. No, it's no as accurate as the average Remington 700. But it's as accurate as any hunting rifle needs to be. And I get a good set of back up irons, an adjustable trigger, a three position safety, all steel bottom metal, good bluing and controlled round feed which, despite what kaferhaus thinks, is not useless. Is my 1961 gun as good as a 1939 gun? Of course not. But it's still leagues ahead of what we have today.

And I would also argue that Winchester's Classics, the newly introduced, back to the future post-93 pre-64s, are not as good as the old guns. I need only look at the claw extractor. The old Winchester's used spring steel. No so the new ones.

 

[kaferhaus]

controlled round feed which, despite what kaferhaus thinks, is not useless

For people who hold their rifle upside down to work the bolt, it's a great feature.. Maybe you need that.

But it's not good for safety as it requires the bolt be slotted for the extractor to clear. Thats one reason why they went to the push feed as the cartridge head is fully enclosed... like Rem, Savage, Browning etc.

A pre 64 for $400 that's not ragged out is a helluva deal. You done good on that.

 

[Jim K]

The article is essentially correct. The post WWII, pre-64 Model 70 rifles were not given the fit and finish of the pre-war guns. The company was actually losing money on them and kept them in the line for prestige, not profit. When the model was revamped in 1964, it was as kaferhaus says. The new rifles had "free floating barrels" with 1/4" gaps on each side of some barrels due to a "one size fits all" stock making process. The pressed checkering was simply awful; it made Remington's pressed checkering look good - at least the Remington pattern was well done, even if the checkering itself was not.

When the post-64 models did not sell well, Winchester became desperate. Unwilling to admit that Remington was building a better rifle at less cost, Winchester (Olin) put money and political pressure into a ban on importation of surplus guns, which they blamed for their problems. The result was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was in large measure drafted by Winchester and sponsored by its pet Senator, Thomas Dodd of Connecticut.

The only saving grace was that the post-64 guns actually shot well - better in most cases than the fabled "pre-war" guns. (Just for info, in spite of rumors that the receivers were/are cast, the post-64 Model 70 receiver was in fact forged, and for the first time. Pre-64 receivers had been machined from bar stock.)

In recent years, USRAC has steadily improved the Model 70 to the point where it is once again a good rifle, but it took a long time.

Jim

 

[ThreadKiller]

"New" pre-64's?

I've heard ugly rumors that the "new" ones have issues like extractors that can be bent into an "L" shape and hold that shape. I know that a lot of people have purchased new Safari grade Model 70's and then have to have much work done to them to get them battle worthy. Mis-aligned scope mounting holes, feeding issues, the extractor and so on.

I haven't touched a new one. All mine are pre-64's. All shoot better than I can and I love them all. None are pre war versions (hard to find 243's and 338's in pre war versions)

What brings me back again and again is the aesthetics. They are flat out the best looking, handsomest factory rifles ever built IMHO.

What the little Hornet will do if held right:

100 yards off a bench. Both 5 shot groups. 35 grain Hornady Vmaxes fueled by Lil' Gun.

Tim

 

[buzz meeks]

Thanks, I thought four bills was a pretty good deal.

You are of course correct that the newer push feed designs offer better case head support. There is a greater margin of safety built in, plain and simple. But a case head can fail in any rifle and when it does, you are relying on the rifle's gas handling capabilities at that point, not its bolt design.

I will counter by saying that controlled round feeds offer a different sort of safety margin. Their design eliminates the possibility of a double feed and their design ensures that the spent case is coming out of the chamber or else. It's not really relevant for most but I hunt elk in grizzly country and it's a great comfort to know that my rifle WILL feed no matter how panicky I am. It's also not for nothing that CRFs dominate Africa's dangerous game fields.

Should we agree to disagree on this one right now? This push feed VS. CRF debate can get ugly.

 

[kaferhaus]

What brings me back again and again is the aesthetics. They are flat out the best looking, handsomest factory rifles ever built IMHO.

Truer words have never been spoken.

I have 2 Griffin & Howe custom model 70s that only come out of the safe to be fondled.. They were my grandfathers and he hunted with one of them 6-7 times and the other one twice... Both look like they've never been out of a showcase. I've had them for going on 30yrs and have never shot either one of them... still have his old ammo, manuals, receipts etc. for them too.

 

[Jim K]

The real problem with double feeding is seldom mentioned, and it is not jamming. Many of the early rifles, including early Mauser designs, had push feed. But if you are using a push feed rifle and shove a cartridge into the chamber without locking the bolt, and then retract the bolt, the round will stay in the chamber since the extractor will not engage the case rim.

Now you get excited and feed another round out of the magazine. The result may be nothing but a jam and a nuisance, UNLESS the point of the second bullet hits the primer of the chambered round, in which case you will be notified immediately of your error. It is not coincidence that military push feed rifles went out of style just about the same time jacketed bullets replaced big old round lead bullets. There was a connection.

Jim

 

[kaferhaus]

But if you are using a push feed rifle and shove a cartridge into the chamber without locking the bolt

Why would anyone do that? I realize there are idiots in the world, but even that's pushing it...

I've never had a push feed rifle jam, try to double feed etc.

And it's why the Military has to try and idiot proof everything.... But as we used to say, everytime we think wev'e got it down..... they invent a better idiot...

Another good one was: "give a GI a sledge hammer and a pile of dirt and he'll find a way to break the hammer"

 

[Rupestris]

Thanks for the great replies. This started as a part of my usual quest for my end-all-be-all rifle. Turns out I'm going to have a hard time finding a M70 chambered in my choice of caliber anywho. Ruger or Savage are the only affordable rifles that meet the criteria.
As for the M70, I'd still like to have one. The model 94 seems lonely without a 70 to keep it company. What'll end up happening is, I'll get one at a later date in .30-06 or .300 WinMag down the road.

What brings me back again and again is the aesthetics. They are flat out the best looking, handsomest factory rifles ever built IMHO.

Agreed! While the Savage, Rem, and the Ruger are good looking and accurate as all get-out, there is always the fact that none of them are M70's to contend with.
Being a Michigan paper puncher and deer hunter probably doesn't lend itself to ever having to operate a bolt action upside down. CR & PF have little bearing on my choice of firearm. In fact, at the bench I usually single load.
I am a fan of the American "classics" (as in favorites), regardless of what year they are built. Win. 94, Rem. 870, Ruger Mark II, 1911, Nylon 66, M 70etc...
Keep the info comming.
Chris

 

[Lonestar.45]

I don't know what the author of that article is talking about, those guns being "big time, seriously ugly". My grandad has one in .270 he bought new in '58. I think it looks just as nice as any basic modern M70 or Remington ADL, or Savage. Clean lines, nice wood. No, it's not a custom Weatherby with a stock made out of curly maple, but to say it's "ugly", is kinda harsh I think. It shoots pretty good too.

 

[Rupestris]

I don't know what the author of that article is talking about, those guns being "big time, seriously ugly". My grandad has one in .270 he bought new in '58.

45, the author was refering to the post '64 models. The fit/finish wen't to the dogs after 64. I'm sure your grandads '58 is about as sexy as you'll find

 

[pete f]

this will seem as heresy to many but.....I had a pre 64 in 300 H and H lovely gun looked like a rifle and felt soo sweet ....till i shot it. That gun had so much drop in the stock as to feel like i had been kicked in the face every time I shot it.

I ended up trying a nice plastic stock on it and the idea of it was so distressing to a freind of mine that he paid me too much to not keep it from him. I also currently have a 257 robt in a featherweight from 59 that is a wonderful rifle.

I have a new classic 70 in 270 that shoots about an inch with what ever you put in the gun


As far as not loading the rifle while upside down it will also feed while you are running and not lose all the rounds out the top it will feed if you fall down and it will not leave a shell in chamber ever

that makes sense to one who has hunted things that bite

 

[Art Eatman]

The pre/post 64 arguments were rational, up until around the 1980s. Roughly. Since then, they're sorta pointless, if by "post-64" you include the Winchesters of the last ten years or so. Mas o menos.

The issues of fit and finish are appropriate, of course. But, as has been noted above, the post-64 rifles were far superior as to accuracy. It's all well and good to want both accuracy and "purty", but which is more important to a hunter?

When you get into the issues of affordability AND technology, the 1980s saw improvements in fit and finish, as well as maintaining or even improving the post-64 accuracy--and, generally, at a cost we could afford to pay.

I once had a Ruger 77 medium-heavy-barrel in .220 Swift. I could regularly get five-shot groups of 3/8", and I commonly got slow-fire 10-shot groups of 1/2". I now have my father's 1952 production Model 70 Super Grade in .220 Swift. I get three-shot groups of about 3/4". (Granted, I haven't messed around to work up a "pet load".)

My only other experience with a pre-64 was with a .257 Roberts, a one-MOA critter. I once had a '65 or '66 production .264; it was a tack-driving SOB. One MOA was bad shooting, for it.

In their day the pre-64 Model 70s were Good Things. But the same amount of hand work as in the earlier years would mean custom-rifle prices in today's world. Priced curly-grained walnut, lately? TANSTAAFL. Outside of limited arenas of discussion (e.g., push-feed/claw-feed) the arguments become apples and oranges.

$0.02,

Art

 

[Gewehr98]

I'm big on controlled-round feeding.

As somebody who hunts dangerous game on this and other continents, I disagree with Kaferhaus.

For people who hold their rifle upside down to work the bolt, it's a great feature.. Maybe you need that.

See what the professional guides carry. 'Nuff said.

I enjoyed the Field & Stream article, but the author does have more homework to do. He came out and said that "The '03 Springfield is a slavish copy of the Model 98... [Mauser]"

That's propogating a long-time myth. Do some digging, the 1903 Springfield is actually a product-improved copy of the Spanish 1893 Mauser, as used with drastic effect against U.S. troops during the Spanish-American war just a few years earlier. (Remember San Juan Hill?)

There weren't enough 98 Mausers in circulation, let alone in War Department hands, to base the U.S. Krag's successor on. There were, however, plenty of captured 1893 Mausers brought back for inspection from Cuba. The prototype for the 1903 Springfield was already out for trials in 1901. The cock-on-opening, magazine disconnect, and striker knob handle of the 1903 Springfield came directly from the "other" Springfield rifle in production at the time, the U.S. Krag series from 1894-1904. Don't ask me where the rod bayonet came from, it wasn't terribly popular on the 1873 Trapdoor Springfield, either.


The third safety lug on the 1903 Springfield would have been an easy addition, once word got out that the next model of Mauser incorporated one.

 

[Coltdriver]

I read the same article in F & S.

I figured the author just needed to sound like he knew something. To say that a 63 model 70 was a shoddy rifle is just a lame attempt at being provocative.

My 49 Model 70 is a piece of functional art.

 

[Feanaro]

Why would anyone do that? I realize there are idiots in the world, but even that's pushing it...

Adrenaline does funny stuff to your head. Episodes of stupid-itis aren't uncommon, especially given the context Jim put it in(war). In a war I doubt I would have time to notice that I didn't fully eject a cartridge. Probably paying closer attention to the people that want to kill me.

 

[JNewell]

Dig out your copy of Gun Notes, vol. 1. Keith wrote a few columns after the post-64 rifles came out in which he praised the performance of these rifles. IIRC, however, he kinda panned the stockwork and other esthetics.

 

[Guyon]

The article was written by Dave Petzal, who does know a thing or two about firearms. It's a subjective list, and he admits it btw. Still a fun read and a nice list of some classic guns.

 

[cedarsavage]

I think the point Petzal was making was similar to the Browning Sweet Sixteen made in Belgium and the ones made later in Japan. On their own, each looks very nice. Side by side, the ones made in Belgium are seen to be not just very nice, but very, very nice! The Begium makes also suffered from "improvements" as moving the safety from inside to the outside of the trigger guard still enrages us who shoot long guns "lefty". The wood also was not as nice as the earlier ones.
Most changes in firearm models are made for economic reasons and touted as "improved safety". Such as going from controlled feed to push feed.

taa, cs

 

[sumpnz]

??tanstaafl??