rarest caliber in a pre-64 model 70 winchester?

[jim in Anchorage]

I know some of the Model 54s were chambered in 30/30 Win, Were they not in Model 70 early production?

No. Not according to my reference books(Whitaker, Rule). I think they had no left over M54 barrels in 30-30 or very few so didn't bother. But you are correct they did chamber the M54 in 30-30. Maybe the large rimmed case was a headache they could do without?

 

[Offfhand]

The Pre-64's were never made in .222 Rem. However, during the 1950's and even later, a surprising number of M-70 .22 Hornets were converted to .222. It was a rather extensive conversion, requiring expert modification of the bolt and magazine. Griffin & Howe did a considerable number of these conversions, which were usually simply called ".222 Hornets" and marked accordingly. I've owned three of these and still have a couple, attached photo shows one ..

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Some how those one off m70s in such calipers as 32-20 and 32 WCF don't do much for me. They almost seem fake even though they where made in the factory. Just some guys in the machine shop killing a dull afternoon.
The 9x57, 7.65, 35 Rem and .300 savage where real production guns, sold to the public and cataloged.
My Dean Whitaker book the model 70 Winchester 1937-1964 also shows a factory take down m70. But again it just doesn't seem "real".

32 WCF and 32-20 are the same cartridge.

 

[tark]

I was going to point that out D.B. but I didn't want to sound like a nit picker. Besides, I think a lot of people confuse the 32WCF with the 32Winchester Special, or 32W.S , which is just a 30-30 throwing a slightly larger bullet.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

32 WCF and 32-20 are the same cartridge.

Right. I meant to say .32 Winchester special the 30-30 size .32

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Right. I meant to say .32 Winchester special the 30-30 size .32

Now that's a caliber (32 Win Spl) that I just do not understand why it ever existed. But what do I know?

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Now that's a caliber (32 Win Spl) that I just do not understand why it ever existed. But what do I know?

I would guess it was "modern" in getting rid of the old black powder charge as being part of the caliber name. 30-30, 32-40, 38.55 old. 32 Win Spl hot new smokless. Powder load.

 

[Gordon]

Now that's a caliber (32 Win Spl) that I just do not understand why it ever existed. But what do I know?

Lot of people SWEAR the slighltly heavier bigger bullet is a better brush killer. I shot it a few times in 70s from an old 24" Model 94 and it killed dear quick enough to almost make me a believer. However I think the .32 Winchester special was made as to be dual use with black powder, kind of a .32-40 with a more modern profile and loaded to higher pressures than the 32-40 was.
.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

That's why I love this place. Only on THR could a rare M70 caliber thread Turn into a 32 Winchester Special vs 30-30. debate happen.

 

[medic15al]

That's why I love this place. Only on THR could a rare M70 caliber thread Turn into a 32 Winchester Special vs 30-30. debate happen.

LOL Sorry bout that! Jack O'Conner was a mandatory read for me every summer when school was out. I'd lay on the bed in direct window unit A/C and read it during the hottest part of the day. Started when I was in 3rd grade he captivated me so much.

 

[Hevishot]

Hi all. New here.
The rarest Model 70 I have ever seen or heard of was a model 70 .308 win. STANDARD GRADE. Back in the early 80's Bedlan's had one new in the box for $5,000. I wish I would have bought it but that was alot of money for me back then. According the Felix only 3 were made.

 

[Offfhand]

The Pre-64's were also favorites of Griffin&Howe and other top shelf custom gunmakers who preferred the trim, slick working actions for converting to other calibers. So one has to wonder haw many "rare" M-70's were converted. Attached photos are samples of customized M-70's.

 

[sage5907]

Offhand, those are some beautifully stocked Model 70's and their workmanship was excellent. When I looked at the 2nd picture with the old G&H side mount it kind of made me cringe. They must have really valued that old Weaver scope because the adjustments were directly over the receiver ring. I first thought it was a Lyman Alaskan but it could be a Weaver. Just my opinion, but I think the Model 70 receiver should never have been altered even though it was the sign of the times back in the 50's for custom gun makers to drill those holes in the side of the receiver. I'm such a purist when it comes to a Model 70 that I don't even like to look at a receiver that has been re-blued. Although this thread is about rare cartridges the Model 70 that I think is the most unique model is the carbine. A most interesting rifle to me would be a Model 70 carbine in 35 Remington made about 1954. There's a picture of one in Dean Whitaker's book on page 204.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Offhand, those are some beautifully stocked Model 70's and their workmanship was excellent. When I looked at the 2nd picture with the old G&H side mount it kind of made me cringe. They must have really valued that old Weaver scope because the adjustments were directly over the receiver ring. I first thought it was a Lyman Alaskan but it could be a Weaver. Just my opinion, but I think the Model 70 receiver should never have been altered even though it was the sign of the times back in the 50's for custom gun makers to drill those holes in the side of the receiver. I'm such a purist when it comes to a Model 70 that I don't even like to look at a receiver that has been re-blued. Although this thread is about rare cartridges the Model 70 that I think is the most unique model is the carbine. A most interesting rifle to me would be a Model 70 carbine in 35 Remington made about 1954. There's a picture of one in Dean Whitaker's book on page 204.

Interesting I was under the impression no post war carbines where made after the pre war receivers dried up. The latested I ever saw was a transitition gun in 250-3000 made in 1946.
I don't have my Whitaker book handy but I think a 1954 serial # carbine, particuly in .35 Rem, would be a fake.
My 1951 gun digest does not list a carbine.

 

[.308 Norma]

Now that's a caliber (32 Win Spl) that I just do not understand why it ever existed. But what do I know?

"Thirty-twos just kill better." That's what my dad said. He was an "anything 32" kind of guy.

 

[sage5907]

jim in anchorage, if that 35 Remington carbine had a integral front sight ramp that was 2 3/4 inches long, no barrel vice marks, and the barrel had original blue it would be hard to prove that it was a fake. There were 151 rifles chambered for 35 Remington manufactured from 1952 to 1954 as they cleaned up their stock of previously manufactured barrels. Just because the carbine was not "offered" in the Winchester publications did not mean that one or more carbines were not actually made.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

jim in anchorage, if that 35 Remington carbine had a integral front sight ramp that was 2 3/4 inches long, no barrel vice marks, and the barrel had original blue it would be hard to prove that it was a fake. There were 151 rifles chambered for 35 Remington manufactured from 1952 to 1954 as they cleaned up their stock of previously manufactured barrels. Just because the carbine was not "offered" in the Winchester publications did not mean that one or more carbines were not actually made.

Hard to prove a negative but I sure would want proof it was real. Where did you get that .35 Rem production number?

 

[sage5907]

See page 99 of the Rule book. If I owned that rifle I wouldn't care if the barrel had been obtained from an earlier carbine. Who's to say, even if it had the brazed front sight ramp that became standard in 1952 the Winchester custom shop could have altered an original standard barrel on special order. Winchester really produced some fine rifles in many configurations.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Well sure I can see custom shop. My main interest though is cataloged regular production rifles. I suppose if I threw money around I could get Winchester to build me a .35 Rem today. But it doesn't have the historical value.
Also I am only really interested in pre war guns. The post war guns are OK but show a lot of manufacturing shortcuts.

 

[sage5907]

jim, although we both like Model 70 rifles we each have our own particular favorite production time. I particularly like the rifles made from 1950 through 1955 because I'm a hunter and not a collector. I do have some made later but you are right that the quality did suffer in the later years, especially in the quality of the stock. I have always been impressed by how smoothly they operate and the consistent accuracy.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

jim, although we both like Model 70 rifles we each have our own particular favorite production time. I particularly like the rifles made from 1950 through 1955 because I'm a hunter and not a collector. I do have some made later but you are right that the quality did suffer in the later years, especially in the quality of the stock. I have always been impressed by how smoothly they operate and the consistent accuracy.

I hear ya. But the pre wars can be fine hunters. I found a jewel at a gun show a 1936 M70 someone put on a 60s M70. Barrel on so no collector value.
And someone sanded all the checkering off the stock. It's going to be very much a shooter. In .358 Norma mag soon as I can have that done.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Those old Model 70s that someone has bubbaized can be great guns -- after all, no matter what Bubba did, it's still a Model 70.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Those old Model 70s that someone has bubbaized can be great guns -- after all, no matter what Bubba did, it's still a Model 70.

Yep. I just don't like the ones that have like 20 holes drilled in them for every scope mount ever made. But they still work as designed.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

The tang does not resemble a cloverleaf. It is similar to the shape of the neck of a Coke bottle, smoothly tapered towards the wrist of the stock. View attachment 229806 View attachment 229807 Do these images help?

No question that's a pre war safety not a transition one as I would expect on a gun of that vintage. And yes it does have the "clover leaf" or "dolls head" tang of a pre war gun.
I would like to see the bolt root.
Remember in 1946 Winchester was getting back into the civilen arms market and no doubt where looking to clean out there pre war stock that had sitting for years.
Any which way, that's a fine gun you have.

 

[Toml]

No question that's a pre war safety not a transition one as I would expect on a gun of that vintage. And yes it does have the "clover leaf" or "dolls head" tang of a pre war gun.
I would like to see the bolt root.
Remember in 1946 Winchester was getting back into the civilen arms market and no doubt where looking to clean out there pre war stock that had sitting for years.
Any which way, that's a fine gun you have.

Thank you. And thank you for your comments and observations.

Glad to provide photographs. What is the bolt root? It this the bolt handle where it meets the body? Interested in the action or just shots of this area?