"Pre-'64?"
- Thread starter ed dixon
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,341
BHP9
Well said my friend.
On another thread that I started over on the hunting board there are a few guys defending their push feeds as a usable dangerous game rifles.....
Your post pretty well explians why that is a bad idea..........
Well said my friend.
On another thread that I started over on the hunting board there are a few guys defending their push feeds as a usable dangerous game rifles.....
Your post pretty well explians why that is a bad idea..........
Well, I currently own no Remingtons, and I really like my new(ish) M70 Classic LT, but I have to say that my Ruger M77 tang-safety, push feed, will definitely feed upside down. The bullets don't fall out. I agree, though, that the lack of ponies on it is a serious fault.
Jaywalker
Jaywalker
I don't know a whole lot about the model 70, but I'll can tell you about the model 94
I have 2 Winchester 94s in .30-30, one was made in the 1950's, the other in the 1970s...
Both are good rifles. Of the two, the Pre-64 is just nicer. If I hold one and then hold the other, the post-64 feels "cheaper". The wood isn't as good. The bluing isn't as good. It doesn't have a recoil pad (but I'm not 100% sure that the pre-64 came with a recoil pad, it may have been added latter). Overall the pre-64 is just more "refined".
That said, there are a few things I like about the post-64 rilfe. It seems to have a smoother action. It also has stronger springs. I found that in the pre-64 rifle, I have to use ammo loaded with the softer pistol primers because sometimes the hammer doesn't hit with enough force to set off the rifle primers. I belive that this may be due to its age, one of these days I might see about getting it fixed...
Anyway, like I said, both are good, but the pre-64 is the better of the two when it comes to overall quality.
I have 2 Winchester 94s in .30-30, one was made in the 1950's, the other in the 1970s...
Both are good rifles. Of the two, the Pre-64 is just nicer. If I hold one and then hold the other, the post-64 feels "cheaper". The wood isn't as good. The bluing isn't as good. It doesn't have a recoil pad (but I'm not 100% sure that the pre-64 came with a recoil pad, it may have been added latter). Overall the pre-64 is just more "refined".
That said, there are a few things I like about the post-64 rilfe. It seems to have a smoother action. It also has stronger springs. I found that in the pre-64 rifle, I have to use ammo loaded with the softer pistol primers because sometimes the hammer doesn't hit with enough force to set off the rifle primers. I belive that this may be due to its age, one of these days I might see about getting it fixed...
Anyway, like I said, both are good, but the pre-64 is the better of the two when it comes to overall quality.
- Status
