"Winchester" Mdl 70 Mauser Type Comparisons

[CB900F]

Fella's;

Let's consider the "Winchester" model 70 type guns available today with the Mauser type action. First, there's the Holy Grail pre-64 model 70's. Then there's the USRAC Classics. But wait! There's three more, aren't there? The one nobody seems to think of in this category, the Montana Rifle Company MRC offerings, the now defunct Dakota guns, and lastly the current production FN Winchesters.

I know that the USRAC guns, and the FN's, incorporate some detail changes from the pre-64's primarily in the gas-handling area if there's a blown case. I've also never had a pre-64 and one of the others side-by-side to do a comparison. Do the Dakota and MRC guns incorporate these updates or not?
In fact, both Dakota and MRC have led me to believe that their actions are faithful reproductions of the actual Winchester product. Is that so? If any of these guns aren't in fact Winchester model 70 type actions, what are the substantial differences among them?

Lastly, I know the Winchester collector purists don't consider the USRAC guns to be Winchesters, let alone the FN's, MRC's, and Dakota's. However, what I'm talking about here is not to be taken from the collector's standpoint, but rather from the practical hunter's view. From the hypothetical viewpoint of a guy who can afford any of the candidates, has them all available to him for sale, and is wondering what the differences are.

900F

 

[MrBorland]

Well, I'm no M70 expert, so I'm hesitant to wade in here, but AFAIK, the pre-64s all used a long action receiver and a pre-64 trigger that was known for its reliability. Some consider it the best available trigger for a dedicated hunting rifle.

Current M-70s utilize both short- and long-action receivers, and incorporate a new (MOA) trigger. Dakotas and MRCs are available in both receiver lengths, but they utilize a pre-64 type trigger.

The Dakota and MRC systems have the receiver vent hole like the M-70, but at least the Dakota (don't know about the MRC) supposedly does a better job of directing and venting gases from a ruptured case away from the shooter. The Dakota and MRC also eliminated the coned breaching of the pre-64 M70, theoretically making the action a bit stronger and ruptured cases less likely in the first place (though it's pretty unlikely to happen anyway).

BTW, two other M-70 type action are the FN SPR and Granite Mountain. The SPR's a true short action, and like the DA/MRCs, utilizes the pre-64 trigger. Granite Mountain actions are really top-end, so if one's checking out a Dakota, maybe also check out a custom rifle built on on a GM action.

 

[PabloJ]

Might also want to look at old Kimber of Oregon. They used to be available for under $1000 not long ago but now seem to approach $2000 if in excellent condition.

I like old Winchesters in calibers not readily available today:

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[elkhunterCO]

Ruger M77 has a claw extractor also, at least the older ones do. I haven't seen a new for awhile.

From a practical hunter's standpoint, I like the coned breech of the current M70.

 

[sage5907]

One thing that I like about the pre 64 Model 70 that is not found on any of the rifles built since 1963 is the pre 64 Model 70 monte carlo stock. That one feature makes the rifle easy to aim and has been far better for me than any other stock design. I really liked it when mcMillan came out with their composite version of the same stock.

 

[Jim K]

Just FWIW, the Winchester Model 70 is not a Mauser; the pre-64 rifle is an improved Model 54, which was based on the M1903 Springfield. While the M1903 has some pre-98 Mauser features, it is not a Mauser.

The Springfield, and the pre-64 Model 70 Winchester, do not handle gas especially well; the Model 1898 Mauser does a much better job. But with good cases and reasonable loads, the chances of having a case fail are so small as to be non-existent. If you are buying a rifle, my advice is to buy the one you like for other reasons, and not worry about gas handling capability.

Jim

 

[jmr40]

If I'm buying it to appreciate in value I want a pre WW-2 rifle. Most the pre-64's made between the war and 1963 aren't all that special. Quality didn't suddenly go down hill in 1964. It was a gradual process that resulted in a design change in 1964. For many years ANY pre-64 brought a premium simply because it was the only option if someone wanted CRF. Now that CRF is an option with Winchester and several others most of those pre-64's no longer sell at a premium.

If I'm buying to shoot, I want one of the Winchester Classics made between 1992 and 2006. Preferably no later than about 2002 or 2003. You get the benefits of the traditional design with modern technology which allowed closer tolerances. Most of those are better built and more accurate than the best pre-64 guns. They still use the older open trigger design that is as bulletproof as it comes on a rifle meant to be used in harsh dirty conditions.

One concern on the Classics. Winchester closed in 2006. Some time after about 2003 or 2004 quality started slipping somewhat. Older guns are usually just fine, SOME made closer to 2006 have had some minor issues. The Classics are becoming somewhat collectable too. They will sell for more than a common pre-64 rifle built after the war.

The new FN rifles would be my 2nd choice, and a close one. I have 3 of the Classics and one FN made rifle. They changed the trigger design on the FN's to a closed design. This allows a smoother trigger out of the box, but it is a less rugged design that could more easily be affected by snow, ice, or dirt in the trigger group. The older trigger could be worked on to give a very good trigger pull, but was rarely great out of the box. But it is the one I'd prefer on a wilderness hunt in harsh conditions.

The FN rifles are very good. And the new trigger design has caused no problems I'm aware of. In fact most would consider it an improvement. Just a personal preference to me.

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

OK, to clear up some confusion. The reason the title to this thread has the word "type" in it is not by happenstance. The original Winchester model 70 action is not a Mauser design, but it most assuredly is a derivative of Mauser's original design work.

900F

 

[sage5907]

cb900f, the original Mauser design was developed as a military rifle which left a lot to be desired for the sporting arms industry. The Mauser design was used as the basis for the 1903 Springfield and used again to develop both the Model 54 and the Model 70 Winchesters. By the time the Model 70 came out in 1937 a more user friendly rifle was marketed which included among other things an improved trigger, improved safety,improved floorplate assembly, and a high quality well designed american walnut stock. The only thing that created the changes to the Model 70 in 1964 was the high cost of manufacturing which resulted in modification that were not helpful to the original Model 70 design. If you listen to the comments of many of the detractors of the original Model 70 they have forgotten that the pre 64 Model 70 was being marketed during the period when the U.S was planning manned trips to the moon which they haven't done since. Many of the newer designs are want-to-be rifles that will never have the following created by the original Model 70. There market share, availability and use are small. Over 500,000 pre 64 Model 70's were sold. How many total Kimbers, Montana's, Dakota's, and FN controlled feed versions do you think have been sold?

 

[MrBorland]

In fact, both Dakota and MRC have led me to believe that their actions are faithful reproductions of the actual Winchester product. Is that so? If any of these guns aren't in fact Winchester model 70 type actions, what are the substantial differences among them?

Just to further clarify: Seems the OP's simply asking about the difference between the M70 and the Dakota/MRC designs. The OP's not asking how they differ from a Mauser, and/or what's the "better" rifle.

 

[Zeke/PA]

I am one of the "old foggies" who firmly believes that the Pre-64 Model 70"s were the best rifles ever made.
If I were in the market for a rifle right now,I'd search far and wide at local shops and gun shows to find what I wanted.
MOST M70's were used strictly during deer season and show little abuse.
I currently own six, two being of the Pre-War variety.
I have yet to see a Pre-64 M70 un-capable of MOA accuracy!

 

[CB900F]

Mr. Borland;

Thank you, I was not aware of the Granite Mountain and FN SPR variants. And yes, what I'm asking for is comparisons between the variants available today, including of course the original.

I do find it odd that the only variant that offered a true left hand version were the USRAC guns. Just for curiosity's sake I'd imagine there's a premium on those models. I find the FN SPR of interest, but wonder why they didn't market it as a Winchester? The only practical reason I can come up with at short notice is that FN may be considering dropping it's license agreement with Olin, the owner's of the Winchester name, and want to continue with that gun under the FN banner. I wonder if resistance to the "assembled in Portugal" has really been enough to affect sales to that degree?

900F

 

[Slamfire]

There are so many features about the Mauser that are not mentioned in today’s advertizing, primarily because the features add cost and are unseen.

A nice little feature is the undercut on the Mauser extractor. The bolt head has a corresponding cam cut and these inclined surfaces will keep the extractor on the rim of a difficult to extract cartridge. The inferior claw extractor, as shown by the M70 and M1903, these extractors will pop off the rim of a sticky case.





A Mauser bolt stop is buffered and there is a lot of surface contact between a Mauser bolt stop and the bolt lug. The buffering and large contact area protects the bolt lug from damage. I don’t have pictures of sheared M1903 bolt lugs, because I traded the bolt away, but only the left bolt lug tip engages the bolt stop on a M1903. The end result is gouged bolt stops and gouged left bolt lug. I had one bolt where the left lug tip had almost been sheared off. The Japanese Arisaka did them one better by having a lug whose only purpose was to engage the bolt stop.

The safety lug on a Mauser bolt acts as a gas block for gases trying to go under the bolt. The bolt shroud is particularly effective in blocking gases going down the left receiver rail. And I want to point out some hidden features that the firing pin has. Notice the flanged area on the front of the firing pin. This is the firing pin interlock.



There are recesses cut into the bolt interior. If the bolt is in battery the recesses are in line with the shoulders cut on the firing pin and the firing pin is able to go fully forward and hit the primer. You can see the firing pin through the gas port, this is the correct orientation:



If the firing pin were to break before the lugs are in battery, this interlock prevents the firing pin from going forward. As you can see, no firing pin tip sticking through the bolt face.



The flats on the firing pin do a couple of things. It prevents the firing pin from being blown out of the bolt. This is an actual safety issue. P.O. Ackley performed blowup tests on M1903’s, and escaping gases blew the firing pin completely out of the rifle with enough force that it would likely have gone through a human head.



The Mauser pin will positively bottom out and not go any further. This also blocks gas from going down the firing pin shaft into your eye. An inferior action, such as the M1903 or M70, that gas is going straight into your eye!



I also want to mention that a true Mauser safety positively holds the firing pin back. It is not a sear blocking or trigger blocking safety. Both of those types have been known to fail through insufficient sear engagement or shock.

This Ruger M77 safety positively cams the cocking piece back and holds it back.



So does the M70 safety.



It is sad to say that even my Dumoulin Mauser no longer has a complete inner collar. It was cut through on the left side, just as the commerical FN Mauser actions. Military Mauser actions had a "C" inner collar. A complete “C” inner collar shrouds the case head better and blocks gas better, but it is too expensive to make.

Dumoulin inner collar.


A feature that I like, that is common to all the old military bolt actions, is milled feed lips. The receivers of these actions have contours milled into the receivers which are timed for cartridge release. These are feed lips and the actual orientation of the cartridge at release is extremely important for reliable feeding. Unlike modern actions with cheap stamped metal boxes, these feed lips don’t move, don’t bend, are extremely hard to wear out, and thus, provide the most reliable means of feed of any system. Anyone who has shot enough rounds through an AR15 knows what happens when those cheap aluminum magazine feed lips wear: You get jams!






Of course milled receiver feed lips are specific to the class of cartridge being used, but they last the life of the receiver.

This a P14 Enfield action and a modern FN PBR M70 action. The Enfield action is clearly milled for a rimmed cartridge. The M70 requires that magazine box, of three rounds, while the Enfield can have five or six rounds (30-06) in the magazine.


Here you can clearly see the feed lips cut into the P14 Enfield and a M1903 Springfield receiver.

 

[Slamfire]

The Dumoulin Mauser action has milled feed lips.





The Mauser action will seat the cartridge deeper into the barrel than the cone breech found on an 03/M70.


Cartridge case protrusion is extremely important as the brass case is a gas seal not a structural component to carry load. Being made of thin brass it is far weaker than the steel components of the action. One way to look at it: an action is "strong" in so far on how well it surrounds and supports the cartridge case. Stronger actions provide more case support and therefore it takes more pressure to burst the case. Keeping the case from rupturing is a primary safety consideration as once the case is breeched, high pressure gas will spill out and cause damage to the action. Case head rupture is an uncontrolled event and what damage occurs is highly unpredictable. The original "C" type collar of a Mauser action surrounded all of the case head sticking out of the barrel, except for that portion next to the extractor, providing support and gas blocking. The cone breech, as typified by the M1903 and M70, leaves more unsupported case head sticking out and is ineffective as a gas block. This blowup in a M70 shows how gas release damaged the weapon:






This Spanish FR-7 rifle used an early M1896 action which also left a lot of unsupported case head out of the chamber. When the case head blew, it removed the receiver ring. I am of the opinion that the reason the M70 receiver ring stayed intact is due to the superior metallurgy of modern alloy steels and modern manufacturing methods.





Of course anything made by man can be unmade by man, even modern actions:




In terms of cartridge support the M700 is an excellent design. This is a 243 overpressure event. The case head is so swollen that it completely fills the bolt face of this M700 bolt. As long as the case is not ruptured or primer pierced, very little gas leaks rear ward. At the time of these pictures, the owner had not figured out how to remove the case.

 

[CB900F]

Slamfire;

Thank you indeed for that information. I truly appreciate the time & trouble it took to present that to us.

900F

 

[Slamfire]

Glad to be of help. As much as I am a fan of the original Mauser M98 action, I do like the pre 64 M70, and to a lesser extent, the current M70 action.

The M70 action always was a smooth and slick action, the bolt lift easier than a Mauser and a faster firing pin strike. It is also a stiff receiver, given the combination of those features, it was a very popular action to build an Across the Course rifle.

You do have to remember the limitations of the M70, primarily poor gas release. On all rifles you should always be wearing shooting glasses in case the primer pierces and gas goes towards your eye. In hot weather I have had pierced primers ion my M70 and the right lens of my glasses were sprayed with hot oil which was blown down the firing pin shaft.

Of the actions I have examined, the Savage M110 is particularly good in blocking gases, don't have pictures, so examine one and see how gas is trapped in the bolt.

One thing I preferred with the older M70's was the trigger. This trigger was the "best" over ride trigger ever made. It was very dirt tolerant for one thing. Because of the geometry, it did over ride around 2 pounds, even so, that is more than adequate for a hunting rifle. On my target M70's I replaced the triggers with aftermarket assemblies, because I wanted a lighter pull.



Starting somewhere, might have been the PBR actions, at least they extended the left side of the bolt shroud to block gases coming down the left side.



One the earlier pre 64's and post 64's, the shroud offered no protection whatsoever.

It is always worth looking at the M98 as a comparison to examine later actions. Mauser incorporated a lot of safety features in his action that do not appear in later designs. Don't want to bad mouth the M70 too much, but I am convinced that most of the actions designed after the M70 have even less shooter protection features.

 

[Zeke/PA]

Shooter protection OR Stupidity protection??

 

[elkhunterCO]

Thank you Slamfire.

I have an old Mauser from (I believe) the early 20's and a current FN 70 and I knew some about them, but you took my knowledge to a much higher level.

 

[Roadkill]

Slamfire - that was great - thanks. I have a 1950ish Belgian FN Mauser in 30-06
and a 1968 Win Mod 70 in .308. On the Mauser there are three pins/lugs extruding on the left side of the receiver. Two are threaded. These were for attaching something. Any idea what?

thanks

(2nd & 3rd rifles)

 

[Slamfire]

My FN Deluxe has a bolt stop on the left side and that has two lugs. I don't know what the third lug could possibly be. A picture would help.

 

[Roadkill]

Will get photos later - thanks

 

[Roadkill]

I was wrong - only the center stud has threads

 

[OYE]

Left side holes

Think those holes are for a side mount scope (pretty sure really). This stock isn't notched out for one. I suspect the stock "may be" hiding two more holes beneath the two pins.
OYE

 

[Slamfire]

Think those holes are for a side mount scope (pretty sure really). This stock isn't notched out for one. I suspect the stock "may be" hiding two more holes beneath the two pins.
OYE

My vote too. Too bad the mount and base are missing, but I have never seen the scope mount or base that would fit that arrangement. I just looked at my 1960 Shooter's Bible and there are side mounts that fit on receiver attached bases, but the pictures don't show how the base was attached. A guess would be a Griffin and Howe side mount base.

 

[PabloJ]

Looks like original owner had side mount installed to be able to use iron sights or scope. Scopes made in 1950s were far inferior and less reliable to what is available today. Typical sample made at that time is optically inferior to stuff sold at Walmart.