New VS. old pre-64 model 70

2

270

New member
Believe I've touched on this before but you never know when a new and helpful response will come along.

I have an old pre-64 model 70 made in 1950. The quality of wood--the grain/appearance--is not great but I understand typical for that time. It's in fine shape.

I see a beautiful new Super Grade model 70 also chambered for the 270 Win. ctg. that has very nice wood and the new--supposedly superior--trigger. Beautiful gun. It does not, however have the iron sights of my old 70 nor the really neat steel buttplate. I'm sure the new 70 is lighter.

This is a problem I doubt I'll ever resolve and chances are great that I stay with the old gun. Old gun for an old guy sounds proper.

(Well now...first time I've refered to myself as "an old guy." At age 70 maybe it's time.)

270
 
I have a lot of Model 70s, I think the New FN Model 70 is the best of the lot.

Having said that, I wouldn't part with a Pre-64 Model 70, then again I wouldn't pass up the chance to buy a New Model 70.

I have one of the FN Model 70s in 270 Win Featherweight, Nice wood, nice fit, smooth and accurate as all get out.
 
I had a Model 70 in .30-06 dating from 1950 (per the serial number). It was an excellent rifle; I eventually sold it to a good friend who has promised me first dibs on it if he should sell it. :) I also have an early-80's XTR Featherweight in .257 Roberts, and a "Classic Sporter LT" in .300 Magnum that I got in 2003. All of them have been perfectly reliable and accurate. I think that the two later rifles really do stack up pretty well compared to the pre-64. I have yet to try one of the FN Model 70's.
 
When you study guns in depth it is easy to tell. While the new models are fine guns, one of the best on the market, they cant compare to the older models. Just a few points, the new trigger is a nice trigger but is built with stamped tin parts from what I can tell. The older triggers are absolutely reliable and of such a simple design that , while not target grade, they are the best hunting trigger. The new model 70's use a multi part bolt while the older models were all one piece milled from a large billet of steel. On the pre 52 model 70's the front sight is actually milled into the barrel not soldered on. The wood on 1950's model guns, most manufacturers, was of poor grain and quality, must have been hard to find good wood. In a nutshell pre 64 models were built with no shortcuts allowed. Newer models are built with ease of manufacture as the main key.
 
One man's opinion:

The best of the old Model 70s will be better than the average or run of the mill FN Model 70s, but the average or run of the mill FNs will be better than the average of the old Winchesters.

If I run across a vintage rifle that tugs at my heart, I'll buy it. If I were setting out to buy a gun to fill some specific purpose today, I'd buy an FN Model 70.
 
I really like the pre-64 Model 70's, especially the low comb metal butt plate type. I have hunted with one a lot of the time for over thirty years. I have also used the newer CRF models from CT. and other than a stiff safety or two they all worked like they were supposed to.

Since they are foremost a hunting rifle I can't imagine what hunting situation you could get in to where one would do anything the other would not.

I like the old ones but would have to be creative to come up with any practical reason.
 
I notice what looks like "milling marks" along the side of the base of the front sight of my pre-64 model 70 made in 1950. Is this typical or has a previous owner or gunsmith been messing with this sight? The blueing is there but you can see these "scratch marks" running lengthwise along the base of sight.

30-30 remchester, expect you know.

270
 
I've got a 1950 Super Grade that doesn't have any milling marks on the sight. It's possible it didn't get fully polished before bluing at the factory. Up til 53' model 70 sights were milled with the barrel. No screws or soldering.

IMO the pre 64's are still preferred. I like the bolt handle better and they feel a bit more solid to me. Both great guns though.
 
.

+1 on what Kraig of Wyoming said.

I wouldn't sell my pre-64's because I like them and they
are as good as money in the bank. Or better.

But the new FN models are excellent in build quality and I've
been thinking about picking one up when I find one with
wood I like.

good shooting, dxr

.
 
Well 270, the milling marks you describe isnt common and after inspecting a trainload of old Winchesters I cant say I have ever seen any of the marks you describe. It wasnt only the model 70 that had integral front sight bases. I would hazard to guess that it somehow slipped out of the factory without the final polish. Winchester was still a highly proffesional operation in 1950 but was looking for ways to compete with the newer cheaper to produce Remingtons. When the topic is which is better it always generates debate. I consider how each part is manufactured and with what type of materials are used. To me the best materials that are hand machined and hand assembled is what I use as a guide to which is best. Using these criterias, it isnt even close as to which is best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top