[30-30remchester]

Originally Posted by 75370

Since you brought up the 2012s, how do they stack up to their predecessors, accuracy, fit finish???

I have studied the pre 64 models for decades, but dont have any experence with the newer ones. I do however read and study them whenever I get the chance. The pre 64 models have some deffinate advantages, but from what I have seen, the newer ones are more percisionally machined simply because of the newer computer operated machines. The accuracy is supposed to be a slight bit better. Finish is so different from the older DURA-BLUED models that comparision is not possible.

[Model70]

Originally Posted by 75370

Since you brought up the 2012s, how do they stack up to their predecessors, accuracy, fit finish???

There are a few differences.

The new ones come glass bedded from the factory with a fully floated barrel. My old one has the barrel bulge and fore end screw.









2011 the bolt makes no contact with the follower.

1957 the follower is filed 45* and pushes the follower down.









2011 the receiver has no screws on the back

1957 does









2011 the bolt is slightly larger diameter and massive claw extractor isn't blued

1957 blued extractor





2011 has no visible tool marks

The stocks are very different, but we can discuss that later.

As far as accuracy, it's about 6's so far. I don't really sit down and bench shoot other than just to sight in, both shoot about a minute, that's fine for me. The 2011 seems to have a tighter chamber, the 1957 chambers cases easier. (I really need to check my dies.)

[Durangokid]

American Rifles made with care and pride is long gone. The Pre-64 Mdl. 70 was fitted wood to metal. The first major change was a rifle which was not fitted stock to barrel. The Post-64 rifles had cheap fast totally free floated barrels. The rifles were shipped with a plastic forearm insert to keep the barrel weight from warpping the stock, real progress. Glass beded and free floated stocks remain a cost cutting process.

[Model70]

Wow, tired last night. A few more differences.

The trigger. The 2011 has the new "MOA" trigger. Breaks like glass. Not as simple or rugged as the old design, but nice. I like the design of the old triggers, but I do notice a little creep. I really don't notice much difference with something in the scope though.

The 2011 has a nice target crown, protecting the rifling. The 1957 does not.

As the pre-64's had a few different stock configuration, I'm not to concerned with the differences with them now.

The floor plates are different too. The 2011 has a 1 piece steel floor plate. The 1957 has a 2 piece, trigger guard and magazine are separate parts. All steel though.

2011 has no open sights. 1957 does.

Fully floated a cost saving measure? There is some truth to that. Like I said before, one doesn't really shoot better than the other, but marketing departments have everyone convinced it helps accuracy. Just like round bottom receivers, 50 mm lenses giving a wider field of view and 30 mm tubes giving more light. BS!

There is some science behind the floated barrel at least. Having to do with the harmonic resonance created by the firing of a round, and the oscillation of the barrel created thereby. (The Browning BOSS system is supposed to work on this principle, as well as applying stock pressure to fully floated rifles after putting a muzzle break on.) But like I says, one doesn't really out shoot the other.

I would say if you have the means and opportunity, get a pre 64. If not? The new ones are great rifles, and the only differences I would call updates, not really improvements. To look at them without prejudice, the actions are nearly identical. And this way you don't have to pay way to much for a 6 pound Kimber with a round bottom receiver and sandwiched recoil lug.

[30-30remchester]

There are a few other differences not yet mentioned between the pre 64 and the new models. The bolt is quite different. The pre 64 bolts were one piece. A very expensive brute tough manner in which to make a bolt. The latter models use a 2 piece bolt welded together. The expensive to produce, overtravel bump on the pre 64 bolts have been eleminated on the later bolts. The rear sight boss on the pre 64 barrels are present to prevent weakening the barrel while installing a rear sight. For us severe addicts, we prefer the model 70's built before 1952. After 1952 Winchester started to make changes to lessen the cost to compete with Remingtons and Savages low cost rifles.

[Durangokid]

30-30 well said. Compete with Remington and Savage.

[7X57Mauser]

Originally Posted by Durangokid

30-30 well said. Compete with Remington and Savage.

Well their bid to compete saved them for a few more years...until managerial incompetence drove them under, yet again.
While the majority may turn up their noses at various incarnations of the Model 70 since either pre-64 or the 50's..or 30's, whenever. They are all Model 70s, and I would just as soon shoot any one than a Savage or Marlin Model 7 or Ruger American Rifle. I have nothing against the Remington 700, but I do not care for today's crop of price point rifles. I own two of the dreaded and needlessly maligned post-64 Model 70s, an XTR & a Featherweight and would trade them for a pile of price point rifles. And even if they are poo pooed by the pre-64 snobs, they both have the days in the field and kills to prove they are true American hunting rifles.

[Model70]

Originally Posted by 7X57Mauser

Well their bid to compete saved them for a few more years...until managerial incompetence drove them under, yet again.
While the majority may turn up their noses at various incarnations of the Model 70 since either pre-64 or the 50's..or 30's, whenever. They are all Model 70s, and I would just as soon shoot any one than a Savage or Marlin Model 7 or Ruger American Rifle. I have nothing against the Remington 700, but I do not care for today's crop of price point rifles. I own two of the dreaded and needlessly maligned post-64 Model 70s, an XTR & a Featherweight and would trade them for a pile of price point rifles. And even if they are poo pooed by the pre-64 snobs, they both have the days in the field and kills to prove they are true American hunting rifles.

I'm assuming you meant "WOULDN'T trade them for a pile of price point rifles?"

Other than that, well put my friend. Well put. 8)

[30-30remchester]

7x5 mauser,you get no arguement from me. While us pre-64 guys like our early guns, we also realise the later model 70's are great guns as well.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by 7X57Mauser

Well their bid to compete saved them for a few more years...until managerial incompetence drove them under, yet again.
While the majority may turn up their noses at various incarnations of the Model 70 since either pre-64 or the 50's..or 30's, whenever. They are all Model 70s, and I would just as soon shoot any one than a Savage or Marlin Model 7 or Ruger American Rifle. I have nothing against the Remington 700, but I do not care for today's crop of price point rifles. I own two of the dreaded and needlessly maligned post-64 Model 70s, an XTR & a Featherweight and would trade them for a pile of price point rifles. And even if they are poo pooed by the pre-64 snobs, they both have the days in the field and kills to prove they are true American hunting rifles.

i will state this, the M70 whether old or new is a very fine rifle to own and shoot, and i ahve shot many of them over the years. the Remington M700's seem to be much more available for sale in my area over the Winchesters M70's.

what is your experiance with these so-called price point rifles as you call them? how many have you owned or shot? i have owned several and shot many of them so maybe my observations are more founded in fact than conjecture. i right now own three Marlin X7 series rifles, XL7 in 25-06, XS7 in 7mm-08 and a XS7VH in 308. all three with handloads will shoot very small groups all day long, and will hold their own against my M700's and my fathers M70's. i haven't owned the Savage Axis series, but have shot several of one of my shooting friends, who loves them, and though i am not partial to them, they are very accurate out of the box with factory ammo. the Mossberg ATR100, very accurate rifle, but with it not absorbing recoil compared to other rifles, much better suited for a hunter rather than a shooter. yes i owned one for over a year. the Remington M770, rather disappointing and one i was so displeased with, i was glad to be rid of, only had it a few months. the Ruger American, i have only seen one, haven't shot one yet to see what it's about yet, so i hold any judgement on it until i get an opportunity to try one out. initial impression, not bad, but not one i would buy personally, just doesn't fit me well. the Savage 10/110, 14/114 series rifles, very accurate and very well made, but i'm not a fan just because of the way they fit me, but definately very good rifle choices.

these are my opinions only based on my personal experiance and observations. now if you like more expensive walnut and steel rifles and they are something you rather own, then say so, but don't condemn a rifle just based on the fact that it costs less than yours. BTW, i also own several Remington M700's, Ruger M77's, a Savage M93, and fixing to acquire a Weatherby Mark V sporter model from a friend. i have owned a couple of Weatherby's in the past, but got rid of them due to the high cost of shooting them, but now i reload, so it's not near an issue as it was in the past.