Winchester 70's - Pre 64

A good cleaning and oiling and then the plan is to leave this one just as it sits. Cool to own #6542 in my opinion. It's got enough wear that I won't feel bad taking it out when I feel like it.

Will probably try to chase down a post war model that was factory drilled and tapped to have as a hunting rifle. Anybody have scope reccomendations that would be era correct to a 50's gun?
Actually there is a scope base for your rifle - it uses the holes for the reciever sight in the rear - I found one (used) when I first bought my Model 54 - forget who made it - perhaps Redfield. Long out of print I think?

As for a scope, there are lots of good ones out there. It might be just me, but I always figure a Winchester deserves a Leupold - though I did put a Kahles on my .416 Taylor.

Riposte
 
I am no expert but I do know that pre-war guns are not drilled and tapped on the rear strap of the reciever. It is a big hit to the collector value of a prewar gun if it has been drilled and tapped. I want to say Bausch and Lomb or sombody made a mount that used the factory front reciever holes and the holes on the side of the reciever without drilling anything, but I am not sure. They started drilling and tapping them after the war, so no issues scoping a post war gun if you do it without adding holes.
Stith is the company that made the mounts you describe.

Check out Ironsiteinc.com here in Tulsa. They have all types of vintage stuff for your rifle.
 
I carefully tromp with my 1962 Winchester Model 70 in 300 Win Mag. Neither buck took a step. Used Winchester "Deer Season" XP ammo.
 

Attachments

  • 2022 Colorado mule deer wide.jpg
    2022 Colorado mule deer wide.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 2023 Colorado 3x3.jpg
    2023 Colorado 3x3.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 0
  • 2023 Colorado M-70 wide.jpg
    2023 Colorado M-70 wide.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 0
  • 2023 Colorado High Altitude.jpg
    2023 Colorado High Altitude.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 0
Stith also made a mount that attached to the left side of the rear receiver and used a front mount in the rear sight dovetail. The scope would clamp at the rear, slide into a tube somewhat on the front. Very interesting setup. Google some pictures. I am fortunate to have found a Savage 99 that had a Stith mount and an old Norman Ford scope on it. Neat period piece and great shooter.
 
I've got my first old one set to deliver tomorrow. From what I can tell it is all original parts, but the pictures aren't fantastic. I'd be over the moon if its anywhere close to as nice as yours.

I plan on buying the Rule book, but it isn't available on kindle, so I'll have to wait for hard copy. I bought a Winchester book on kindle and it isn't much more than a price guide.

I do agree with @Rustywrench in that more of these are showing up on the market but the intact guns seem to be moving pretty fast if they are priced reasonably. No idea what the long term investment proposition on these is, but I figure the standard caliber run of the mill variations are near the cost of a new model & that helps keep things stable.

I've done enough reading to have a grasp on the obvious; if a gun has incorrect parts etc, but I know i'm not at the level to catch the little stuff yet. Probably need to get ahold of that Rule book before I cost myself some money.
I don't see the long-term investment value in those. Not that many gun people under 50 care anything about classic, old, high-quality high-priced bolt action hunting rifles. The younger crowd wants AR's, and synthetic lightweight bolt guns priced under $600.
The reason you are seeing more model 70's coming up for sale is because the sons and widows of the old farts like me don't really appreciate those kinds of guns and only see them as a source of some good ready cash after the owner croaks.
 
I don't see the long-term investment value in those. Not that many gun people under 50 care anything about classic, old, high-quality high-priced bolt action hunting rifles. The younger crowd wants AR's, and synthetic lightweight bolt guns priced under $600.
The reason you are seeing more model 70's coming up for sale is because the sons and widows of the old farts like me don't really appreciate those kinds of guns and only see them as a source of some good ready cash after the owner croaks.
I am 29. I try not to buy guns that are significantly more expensive than their modern production equivalent but I own many more vintage guns than modern ones. I think that helps hedge my bets. Maybe it takes $1000 to get a nice pre 64 gun, and maybe it only takes $600 to get a synthetic bolt rifle, but I have no problems paying a little more to get what I like. I can't imagine a $600 synthetic gun is any better of an investment.
 
Just an Opinion of mine.. So, I love the looks of the period correct mounts, scopes and such.
If Its not a Dedicated Hunting Rifle, Vintage is great. Lot of choices. some examples FS on Pre64.com. If Its a Hunter, I like a Weaver base, and standard ol Weaver rings. Reasonable priced and Durable. That is what is on my own Pre 64, .338 Win Mag Rifle. At least 20 years now.. The Leupold one piece Base, or the Redfield one, is good too. For myself, just a little harder to install and line up, as the front ring is turned into mount.
Perfect, in MY opinion also, is the Rifle, Base, and ring setup, in the Post above by Taj.
Featherweight 30-06. Well proven, no doubt. Looks Like Leupold, but He may elaborate..
 
I had a prewar supergrade in 22 hornet. It had a sidemount and a Zeiss Zeilvier scope. My long gone cousin Alvin Crockett bought it from a desperate person in Key West Florida where he owned a Yamaha motorcycle dealership after retiring from the Navy around 1955. He was my second cousin served on the carrier Hornet when the Doolittle raid was launched in 1942. He was there from commissioning until it was sunk in the Battle of the Coral sea. He paid $125 for the gun. When I retired from auto repair I drove up there and helped him restore a 1939 Ford farm truck, The gun was a form of compensation for my work. Sold that rifle for $2700 on GunBroker when I had a curio and relics license.
 
Well, I pulled the trigger on a 1952 m70 in .270 that should pair up nicely to this pre war gun. It is a monte carlo stock gun. Snagged a cheap 3-9x redfield bear cub that isn't filmed over with solvent and is in great shape. It's a decade newer than the gun but it won't look out of place.

Mount and ring setup is the only remaining piece to the equation. Looks like the redfield jr. mount is the standard choice and will take leupold or redfield rings. Is one ring known to be better than the other, and what height ring would be best?
 
I suppose that by investment proposition, I should clarify that I mean in regards to vs other guns, not comparatively to the stock market. Not easy to beat the stock market with guns and not easy to liquidate guns either. The one thing that gun collecting offers that the stock market doesn't, is the ability to get a "deal" upfront and have your point of entry well below market value. That portion is part of the fun if you ask me, but requires expert knowledge of what you're looking at, as well as a good grasp of honest market values & understanding of the cost to liquidate etc etc.

All that said, I am much better at saving money by sticking a revolver or rifle in the safe than throwing my extra funds in the market.
Guns are like investing in precious metals.
The ones who make the most money are the dealers/brokers that handle the transactions. They get their cut right off the top-both ways.
The advantage of investing in guns is that you get to have fun with them.
Hard to have fun with gold and silver.
 
Guns are like investing in precious metals.
The ones who make the most money are the dealers/brokers that handle the transactions. They get their cut right off the top-both ways.
The advantage of investing in guns is that you get to have fun with them.
Hard to have fun with gold and silver.
I've made some mistakes in this area over many years, but would rather invest elsewhere and you use the money I earned from investing to buy guns. While you can make a few dollars from investing in guns, that money is seldom if ever "change your lifestyle"-type money and change your lifestyle-type money should be an ultimate goal in investing. Yet, "investing" in guns serves as a justification (sometimes true, more often false) for buying them.

I like to buy guns to shoot and enjoy. I'm far from wealthy but am willing to spend a little more to get desirable stuff that will retain value well and that others will want at sale or trade time should such occasions occur. I couldn't imagine buying something to put in a safe, depriving myself of the opportunity to use it, and selling it in a few years for ten times what I paid for it. Or, more realistically, letting my heirs sell it.
 
Here it is. Bolt is numbered to the reciever. Reciever isnt drilled and tapped. Bore looks great. Good bit of grime on the gun though from handling, and it's obviously seen some actual use.

I would be curious as to the experts opinions on the originality of the finish on the wood as well as the metal. If more pictures or indoor pictures are warranted, I can certainly take them.

View attachment 781362View attachment 781363View attachment 781364View attachment 781365View attachment 781366View attachment 781367View attachment 781368
The checkering on my "Pre-war" stock is also screwed-up!
The checkering on pre-war stocks was 20 lpi, while post-war it was 18 lpi.
Someone attempted to recut my checkering using an 18 lpi tool!

About the only MINOR "complaint" I have about these early stocks is the excessive drop at the heel . . . . .

Makes for uncomfortable shooting from the bench . . . .or shooting prone!
 
Well, I'm not gonna mount a scope on the pre-war gun, so pre 64 model 70 #2 has arrived. 52' std weight .270. Feel pretty good about what I paid & It's in fantastic shape. One little ding under the pistol grip, and some very minor wear on the butt plate. If it was any nicer, I'd be having second thoughts about taking it into the field.

Lucked out & the ebay redfield wasn't fogged. Hopefully I'll be able to smack a deer with it in a few months.

1000006957.webp
 
Your 1952 Model 70 has a very early Monte Carlo stock. The correct rear site would be a Marbles 69. Should be a excellent shooter. All my Model 70s in .270 were.
 
I don't have any photos unfortunately but the Model 70 was always my idea of the classic American rifle.
A good friend and advanced Winchester collector sheds examples as he upgrades so I finally got a
pre-64 standard .30-06 rifle, nothing special but an original unmessed with example.
Regards,
 
Back
Top