I read a description once of what makes pre-64 Winchesters so mythical and I hear it referenced all the time, but I'm asking for a little primer from you guys. No. 1: What makes the pre-64's so special? No. 2: Why hasn't Winchester restored these features? No. 3: What's the most comparable current stock rifle?
"Pre-'64?"
- Thread starter ed dixon
- Start date
- Status
Gordon
Member
I just got a WONDERFUL pre 64 Win 'westerner' in .264 Win Mag.Looking at the gun I'll tell you what it has that later ones don't. Of course it has a 'controlled feed' Mauser type extractor system with fixed ejector. They reintroduced that for extra money in 90's , thats why they quit making it -MONEY. Mod 70 has a 'coned breech' which funnels in rounds. It has a simple yet VERY reliable trigger that can be made very 'sweet' in a few minutes. It has a 3 position safety in the perfect place. The pre 64 guns have real CUT checkering by machine aided hands. The walnut tends to be 'straight grained' even in the higher 'super grade' but is very dense and stong and tends not to warp. The inletting and the shaping of stocks is superior to later versions. The METAL FINISHING is beyond compare and is perfectly exacuted.All real American drop forgings. The pieces are strong and robust-no tinny tiny pieces. The bluing is deep, the barrel contours are works of art. Truly the RIFLEMAN's RIFLE..... 
Besides what Gordon said, the pre-64's have a reputation for being utterly reliable. The extra screw holding the forend to barrel makes bedding more consistent, and the accuracy more dependable. They aren't benchrest guns, but usually shoot quite well with a variety of loads.
I find also the stocks are little shorter than many modern guns, and they seem to fit me better than more recent types.
To me they are a little heavy for deer calibers, but for the .300 magnums & up, they are awfully nice rifles. I want one in .338.
I find also the stocks are little shorter than many modern guns, and they seem to fit me better than more recent types.
To me they are a little heavy for deer calibers, but for the .300 magnums & up, they are awfully nice rifles. I want one in .338.
jmbg29
member
Pre-'64s are a rare thing of exquisite beauty.
I have a .270 that my great-uncle gave to me. I couldn't value it more if it was made of pure gold.
I am about to give it to my nephew for his 16th birthday.
Great kids deserve great things.
I have a .270 that my great-uncle gave to me. I couldn't value it more if it was made of pure gold.
I am about to give it to my nephew for his 16th birthday.
Great kids deserve great things.
Winchester and Colt are the two American marques that have had a mystical following almost ever since they came on the market.
I really can't explain the phenomenon, but it exists. I recently saw a Pre-64 375 H&H pretty much NIB (straight grain stock does not begin to describe it, maybe stained pinewood with cut checkering that was just adequate) that the guy was asking IIRC $2,200 for. An honest appraisal from me would not put it in the same class as my CZ550 375 H&H except for the mystique. You asked.
In 64 they cheapened all the guns using casting, stampings, and yes even crummier pinewood type walnut or even pinewood. Checkering put in with a woodburning kit or stamped in. Lots of the receivers on Model 94s look purplish. Winchester has been reorganized quite a few times over the years. You could write a book and probably somebody has.
I really can't explain the phenomenon, but it exists. I recently saw a Pre-64 375 H&H pretty much NIB (straight grain stock does not begin to describe it, maybe stained pinewood with cut checkering that was just adequate) that the guy was asking IIRC $2,200 for. An honest appraisal from me would not put it in the same class as my CZ550 375 H&H except for the mystique. You asked.
In 64 they cheapened all the guns using casting, stampings, and yes even crummier pinewood type walnut or even pinewood. Checkering put in with a woodburning kit or stamped in. Lots of the receivers on Model 94s look purplish. Winchester has been reorganized quite a few times over the years. You could write a book and probably somebody has.
Dan Morris
Member
Fitting of the components, the feel when closing the bolt. I've never had a pre 64 that won't do MOA or better. General feel of the rifle......I could go on but most of it has to be experienced.....
Dan
Dan
Now that you know about the mythical features of Pre 64s, I will go on to your second and third question...
Winchester did restore these features around '94 with the Classic line- the action is very similar with minor modifactions made for cheaper mass production. If you can get your hands on a good one, it's a keeper. Especially nice because you can have a short action, or stainless steel, or both if you're really lucky... There are also David Miller designed stocks- the LT- super nice...
Lately however, they are replacing the cast bottom metal with pot metal and phillips screws and using a even cheaper stock than the original rubber stock which replaced a McMillan stock Hmmmm. Superior bottom metal is available from Williams in the Brownell catalog- it's quite expensive compared to the price of the gun... Most gunsmiths consider the Classic rifles a diamond in the rough, as they can be cleaned up very nicely much like a Remington 700 but lots better. My pet rifle is a tuned Winchester Stainless Steel SA in .308 with a Warne Peep Base alternately wearing a Leupold 4x33 matte or a Leupold 3.5-10x40 Tactical in QD rings- I shot a 1 1/2" group with Federal Match- not impressed? That was a 5 shot group from a featherweight barrel!
This would be the closest thing to the design today. Next would be the semi-custom Dakota rifles which are so nice you wouldn't want to take them out in the woods...
Winchester did restore these features around '94 with the Classic line- the action is very similar with minor modifactions made for cheaper mass production. If you can get your hands on a good one, it's a keeper. Especially nice because you can have a short action, or stainless steel, or both if you're really lucky... There are also David Miller designed stocks- the LT- super nice...
Lately however, they are replacing the cast bottom metal with pot metal and phillips screws and using a even cheaper stock than the original rubber stock which replaced a McMillan stock Hmmmm. Superior bottom metal is available from Williams in the Brownell catalog- it's quite expensive compared to the price of the gun... Most gunsmiths consider the Classic rifles a diamond in the rough, as they can be cleaned up very nicely much like a Remington 700 but lots better. My pet rifle is a tuned Winchester Stainless Steel SA in .308 with a Warne Peep Base alternately wearing a Leupold 4x33 matte or a Leupold 3.5-10x40 Tactical in QD rings- I shot a 1 1/2" group with Federal Match- not impressed? That was a 5 shot group from a featherweight barrel!
This would be the closest thing to the design today. Next would be the semi-custom Dakota rifles which are so nice you wouldn't want to take them out in the woods...
BusMaster007
Member
So, let me get this straight:
Winchester made the BEST rifle ever created;
they've been reorganized several times;
they've made guns cheaply...then made cheap guns;
then they made guns you'd be lucky to own;
then they started making guns you have to replace all the parts on from the Brownells catalog?
Colt made mystical guns, too.
Then they quit making them.
Then they started making them again...Similar story.
1911 + $2000 = nice pistol...
Smith & Wesson: UP & down; made here and there and here again...
I own none of the above 3 mfg. firearms.
A MORTAL SIN!!!...according to some.
For the most part, I have chosen:
Remington rifles; Beretta pistols; & Ruger revolvers.
Me thinks I've done OK!
(for you serious types, this was all a good natured ribbing)
Dan Morris
Member
Guess I've been fortunant, I own all of the above!Whenever I've had spare $$, I invested in steel, not Enron.
Dan
Dan
Coltdriver
Member
Remington makes a fine rifle and has a historical significance that easily rivals Colt or Winchester.
There were also changes made in the Model 70 in 1953 that make a pre 53 even more desirable that a pre 64
There were also changes made in the Model 70 in 1953 that make a pre 53 even more desirable that a pre 64
Coltdriver, what you say is true but there is no collector's market for Remington like there is for Winchester and Colt. There are people who just go plain wild for anything with the Winchester logo on it. Can't explain except there is no accounting for popularity. What makes one brand popular and another not? Find the answer to that and go buy cheap and sell high and you'll be a millionaire!
Mike Irwin
Member
"pinewood"?
As in Poderosa, white, or hemlock?
Don't think so.
Pine is way too soft.
Birch.
And quite frankly, I wouldn't trade my post-64' 1200 12-gauge for anything.
As in Poderosa, white, or hemlock?
Don't think so.
Pine is way too soft.
Birch.
And quite frankly, I wouldn't trade my post-64' 1200 12-gauge for anything.
Mike Irwin
Member
It would be a truly wonderful thing if every gun made could be stocked with a piece of Grade 1 Circasian Burl Walnut...
But given what blanks of even moderately figured walnut are now bringing...
But given what blanks of even moderately figured walnut are now bringing...
I have mixed emotions about the Model 70 Winchester. I currently own one of the best Model 70's ever made a pre - war gun that was one of the very first made. I also own one of the last model 70's made in the early 60's and I would have to check the serial number but I believe it was in the last year of production.
Lets look at the rifle as a machine rather than a myth.
First let me state that Jack O'conner was one of the all time greatest American gun writers than ever lived and since he was partial to this gun it helped to create a cult following for the pre-64 Winchester.
But how good a rifle was the M70 pre -64.
First none of the M70's had the fit and finish of the classic German made sporter 98 Mausers. As a matter of fact in the late 30's when it was first marketed to the world's big game hunters ,especially to the English, in such far off big game paradises like Africa and India the gun was actually laughed at and not without good reason. Besides its workmanship that deteriorated steadly over the years, it had a speed lock mechanism that was not as reliable under severe conditions as the Classic 98 Mauser action was and is. In all fairness many other modern rifles also suffer from speed lock mechanisms that are not needed on big game rifles. I have seen some fantastic offhand scores shot with the 98 Mauser despite its slower lock time but these men that were using them were real rifleman not sand bag shooters. Follow through was one of the first rules of shooting that they ever learned.
The gas escape system left the shooter wide open to injury if it suffered a failure of the cartridge case.
The stock was originally designed for use with iron sights not scope shooting.
Well now that I have critiqued the rifle I had better say something about its positive aspects before you all kill me.
The Model 70 had an excellent ajustable trigger that is unmatched in sporter rifles even to this very day. Contrast this to the troublsome triggers as found in the Remington model 700 that are of the enclosed type that trap dirt and moisture. The Model 70's trigger is of the open face type that lets dirt and debrie actually fall away from the mechanism under severe use.
The Model 70 copied the execellent Mauser 98 extractor that actually bits in harder when a cartridge is jammed in the breech. It can also be replaced in the field in minutes without even the use of any tools along with its firing pin. Contrast this to the flimsy extractor found in the Model 700 Remington that has a history of chronic breakage and has an extractor that is not replaceable in the field because it is riveted in.
The Model 70 had the excellent 3 position safety that allowed a person to safely unload the weapon. Many of todays modern rifles were literally forced to copy the 3 position safety because of law suits that resulted from weapons firing when the safety was flipped off when the owner tried to unload the weapon. Remingtons were noted for this when the trigger was set to light and have since redesigned the model 700 and fitted a 3 position safety.
The Model 70 was originally made of quality forgings and although fairly light in weight for the time period was an extremely rugged rifle just as the 98 Mauser was. Much of todays junk cannot even compare in the quality of materiels that were used in the making of either weapon. You will not find any castings , plastic or sheet metal in these classic rifles.
Although I consider the Model 70 one of the premier rifles of the last century my nod still goes to the 98 Mauser. The Model 70 was basically a spin off of the superior 98 Mauser but compared to what is available on todays market I would not hesitate to use or buy a good example of either weapon.
Lets look at the rifle as a machine rather than a myth.
First let me state that Jack O'conner was one of the all time greatest American gun writers than ever lived and since he was partial to this gun it helped to create a cult following for the pre-64 Winchester.
But how good a rifle was the M70 pre -64.
First none of the M70's had the fit and finish of the classic German made sporter 98 Mausers. As a matter of fact in the late 30's when it was first marketed to the world's big game hunters ,especially to the English, in such far off big game paradises like Africa and India the gun was actually laughed at and not without good reason. Besides its workmanship that deteriorated steadly over the years, it had a speed lock mechanism that was not as reliable under severe conditions as the Classic 98 Mauser action was and is. In all fairness many other modern rifles also suffer from speed lock mechanisms that are not needed on big game rifles. I have seen some fantastic offhand scores shot with the 98 Mauser despite its slower lock time but these men that were using them were real rifleman not sand bag shooters. Follow through was one of the first rules of shooting that they ever learned.
The gas escape system left the shooter wide open to injury if it suffered a failure of the cartridge case.
The stock was originally designed for use with iron sights not scope shooting.
Well now that I have critiqued the rifle I had better say something about its positive aspects before you all kill me.
The Model 70 had an excellent ajustable trigger that is unmatched in sporter rifles even to this very day. Contrast this to the troublsome triggers as found in the Remington model 700 that are of the enclosed type that trap dirt and moisture. The Model 70's trigger is of the open face type that lets dirt and debrie actually fall away from the mechanism under severe use.
The Model 70 copied the execellent Mauser 98 extractor that actually bits in harder when a cartridge is jammed in the breech. It can also be replaced in the field in minutes without even the use of any tools along with its firing pin. Contrast this to the flimsy extractor found in the Model 700 Remington that has a history of chronic breakage and has an extractor that is not replaceable in the field because it is riveted in.
The Model 70 had the excellent 3 position safety that allowed a person to safely unload the weapon. Many of todays modern rifles were literally forced to copy the 3 position safety because of law suits that resulted from weapons firing when the safety was flipped off when the owner tried to unload the weapon. Remingtons were noted for this when the trigger was set to light and have since redesigned the model 700 and fitted a 3 position safety.
The Model 70 was originally made of quality forgings and although fairly light in weight for the time period was an extremely rugged rifle just as the 98 Mauser was. Much of todays junk cannot even compare in the quality of materiels that were used in the making of either weapon. You will not find any castings , plastic or sheet metal in these classic rifles.
Although I consider the Model 70 one of the premier rifles of the last century my nod still goes to the 98 Mauser. The Model 70 was basically a spin off of the superior 98 Mauser but compared to what is available on todays market I would not hesitate to use or buy a good example of either weapon.
BusMaster007
Member
OK, you've lost me here.
The Remington 700 has an enclosed trigger that traps dirt...how'd the dirt get into the enclosed trigger?
The Remington 700 has a flimsy extractor with a history of breakage...what source can you direct me to backing up this statement?
The Remington 700 has been redesigned to have a 3-position safety...what year did this happen?
The Remington 700 had Unintentional Discharges when somebody messed around with the enclosed/factory set trigger...not a design flaw. That's a STUPID owner flaw.
The Remington 700 has an enclosed trigger that traps dirt...how'd the dirt get into the enclosed trigger?
The Remington 700 has a flimsy extractor with a history of breakage...what source can you direct me to backing up this statement?
The Remington 700 has been redesigned to have a 3-position safety...what year did this happen?
The Remington 700 had Unintentional Discharges when somebody messed around with the enclosed/factory set trigger...not a design flaw. That's a STUPID owner flaw.
Hi, guys,
I don't want to get involved in all the comments, but Gordon and BigG are wrong about the Model 70 receiver.
The Pre-'64 receivers were not made from "real American drop forgings", they were made from real American machined bar stock. POST-'64 receivers were forged, not cast, the FIRST time Model 70 receivers were made that way.
Also the so-called Mauser type extractor was not designed for "controlled feeding", it was designed by Mauser when bullets went from flat lead to sharp points. Mauser tried push feed but in combat a soldier could push a round into the chamber but not lock the bolt to engage the extractor. If the bolt was worked and another round picked up, its point could dig into the primer of the chambered round with immediate and quite unhappy results.
Jim
I don't want to get involved in all the comments, but Gordon and BigG are wrong about the Model 70 receiver.
The Pre-'64 receivers were not made from "real American drop forgings", they were made from real American machined bar stock. POST-'64 receivers were forged, not cast, the FIRST time Model 70 receivers were made that way.
Also the so-called Mauser type extractor was not designed for "controlled feeding", it was designed by Mauser when bullets went from flat lead to sharp points. Mauser tried push feed but in combat a soldier could push a round into the chamber but not lock the bolt to engage the extractor. If the bolt was worked and another round picked up, its point could dig into the primer of the chambered round with immediate and quite unhappy results.
Jim
I don't think I mentioned drop forging, Jim, but if I did I defer to your expertise.
If you can get an old Winchester with nicely grained wood it is a beautiful prize. I had a high grade Model 12 with a feather grained stock that was just gorgeous. The checkering they did was not in keeping with some of the better stuff I've seen, however. Browning (Belgian) put almost flawless checkering on their guns. Hardly saw a bad job. Winchester, well it kept your hand from slipping but I didn't really think it was decorative.
Post 64 when they switched back to hand checkering on the guns after the criminal pressed in stuff (think it called was USRA by then) it was on a par with most anything out there.
If you can get an old Winchester with nicely grained wood it is a beautiful prize. I had a high grade Model 12 with a feather grained stock that was just gorgeous. The checkering they did was not in keeping with some of the better stuff I've seen, however. Browning (Belgian) put almost flawless checkering on their guns. Hardly saw a bad job. Winchester, well it kept your hand from slipping but I didn't really think it was decorative.
Post 64 when they switched back to hand checkering on the guns after the criminal pressed in stuff (think it called was USRA by then) it was on a par with most anything out there.
Gordon
Member
Well I'll go for the bar stock recievers. I think I got the 'forged' recievers hyped in 64 when the new trash appeared. Please tell me what was the serial # break for what undesireable features of post 53 guns? Yeah stocks have too much drop. I think old Mannlicher Schoenauers have them all beat for quality I have a 1955 3006 deluxe carbine that is IT among sporting rifles!
Mike Irwin
Member
"The Pre-'64 receivers were not made from "real American drop forgings", they were made from real American machined bar stock."
Quibble, Jim.
I'm pretty certain that the bar stock was hammer forged in the final bar shaping process. Those bars were then machined...
Quibble, Jim.
I'm pretty certain that the bar stock was hammer forged in the final bar shaping process. Those bars were then machined...
Mike Irwin
Member
"Contrast this to the troublsome triggers as found in the Remington model 700 that are of the enclosed type that trap dirt and moisture. The Model 70's trigger is of the open face type that lets dirt and debrie actually fall away from the mechanism under severe use."
Disagree heartily with you on the utility of the 700's trigger. If you KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, the 700 trigger is emminently adjustable.
If you don't know what you're doing, you'll screw up with a 70 trigger as quickly as you will with a 700 trigger.
As for trapping moisture and dirt, what mud pits are you hunting in? I used a 700 BDL to hunt groundhog for many years, and never had dirt/moisture trap problems with the 700's trigger, or the trigger on my 722 (essentially the same unit).
Disagree heartily with you on the utility of the 700's trigger. If you KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, the 700 trigger is emminently adjustable.
If you don't know what you're doing, you'll screw up with a 70 trigger as quickly as you will with a 700 trigger.
As for trapping moisture and dirt, what mud pits are you hunting in? I used a 700 BDL to hunt groundhog for many years, and never had dirt/moisture trap problems with the 700's trigger, or the trigger on my 722 (essentially the same unit).
Vern Humphrey
Member
My Model 70 was made in 1939, and has the more modern safety lever. I believe the "dolls head" or "shamrock" safety lever was only made for a year or two.
My Model 70 was originally scoped with a Lyman Alaskan (which I still have), and has a Redfield peep (aperture disk removed) under the scope, as a backup sight.
My Model 70 was originally scoped with a Lyman Alaskan (which I still have), and has a Redfield peep (aperture disk removed) under the scope, as a backup sight.
Coltdriver
Member
Pre 53 and other notes
My blue book says that collectors of Model 70's recognize three eras. 1936 to 1941 is Pre War, 1942 to 1948 is Transition and 1949 to 1963 is Latter.
All the blue book says about the latter era guns is that a 1952 and earlier model is more desirable because Winchester implemented manufacturing techniques that lowered quality in 1953.
The book does not say what they did.
My blue book says that collectors of Model 70's recognize three eras. 1936 to 1941 is Pre War, 1942 to 1948 is Transition and 1949 to 1963 is Latter.
All the blue book says about the latter era guns is that a 1952 and earlier model is more desirable because Winchester implemented manufacturing techniques that lowered quality in 1953.
The book does not say what they did.
The Remington 700 has a flimsy extractor with a history of breakage...what source can you direct me to backing up this statement?
The Remington 700 has been redesigned to have a 3-position safety...what year did this happen?f you don't know what you're doing, you'll screw up with a 70 trigger as quickly as you will with a 700 trigger.
f you don't know what you're doing, you'll screw up with a 70 trigger as quickly as you will with a 700 trigger.
The info you are about to recieve is both from my own experience as a long time National Match shooter and also I quote from the execellent books by Peter Senich, "The One Round War" and "The Complete Book of U.S. Sniping Rifles
First let me state that the Remington has always been a very popular rifle with the sand bag crowd and of course the varmint shooters. It is cheap in price and it is a very accurate rifle. These two requisites bring pure euphoria to the weekend target shooter and varmint hunter.
But how good a rifle really is the M700 when the chips are down?
Basically it has proved to be a very poor one. As a National match shooter I was shocked when first entering the sport many years ago to find that the weapon of choice was actually the post-64 model 70 Winchester and not the pre-64 model 70 Winchester and all had custom modified stocks. I was to find out how rugged the pre and post model 70's really were when stacked up against the very inferior Model 700 Remington. At the time I just could not understand why anyone would go to all the trouble to build up a Winchester national match gun when one could get the super accurate Remington 40X (glorified model 700) all ready to go complete with national match adjustable stock. Well I soon found the answer as to why.
The Remingtons that were used (usually by newbees) had problems with live rounds that would pop out of magazines. Triggers that would not work and extractors that broke so many times that if I would have had the tools and spare extractors I could have made a fortune fixing Remington M700's. And by the way even though the extractor has been modified at least three times that I know of it still continues to break to this very day at our range.
Now lets look at the sorry history of the Remington in Viet Nam.
During the Vient Nam war army supply clerks heard that Winchester was having problems with the New Model 70 (which of course was only due to sales not mechancial reliablity) and they in their wisdom decided to go with the Remington 700 as a sniper rifle for VietNam. Then the trouble started. It was soon found that the Remington trigger went haywire when dust , dirt etc. got into it mainly because of its enclosed trigger box that trapped such contaminents.
The extractor which is riveted in on the Remington cannot be replaced in the field. Both the pre-64 Winchester extractor or even the Post 64 Winchester extractor can be replaced in the field. The pre-64 required no tools in a pinch and even the Post -64 could be quickly changed with a few simple tools.
The Remingtons lower stamped sheet metal trigger guard also proved to be not durable enough for combat and more recent U.S. Sniper Remingtons have to be litterally rebuilt from the ground up to make them, how shall we say Grunt Proof.
The push feed mechanism has proven to be less than reliable for two reasons. One the gun should be held in the level postion for postivie feeding, something not always possible in combat or even in hunting when you may be flat on your back due to a fall and a big beastie is about to stomp on you.
Also the ease of accidentally double feeding a round with a push feed is all too common under stress or excitment. I have done this myself more than once with push feed actions. And believe me when it happens you will not clear out the jam very quickly. More than enough precious time to get ones self killed when you need the weapon immedietly. This was one of the big reasons the Mauser Brothers scraped out the design of their early push feed Mausers in favor of the controlled feed mechanism.
Is is not strange that even to this day many gun manufactures neve learned about this problem that is well over 100 years old. Well the answer is they have heard about it but is is a lot cheaper to make a push feed action than a proper controlled feed action with an expensive Mauser Style Extractor.
And this brings us to the currently reintroduced controlled feed Model 70 that by the way failed in its reliablity, Why?
It failed because Winchester did not want to spend the money and machine a proper forged steel extractor so they tried to get away using a cheepie extractor made of a casting. As to be expected it failed and most people who buy these newer guns end up replacing it with a quality extractor along with quality bottom metal. It never occured to the Geniuses at Winchester that people rather than go through the frustration and agony of rebuilding a brand new rifle, would instead have been more than happy to pay a few bucks more and get a quality product.
That by the way is how Winchester originally made its great reputation, they made at one time, first class weapons at least compared to some of the other domestic manufacturers. Now like everyone else they are in it to make as much money as possible with quality being something relegated to aging weapons tucked away in a museum or old time gun collection.
Having said all that, if I wanted a new gun as opposed to an excellent older weapon in good shape I would still buy todays Winchester and rebuild it. The design is still a good one and after you throw away the junk materiels in the newer gun and replace them you end up with a very good weapon for hunting or target shooting.
One of the most closely guarded secrets is how good a gun the post model 70 Winchester was and is. True, it was of the inferior push feed design but it had one of the smoothest actions ever made and it had a very strong extractor in it. I would take it over the Remington 700 any day. I have a push feed Model 70 heavy barrel in .223 that is only several years old and it shoots 1/4 groups all day long so the myth that the Remington is the more accurate gun just is not true. The Winchester shoots every bit as good.
The Remington 700 has been redesigned to have a 3-position safety...what year did this happen?f you don't know what you're doing, you'll screw up with a 70 trigger as quickly as you will with a 700 trigger.
f you don't know what you're doing, you'll screw up with a 70 trigger as quickly as you will with a 700 trigger.
The info you are about to recieve is both from my own experience as a long time National Match shooter and also I quote from the execellent books by Peter Senich, "The One Round War" and "The Complete Book of U.S. Sniping Rifles
First let me state that the Remington has always been a very popular rifle with the sand bag crowd and of course the varmint shooters. It is cheap in price and it is a very accurate rifle. These two requisites bring pure euphoria to the weekend target shooter and varmint hunter.
But how good a rifle really is the M700 when the chips are down?
Basically it has proved to be a very poor one. As a National match shooter I was shocked when first entering the sport many years ago to find that the weapon of choice was actually the post-64 model 70 Winchester and not the pre-64 model 70 Winchester and all had custom modified stocks. I was to find out how rugged the pre and post model 70's really were when stacked up against the very inferior Model 700 Remington. At the time I just could not understand why anyone would go to all the trouble to build up a Winchester national match gun when one could get the super accurate Remington 40X (glorified model 700) all ready to go complete with national match adjustable stock. Well I soon found the answer as to why.
The Remingtons that were used (usually by newbees) had problems with live rounds that would pop out of magazines. Triggers that would not work and extractors that broke so many times that if I would have had the tools and spare extractors I could have made a fortune fixing Remington M700's. And by the way even though the extractor has been modified at least three times that I know of it still continues to break to this very day at our range.
Now lets look at the sorry history of the Remington in Viet Nam.
During the Vient Nam war army supply clerks heard that Winchester was having problems with the New Model 70 (which of course was only due to sales not mechancial reliablity) and they in their wisdom decided to go with the Remington 700 as a sniper rifle for VietNam. Then the trouble started. It was soon found that the Remington trigger went haywire when dust , dirt etc. got into it mainly because of its enclosed trigger box that trapped such contaminents.
The extractor which is riveted in on the Remington cannot be replaced in the field. Both the pre-64 Winchester extractor or even the Post 64 Winchester extractor can be replaced in the field. The pre-64 required no tools in a pinch and even the Post -64 could be quickly changed with a few simple tools.
The Remingtons lower stamped sheet metal trigger guard also proved to be not durable enough for combat and more recent U.S. Sniper Remingtons have to be litterally rebuilt from the ground up to make them, how shall we say Grunt Proof.
The push feed mechanism has proven to be less than reliable for two reasons. One the gun should be held in the level postion for postivie feeding, something not always possible in combat or even in hunting when you may be flat on your back due to a fall and a big beastie is about to stomp on you.
Also the ease of accidentally double feeding a round with a push feed is all too common under stress or excitment. I have done this myself more than once with push feed actions. And believe me when it happens you will not clear out the jam very quickly. More than enough precious time to get ones self killed when you need the weapon immedietly. This was one of the big reasons the Mauser Brothers scraped out the design of their early push feed Mausers in favor of the controlled feed mechanism.
Is is not strange that even to this day many gun manufactures neve learned about this problem that is well over 100 years old. Well the answer is they have heard about it but is is a lot cheaper to make a push feed action than a proper controlled feed action with an expensive Mauser Style Extractor.
And this brings us to the currently reintroduced controlled feed Model 70 that by the way failed in its reliablity, Why?
It failed because Winchester did not want to spend the money and machine a proper forged steel extractor so they tried to get away using a cheepie extractor made of a casting. As to be expected it failed and most people who buy these newer guns end up replacing it with a quality extractor along with quality bottom metal. It never occured to the Geniuses at Winchester that people rather than go through the frustration and agony of rebuilding a brand new rifle, would instead have been more than happy to pay a few bucks more and get a quality product.
That by the way is how Winchester originally made its great reputation, they made at one time, first class weapons at least compared to some of the other domestic manufacturers. Now like everyone else they are in it to make as much money as possible with quality being something relegated to aging weapons tucked away in a museum or old time gun collection.
Having said all that, if I wanted a new gun as opposed to an excellent older weapon in good shape I would still buy todays Winchester and rebuild it. The design is still a good one and after you throw away the junk materiels in the newer gun and replace them you end up with a very good weapon for hunting or target shooting.
One of the most closely guarded secrets is how good a gun the post model 70 Winchester was and is. True, it was of the inferior push feed design but it had one of the smoothest actions ever made and it had a very strong extractor in it. I would take it over the Remington 700 any day. I have a push feed Model 70 heavy barrel in .223 that is only several years old and it shoots 1/4 groups all day long so the myth that the Remington is the more accurate gun just is not true. The Winchester shoots every bit as good.
- Status
