Bob-

For reference, a few photos of a 1942 M70 300 MAGNUM standard rifle (S/N 45151).  Is your ’46 a post-war type I (pre-war receiver) or very early type II (transition) rifle.  Either way there should be no holes in the receiver bridge (if factory original).

Best of luck,

Lou

Bob-

Just to “bracket” your production date, attached are some photos of a pretty nice (actually very nice) transition M70 300 MAGNUM standard rifle (SN 84113) that Dave Morris recently sold on GI (not to me, sadly).  Note especially the smooth undrilled bridge of the early type II H&H length actions.  A ’46 M70 will PROBABLY have a rust blued barrel with a pre-war date (factory using up pre-war parts while tooling-up for post-war production):

Give us an update on what you find out!!! 

Lou

Hi Bob-

That’s too bad…  You’re right that, despite 300 H&H MAGNUM being amongst the most common M70 chamberings from 1936-63, “300 MAGNUM” M70s with the cloverleaf tang (type I pre-war or type II transition) are hard to find unaltered (especially due to aftermarket recoil pads and D&T bridges). Consequently, they are getting pretty pricey these days.  

FWIW… It’s my opinion that type I or II M70s (cloverleaf tang) in H&H length should not be D&T on the bridge (illustrated in photos above).  In fact, one can find type III rifles in H&H MAGNUM chamberings (300 or 375) up to around S/N 170000 that lack holes (although by that time they are mixed in with factory drilled ones).

I’m sure you know this, but in case other potential M70 shoppers do not…  When shopping for a M70 in 300 H&H MAGNUM, always have a piece of 300 Weatherby Magnum brass in your pocket.  Ditto 22 Kilborne Hornet brass if considering a 22 HORNET.  Since these two cases were made by fire forming, rechambered M70s that are not marked as such are surprisingly common!!!

Better luck with the next one!!! 

Lou

Hi Brian-

Interesting questions…

It would really help to have photos of the gun (as many as you’ve got).  Also the serial number.  Much goes into discerning what is/is not period correct on these guns.  As a guest you cannot post photos directly on this site, you’d have to use a third party service.  Alternatively, you can send them to me ([email protected]) and I can add them. As a third alternative, you could always join us and post yourself… 

I think that, RARELY, proof marks (applied after proof firing) are missing on the receiver, barrel, or both.  But not often.  The bolts were also serial numbered AFTER test firing.  So in general, the only marks on the gun that are “rough” (not polished over) are the proof marks and the bolt serial number.  

The “striations along the length” is a different story.  I’d need to see a photo.  It seems to me to be fairly common on prewar guns to find lengthwise striations under the anti-bind lug of the bolt, usually with the S/N electropenciled on top.  Whether this was b/c the “shadow” of the anti-bind lug didn’t get polished (polishing of bolts – like barrels – was circumferential, not lengthwise), b/c that surface was intentionally “relieved” by the assembler using a rotary grinder (looks that way sometimes), or b/c somebody (in or out of the factory) “erased” a serial number, is unclear.  Possibly any/all of the above???  Anyone care to comment???

To me, the “four holes”, assuming that means two in the TOP of the bridge, would argue against the rifle being a “cleverly constructed fake”, simply b/c holes in the top of the bridge of a three digit M70 are NOT factory.  A “clever” faker would have either tried to conceal them or found a clean “donor action” without them.  Maybe a “not too clever” faker???

Anyway, pics would be the key to a hopefully meaningful answer for you.  

Best,

Lou