I think we all revere the design and workmanship of the original (1937-1963) Winchester M-70. But, sentiment aside, the new ones have prettier stocks and come with recoil pads. The lines of the new ones are more refined, and I especially adore the Classic Featherweight. The checkering is superb, if presumably computer-cut. That wasn't always true on the old ones, especially toward the end of production.

And I think the new ones shoot better, on average. My son has a .30/06 Fwt. that simply thinks it's a target rifle. My .270 is also a tight grouper.

I think we all agree that those made from 1964-1972 needed some help, which they got. And the 1972 version was further improved. But the post-1968 guns, with the bolt guide, operate very smoothly. I think the new bolt head design is superior, and safer.

I'm sure that many here will shout that I'm a barbarian for even suggesting that the current M-70 just might be the better rifle, but I think it's true.

What say you? And don't swear. We've already had one man say the G word (Glock) on this board today, on the first day of the new year.

There: that ought to set the cat among the pigeons. I'll check tomorrow to see the results. But think carefully before you post. Don't let nostalgia color your answer. Well, not too much...

Oops: I concede that the older trigger design may be better.

I have studied the older models for many decades and am a giant fan, they just dont get much better. I have not got to disassemble a newer on yet but look forward to it. If I had to buy a new gun it would be a new model 70. I do know the newer guns have more persise machining due to cnc machining. The wood on the new models is in general superior to older guns. However I do know that the modern guns dont have the panash of the older handbuilt guns or the personal touch of the older guns. The new bolts are no longer the quality of design as the older guns. The older guns bolts were one piece milled from a single billet of steel. The newer guns went economy. These are now multi piece soldered together same as the Savages and Remingtons. And as you noticed the new triggers arent up to the rugged design of the older military style. So far these are the differences I have found.

I have a new one with the claw extractor. If I remember correctly on the pre 64s you had to chamber a shell from the magazine. What little mind I have is not very good so I may not be remembering right. This new one you can put a shell in the chamber and close the bolt but if feeding from the mag. the extractor grabs the shell and holds it to the chamber. For the difference in price my new one works just fine but there is not the pride of ownership of a pre 64. Larry

The pre 64's could also chamber a round and close the bolt though I dont like to do it.

I love the old guns, but the newer ones, built the last several years (in New Haven, CT, as well as SC) are good rifles. I liked it when, for awhile, Winchester made a controlled feed pre-64 type in left-hand form. Too bad I can't GET one of those made by FN in SC. I keep hoping a lefty will be re-introduced. My dream rifle now (until the next dream comes along) would be a new, "Supergrade", FN-made .270 M70 in left-handed persuasion. I'd mount a Leupold 4X in Talley rings (or maybe a one-piece Redfield Jr. mount) and be a happy guy. Don't know if Winchester/FN made a good move by replacing the old M70 trigger, though-it was considered by most to be a superb, simple and rugged trigger. Time will tell if the new trigger mechanism is a worthy replacement.
Bob

In the last 5 years I have used 3 M-70's one pre-64 (post war transition) 270, a 1980's 375 H&H and a 1980's 270. All of them shoot better than I ever expected.

The pre-64 270 shoots under 1" with my reloads. The 1980's 270 gets under 1" with factory Remington ammo (I have never shot reloads in it). The 375 H&H will get 1 1/2" groups with reloads and the recoil is acceptable.

That is not a lot of guns, so I won't draw any grand conclusions - but I would not turn up my nose at a "modern" M-70 anymore. Thats what I get for reading gun magazines all those years.

__________________
6/23/2022

I have a Pre-64 (1959) .30-06 and it is great. I also bought a new South Carolina version, a Sporter in .270 Win. Gorgeous rifle, shoots nicely as well.

__________________
Copyright MCMLXII ©

Thank you for the information. Larry

Only had time time to get the 1X-4X Leupold Turkey Scope close to zero at 25 yards and then squeeze off 3 rounds at 100 yards from a fouled warm barrel on a wobbly rest at a less than optimal target with reduced recoil factory loads.

I am very pleased. After I lock tight the ring screws I hope to shoot from a proper rest, at better target, and at a relaxed pace, and see just how well this puppy will shoot.







Not even a close question?

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

There IS a close question, if you mean that nice group. I've seen as good or better from the new M-70's. And from Sako's...even Remingtons sometimes shoot that well. Not that a deer would ever know the difference, if your rifle shoots that well. Nice piece!

But it shows one thing that I don't like about pre-'64's: unless you get a Super Grade that has one, there's no pistol grip cap. I like that touch.

To me it's the classic look and the history of a quality American firearm.

But truth be told, any American made gun is fine in my book as long as it goes bang when you pull the trigger and hits what it's aimed at.

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

I have a Model 70 7mm Mag that was made in 1972; what changes were made to the '72 version? Any idea what serial number the changes started?

Here's a useful tool, if you don't own the book. Winchester Dates of Manufacture

__________________
RIP Shipmate

I think you need to get some books (maybe old Gun Digests) that might have photos that will let you see the changes between the 1968 version and the 1972. Briefly, I can say that the impressed checkering was changed to cut checkering, the stock was restyled and had a black forend tip, and the sights were, I think, changed. A recoil pad become standard, at least on Magnum calibers.

I was in a gun shop when a Winchester rep brought in the new model and told the shop owner, "This rifle is so nice that I think it'll kill off the Super Grade." I think he was basically right, although I think the bolt cap or whatever it was called at the rear of the bolr remained for a time.

It wasn't until later that the present stocks emerged, more classic, and the wide Mauser '98 extractor was re-instated. The bolt head guide dates from the 1968 version.

The so-called "push-feed" version of the M-70 nonetheless had an extractor similar to that on the Lee-Enfield, but wider and more positive, and the L-E was acknowldged to be a fine battle rifle, quite reliable even in the mud of Flanders. The bolt head guide gliding in a slot on the receiver is also similar.

I am not a collector, so someone else will have to give you the serial numbers for the various changes.

But see if your library has the Gun Digest over the years. That may let you see the looks of the different rifles, or maybe someone has some old Winchester catalogs that they could post photos from. Is that a copyright issue?

I've never owned a Pre-64 M70 but have lusted after one for many years. They are just out of my price range. A non-beater in a common caliber starts at over $1000, granted you can find well worn or backyard modified ones cheaper but even those seem to run around $800

I have owned quite a few .30-06 hunting rifles over the years, looking for that one that was just right. I did own a 90s M70 CRF Sporter .30-06 with a BOSS, and currently own a 1974 M70 Sporter .30-06 . The 90s CRF while a nice rifle had that darn BOSS thing on the end of the barrel that amplified the muzzle blast. It was good for what it was but, I found it was way too loud, and messing with the tuner was a major pain. I sold it off years ago and really don't regret it.

I few years ago I went looking for a .30-06 for a hunting trip. I only had $500 to spend on the rifle, I came across what at first glance looked to be a Rem 700 in the used rack, upon closer examination I saw it was a Post 64 Winchester M70 .30-06, with the anti bind bolt, and the machine cut checkering that were upgraded in 1972. $450 later I took home a good looking, good shooting scoped rifle.

I really don't have the experience to compare the Post-64 Model 70 to a Pre-64. What I can say with some experience is for the money there is not a darn thing wrong with a Post-64 M70, I like it better than I did my Rem 700 BDL, my Browning BAR MKII, and my Remington 742. It will shoot right at 1MOA with my handloads, not too bad for a light weight hunting rifle. The Post-64s seem to be orphan children round these parts and are one of the best high powered bolt action rifle values to be had. I would have no problem picking up another Post-64-72 M70 in .243 Winchester. I would defiantly seek one out over any of the new plastic stocked budget rifles on the market.

__________________
Regards,
Guy-Harold Smith II

Many thanks for these fine photos of the 1972 version. I hope it answers the question by an earlier poster.

Wow, and all this time I've been happy with my Pre-War M70s! Maybe I'll just keep them until I manage to wear them out. Or die trying. I'm betting the latter. They don't wear very much. I just wish I'd bought the one Jim King was transporting around to gun shows maybe 10 years ago. It was serial #2, the one the book was written about. He wanted too much for it, $30,000 or so. He finally sold it for just under $20,000. For that price it came with the hang tag, box, and a copy of the book.

__________________
Dick Burg

I'd have to agree as well that the later CRF M-70's are a heck of a step up from the first few variations of the post-64 guns.

Bought a .375 H&H CRF in 1997. Zero issues with the gun, shoots under an inch at 100 yds with my 300 gr A-Frame hunting loads. Killed 10 or maybe 11 heads of plains game in RSA in 1998 with that gun. IIRC all one shot kills.

1999 or so bought a new M-70 Sporter with the redesigned stock in .30-06. Immediately screwed a 24" Lilja on chambered in .338-06 , added some fixed Express sights regulated at 50 yds, had the trigger tuned a bit and had myself a very good shooter. Right from the start it was a MOA shooter and remains so today.

Used that gun in RSA in 2000 on waterbuck, impala, red hartebeest and a very large livingston eland. All one shot kills. Then came home and shot my biggest to date 6x6 bull elk at 330 yds. Again...one shot...dead elk.

Bought my wife one of the late 1990's Kids rifles in 7mm-08. Another CRF gun...shoots so well that after she shot a few elk and got bored with hunting...I added some spacers and a longer pad to allow ME to carry it.
Reasonably light weight and the 7mm-08 will kill any deer or antelope I might come across and with some care about any elk as well.

Yeah. I like the later M-70's.

FN in MT

SMITH357, there is nothing wrong with your model 70. It does not come close to the quality of the handbuilt older models and the designs are vastly different but far better than most other companies offering of the time.

My experience with Winchester M-70s is limited to my M-70 XTR in 308 purchased in 1978. In 1979, in fading I fired a 1.25" at 100 yards with GI ammunition and iron sights. Fit and finish are excellent.

I do not own, and never have, a Pre-64 M70. I have seen a lot of them though.

I own a 1986 M70 Featherweight in .25-06. The stock alone, in my opinion, is the best looking factory stock ever put on a bolt-action rifle.

And for me it is a perfect fit. And the "push-feed" bolt is reliable enough for any non-dangerous game.

I do find myself wanting a new M70 with the "Pre-64" extractor in either the Featherweight or Classic version. In either .270, 7mm Mag, .30-06, or .300 Winchester Mag.

I think the newer Winchester M70's will compete very well with the older Pre-64s...with one exception. The Pre-64 is a legend for all time in bolt action sporting rifles.

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

I have 2 M70's: a mid 80's XTR in .223 and a new sporter in 30'06. Both are excellent shooters. The mid 80's version is prettier - it has a beautiful high gloss blue finish, the wood is prettier. The new one is more of a matte finish. The stock on the older is thicker around the grip. The older is a little heavier.

Both have are excellent, I've never shot a pre '64, so I can't compare to that.

Like some who have posted, I too, am ignorant of the pleasures of the Pre-64 Model 70. I do have a Fwt. Classic .30'06 from around 1990 that I can find no problem with. The lines, finish, wood, and action are flawless to me.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

You're right.
No grip cap.
This is going right into the trash heap.
Wouldn't want my grip capped guns to get any bad ideas

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

I own 14 pre-64 Model 70's in assorted calibers so have no need to buy one of the new ones. If I couldn't find a caliber I needed in a pre-64 M 70 I would seriously consider and most likely buy one of the new ones. But for now, I have all I need in the old ones.

The old ones were machined and built by Craftsmen that gave the rifle it's soul. Sadly those days are long gone, with so much else, so we are fortunate, in a way, to be able to still buy the proven design. The computer made new ones can duplicate the design but can't give it heart and soul. Possibly a trip to the Wizard of Oz may help.

Here's a few . . . Happy New Year . . Rod

Only recently acquired my 1st Pre 64. Man, it is a well fitted gun. Can't say it will be my last. I get it, now...

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum