Hi King-

I’m not seeing the “extra hole” you mention.  The barrel bedding screw and maybe the metal escutcheon are missing, but that hole in the bottom of the fore end should be there.  Which photo shows the hole that bothers you?

The rifle is certainly well worn, but does not look like it was abused.  If it were mine I’d shoot it for accuracy as-is (with and without replacing the bedding screw) and then decide.  The magnum action alone is probably worth what the gun cost you.  The 300 H&H MAGNUM is a dandy little cartridge, somewhere between a 30-06 and one of the “bigger” belted magnums.  Just ask Tom Black:

https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-shooting-and-hunting/bear-with-my-super-grade/

Since it’s not a collector gun, the following is gratuitous.  But for information… 

1.  The recoil pad is added.  Whether it’s a repro Winchester pad or not, it isn’t original to the gun.

2.  It is extremely unlikely that the hole in the bridge that secures the Redfield JR mount is factory.  I have looked at quite a few of these and so far have never seen a type II 300 MAGNUM that was factory D&T on the bridge (lots are drilled, but none are believably factory).  In fact, the bridge of these H&H length actions was not routinely D&T until probably somewhere around S/N 160000, well into the type III – oval tang, rifle production.  Rule’s book says this, but it also agrees with my own observations. 

Just my opinion, of course… 

Lou

For what it is, I very much like what I see. Honest 300 H&H with many of the “prewar-quality” M 70 aspects. No longer “original/collectible”, but conversely if original, ostensibly not “thrown in” too! I can see someone taking this rifle, decent reblue and ‘mild’ stock strip & refinish if plausible. Classic chambering and for field use, scope mounting ability, a plus. Pad looks absolutely professionally installed and correct for what it is. ‘Presents’ nicely; hopefully not hardened. Now if the rifling is just good!!! Check for any missing/unduly worn or broken parts. Likely action “wear” on such quality rifle, just nicely broken in!
All saying…
Looks like a neat rifle!
Just my take

May I add a postscript somewhat after ‘dawn’s early light’. I draw a large distinction between an “evolutionary” altered ‘pre’ Model 70 such as this and the largely “customized” oft considered equivalent. Here, the functionality of a great rifle simply keeping up with times and presumably ergonomics too. The scope something of a natural postwar addition, optics moving from peripheral accouterments to center stage in then “modern” hunting guns. Here Winchester, somewhat delayed in very minor modification affording simple (relative to Stith) scope mounting and setting a standardized mount-securing dimension. The recoil pad (wasn’t that a factory “option” too) accommodating more comfortable recoil control as well as for folks like me, the opportunity to achieve a bit longer length of pull.
While I’ll yet take my era Model 70 rifles “original” please. Sure not to kick such as this evolutionary specimen out of my gun safe. (Joining similar ‘almost’ original guns such as several Remington Model 720 inclusive of such frustrating alterations.)
Another… Just my take.