Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
01-31-2005, 09:15 AM
#1
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 579
Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
I have the chance to buy a Post 64 model 70 Winchester Featherweight. I've heard that many don't like this rifle and its design. I would like to know what isn't liked about the rifle? It appears to me that it's designed much like a Remington 700. I understand the differences between controlled round feed and push feed. If Remington and the other push feed designs are like so well what is wrong with the Winchester? The gun is chambered for 6MM Remington and is owned by a close friend. It's a tight grouper with handloads or Federal Premium 100 gr. Nosler Partitions. Any comments will be appreciated.
01-31-2005, 01:10 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
I think, the pre64 thing is really overrated. I agree, if you don't mind a 700 action, then you won't mind a Post 64 action. So unless you are planning to chamber a round upside down, don't worry about it.
They say other quality aspects went down too. But who knows.
They say other quality aspects went down too. But who knows.
01-31-2005, 02:33 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: \"Good Ontario\"
Posts: 1,754
RE: Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
ORIGINAL: bigcountry
I think, the pre64 thing is really overrated. I agree, if you don't mind a 700 action, then you won't mind a Post 64 action. So unless you are planning to chamber a round upside down, don't worry about it.
I think, the pre64 thing is really overrated. I agree, if you don't mind a 700 action, then you won't mind a Post 64 action. So unless you are planning to chamber a round upside down, don't worry about it.
01-31-2005, 03:36 PM
#5
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
RE: Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
The pre 64's are considered to be a superior action because they were very well built. At around 1964 Winchester was revamped so to speak and they began focusing more on quanity rather than quality. This is not to say that post 64 rifles are bad because they aren't. Mine functions just fine. But the pre 64's are better.
They were machined from solid billets of steel rather than cast like the post 64's are.
They have controled round feeding rather than the push round feeding. Some consider this a plus.
The extractor is obviously much stronger than the small extractor on the post 64 rifles.
Parts were more precisely fitted to each other.
Quality control was much much better on pre 64 rifles.
The stocks were of much higher quality woods.
The bottom metal was machined from steel rather than aluminum alloy on the post 64's
They were machined from solid billets of steel rather than cast like the post 64's are.
They have controled round feeding rather than the push round feeding. Some consider this a plus.
The extractor is obviously much stronger than the small extractor on the post 64 rifles.
Parts were more precisely fitted to each other.
Quality control was much much better on pre 64 rifles.
The stocks were of much higher quality woods.
The bottom metal was machined from steel rather than aluminum alloy on the post 64's
01-31-2005, 07:36 PM
#6
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
They are no better rifle than 80 percent of the new rifles. You can maybe make a buck or two because of the collector value. This would depend on what you have to pay for it. It is a rather odd caliber for that gun so that may help. I have shot a lot of them and owned several. There is nothing special about them.
02-01-2005, 07:31 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
They were machined from solid billets of steel rather than cast like the post 64's are.
They have controled round feeding rather than the push round feeding. Some consider this a plus.
The extractor is obviously much stronger than the small extractor on the post 64 rifles.
Parts were more precisely fitted to each other.
Quality control was much much better on pre 64 rifles.
The stocks were of much higher quality woods.
The bottom metal was machined from steel rather than aluminum alloy on the post 64's
They have controled round feeding rather than the push round feeding. Some consider this a plus.
The extractor is obviously much stronger than the small extractor on the post 64 rifles.
Parts were more precisely fitted to each other.
Quality control was much much better on pre 64 rifles.
The stocks were of much higher quality woods.
The bottom metal was machined from steel rather than aluminum alloy on the post 64's
I have seen outstanding Post64 and pre64 models. But then again, I wasn't shooting in 64, so really shouldn't even be posting on it. But it made me think of a John Barshness article where he talked about this very issue. He said he didn't understand people looking down on the post either.
And shoot james has been around since the 30-06 came out
. He seems to not mind the Post64's.
02-01-2005, 07:57 AM
#8
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 6,471
RE: Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
I have had just a few post 64's and they generally shot better then the pre-64's which barring the trigger and safety are one of the most overrated rifles ever made. The post 64's however never handled or shot as well as a comparable remington 700.
02-01-2005, 08:18 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,813
RE: Post 64 Model 70 Winchester
I think, the pre64 thing is really overrated. I agree, if you don't mind a 700 action, then you won't mind a Post 64 action.
I've hunted dangerous game a lot, and i've never seen where haveing controlled feed would have made any difference in my hunting.
If i wanted the ultimate dangerous game rifle, it would be a double triggered double rifle, and yes i have hunted with one of those too, as i have an O/U double rifle.
Drilling Man