Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
The recoil pad on the 1948 Model 70 Pre-64 that I picked you is pretty much done. The writing on the pad indicates that it is a Whiteline Delux and from what I can tell I don’t think the rifles came from the factory with these, did they?
I found that Brownells carries a PACHMAYR DELUXE WHITE LINE RECOIL PAD but they also carries a copy of the Winchester Vented and Solid recoil pad. (as does pre64win.com) I’m not sure if I should just replace the recoil pad with a white line or a reproduction of the Winchester and if I do which is the right one to put.
Thank for your thoughts in advance, Bill
White Lines were on the market by ’48, but they were as ugly then as now, in my opinion. Only .375s came standard with a pad, but the brand isn’t specified in the literature I have. I thought Winchester used Jostam or Hawkins pads at that time, but White Lines may also have been available.
Hi Bill-
You’re sure right about needing a new pad!!! It doesn’t matter which you choose, as it will have no effect one way or the other on the rifle’s value. In 1948 the only M70’s with factory recoil pads were those chambered in 375 MAGNUM. Your rifle has an aftermarket Pachmayr white line pad, probably from the ’50s or ’60s.
FWIW… The “solid” red Winchester pad would have been the one used by the factory in 1948. Those are the ones with the June 6, 1922 patent date. As it happens, that patent was awarded to the “Seamless Rubber Company” of New Haven, which made the “NOSHOC” pad.
I suspect that Winchester subcontracted the manufacture of the Winchester marked solid red pads to Seamless Rubber Company, as they appear to be identical to the contemporary NOSHOC pads. In fact a few of the earliest M70 375 MAGNUMs had NOSHOC pads on them that were so marked. I’ve seen two such examples, both with low 4-digit serial numbers.
If you decide to go with the red pad, do note that the Galzan reproduction sold through Brownell’s has a minor “typo”. The Winchester pads have the patent date written June 6,1922 (no <sp> after the comma). The Glazan pads “corrected” that error and read June 6,<sp>1922. In any event, nobody’s going to mistake it for factory work, so just go with what you like best.
Just my opinion…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Hi Clarence-
While I’m pretty sure that the solid red 1″ Winchester pads used for regular production M70s in 375 MAGNUM were NOSHOC clones marked “Winchester” or (rarely) “NOSHOC”, it is worth noting that the 1939 component parts catalog, under “Accessories” listed pads by Winchester, Noshoc, Hawkins, Jostam AND…
“Pachmayr or Fray-Mershon Recoil Pad, red, brown or black medium or large (White line)” as options that could be ordered on Winchester rifle or shotguns.
So Bill really ought to be at liberty to go with whatever replacement he wants… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
clarence said
White Lines … were as ugly then as now, in my opinion.
LOL you know I head people say this more than once. I wasn’t sure if they were sold with these as an option or not. Thank you!
Louis Luttrell said
You’re sure right about needing a new pad!!! It doesn’t matter which you choose, as it will have no effect one way or the other on the rifle’s value. …If you decide to go with the red pad, do note that the Galzan reproduction sold through Brownell’s has a minor “typo”. The Winchester pads have the patent date written June 6,1922 (no after the comma). The Glazan pads “corrected” that error and read June 6,1922. In any event, nobody’s going to mistake it for factory work, so just go with what you like best.
Yeah, not sure why the prior owner let it degrade so much, guess the uneven recoil didn’t bother him. I picked up a Rear sight that was being sold as a 22G, turned out is was not, I suspect its a Winchester 94 mislabeled; it would not fit in the dovetail. The search goes on, but I guess I’ll end up with one from pre64win.com -sight unseen-. I think I’ll have a no drill scope mount made be a machinist I know for the rifle as well.
I think that I’ll go with the solid reproduction Winchester recoil pad. I like to looks of it and if that’s what the rifle would have looked like from the factory with a pad then that makes me happy. This is my shooter so I’m not trying to make this look like factory work, I just love old rifles that have the look and feel of how they come from the factory. If I can get the no drill scope mount made before deer season I think I’ll user her rather then my new Bergara Ridge this year.
Thank you again for the help and the pictures, that drawing was awesome!
Bill
[email protected] said
Yeah, not sure why the prior owner let it degrade so much…
He didn’t have to “let it”–it’s inevitable if the gun rests on it long enough; any gun with a pad should be stored barrel down.
Doesn’t B-Square make a no-drill mount for 70s?
clarence said
He didn’t have to “let it”–it’s inevitable if the gun rests on it long enough; any gun with a pad should be stored barrel down.
Doesn’t B-Square make a no-drill mount for 70s?
Hi Clarence, What I meant is why he let it get to that point. I would have replaced it long before it reached that level of deterioration.
I looked hi and low for a No Drill mount for the M70 Pre-64 and have yet to find anything, not even vintage stuff. I was doing to have one machine with a Picatinny rail so I could use modern stuff on in, I’d rather not put more holes in the receiver of this old girl.
I’ll check out B-Square some more, but a quick search didn’t produce anything.
Thanks
Bill-
If you don’t mind my asking, what is the serial number and chambering of your M70? By 1948 all of the standard actions (excepting the H&H length and the 30-06 target receivers that retained clip slots) were factory D&T on receiver ring and bridge for top mounts. Is this a 300 MAGNUM? You may have mentioed before but I don’t recall… 
As for vintage “no-drill” mounts (meaning mounts that did not require holes in the top of the bridge), three options are fairly common. The oldest is the Stith Install-It-Yourself and QED (Quick Easy Detachable) series. These are the ones that used the barrel rear sight dovetail and the two receiver sight holes in the left rear of the receiver. This one is not likely suitable for your purposes, since the mounts were designed to put a specific scope on a specific receiver (scope choices were limited in those days so this was more-or-less a practical approach):
Next was the Stith Master Mount series. These were rather ungainly contraptions, but could be used to mount a wider range of scopes. They used the two holes on top of the receiver ring and (for regular actions) the two (post-1946) holes on top of the type II action bridge. But the ones designed to use with pre-war or H&H length actions did have the option of attaching via the receiver sight holes. The attached photo, for illustrative purposes shows the regular bridge mount, but the other style was available:
Probably the best vintage choice for your purposes would be the Bausch and Lomb externally adjustable mount. Fairly streamlined and able to mount just about any scope, they too were made in a version that used the receiver sight holes. Sorry that the attached illustration is lifted off Leroy Merz, I have not photographed this rifle yet:
There were a few others, like the amazingly Rube Goldberg Miller Kodiak “Dream Mount” that used only the barrel dovetail to secure the scope. This contraption had a “saddle” with two angled set screws that contact the bridge to provide a crude form of windage/elevation adjustment, but those set screws were not intended to screw into the barrel. IMHO this mount is way too impractical for your purpose and they are rarely encountered intact these days in any event:
If you do go the custom route, I hope you’ll post a photo of the design. 
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
As for vintage “no-drill” mounts (meaning mounts that did not require holes in the top of the bridge), three options are fairly common. The oldest is the Stith Install-It-Yourself and QED (Quick Easy Detachable) series. These are the ones that used the barrel rear sight dovetail and the two receiver sight holes in the left rear of the receiver. This one is not likely suitable for your purposes, since the mounts were designed to put a specific scope on a specific receiver (scope choices were limited in those days so this was more-or-less a practical approach):
Next was the Stith Master Mount series. These were rather ungainly contraptions, but could be used to mount a wider range of scopes. They used the two holes on top of the receiver ring and (for regular actions) the two (post-1946) holes on top of the type II action bridge. But the ones designed to use with pre-war or H&H length actions did have the option of attaching via the receiver sight holes. The attached photo, for illustrative purposes shows the regular bridge mount, but the other style was available:
Probably the best vintage choice for your purposes would be the Bausch and Lomb externally adjustable mount. Fairly streamlined and able to mount just about any scope, they too were made in a version that used the receiver sight holes. Sorry that the attached illustration is lifted off Leroy Merz, I have not photographed this rifle yet:
There were a few others, like the amazingly Rube Goldberg Miller Kodiak “Dream Mount” that used only the barrel dovetail to secure the scope. This contraption had a “saddle” with two angled set screws that contact the bridge to provide a crude form of windage/elevation adjustment, but those set screws were not intended to screw into the barrel. IMHO this mount is way too impractical for your purpose and they are rarely encountered intact these days in any event:
SUCH a display of mechanical ingenuity! All to correct a factory oversight–the failure to D&T one extra hole in the receiver bridge!
Louis Luttrell said
If you don’t mind my asking, what is the serial number and chambering of your M70? By 1948 all of the standard actions (excepting the H&H length and the 30-06 target receivers that retained clip slots) were factory D&T on receiver ring and bridge for top mounts. ….
If you do go the custom route, I hope you’ll post a photo of the design.
Hi Lou,
Its a 1948 30.06 Serial Number 30195 Here are some pictures. If I want a no-drill mount I think I’m pretty much stuck having one machined for me since I can’t find one and because I want to use a modern scope. I’ll post my drawing once I have them and then pictures of it when it gets done at the machine shop and I blue it or anodized it if it ends up being made of 6061 rather then 1520. Thanks Bill
Bill, I don’t mean to disrespect your M70, but with two very prominent non-original holes already in the right side of the rcvr., drilling one more at the top will not reduce the gun’s value any more, but would make the job of mounting a scope MUCH easier, as well as saving you considerable dough.
Also, whatever reference you’re using for dating the gun is way off base! It’s a pre-war built near the end of 1939 or early 1940.
Hi Clarence, eventually those holes are going to disappear; I don’t have the equipment so I’m hoping that Art’s Gun Shop in Hillsboro, Missouri; will take on the challenge. You are right though drilling another hole it won’t change the value one iota (and would be a lot cheaper) but I personly don’t like it. I actually only bought the rifle because of the price and thought bring it back to life would be fun and make a nice shooter/hunter, in the end,it will go to one of my kids so its not about the money or value. I’m just one of those people that loves a rifle to be in the configuration it came from the factory.
This rifle was abused and I dream of bringing her back. With the no-drill mount, I can take off the scope when I no longer hunt with her and leave her with just the irons; no worse for the ware. To be honest, I’ll more than likely when its all said and done I’ll have paid as much to restore this rifle as it would have been to buy a nice used one.
clarence said
Also, whatever reference you’re using for dating the gun is way off base! It’s a pre-war built near the end of 1939 or early 1940.
Ack! my eyes are bad! steve here dated it as 1948 because when I read the serial number the first time the 3 looked like an 8 so I told him the serial number was 80195 rather than 30195. Thanks for catching that. LOL crap….
Louis Luttrell said
If you do go the custom route, I hope you’ll post a photo of the design.
Hey Lou, Looks like I won’t have to have a custom mount made after all. One of the searches that I have set-up on GunBroker landed me a Redfield Scope Mount (and two sets of rings) for the Winchester Pre 64 Model 70. Got it for 32.50 bid + 5.00 postage. I have some screws on order for it since it only came with two.
1 Guest(s)
