TXGunNut said

clarence said

I suggest Winchester historians should make almost as big a distinction between Model 70 production during the period 1964-67 and the period 1968-1980 or later, as is now done between the periods of post 1963 and pre-1964. On the evidence, it is irrational not to do so.Zebulon said

 

Believe some corporate effort was made to do that: as the redesign of ’64 was called the “new” Model 70 in factory promotions, the ’68 improvement was called the “new, new Model 70” to draw attention to the differences.  Idea was a resounding success, judging by sales figures.

  

Another valid entry is the BACO Super Grades circa 2009. I ordered two of them in 30-06, one each for my brother and I. When they arrived I took the first out of the shipping carton. It was one of the most beautiful modern rifles I’ve seen with very exceptional wood. I told myself “Steve is going to be (upset), but this one’s mine!”. When I opened the second box and found an equally beautiful rifle I told myself “Steve’s going to be fine!”. Sadly, the rifle I picked out did not shoot well and was replaced under warranty with a rifle with very nice wood, just not as much figure and contrast as the original. It took two more trips back to BACO to get it shooting at an acceptable level. Other than glass bedding the stock I don’t know what they did to improve the accuracy but I suspect they set the barrel back and re-cut the chamber as it would no longer chamber a “no-go” gauge. They did put hot glue on the “MOA” trigger adjustment screws after increasing the trigger pull so I tossed it in favor of a Timney trigger. It is a beautiful rifle but a very frustrating experience. My ugly old re-stocked 670 is a better rifle (even if an amateur did the glass bedding) and the pre-64’s I fondle will always feel good in my hands. I don’t collect Model 70’s so I don’t have a dog in this fight. Let the newcomers collect what they like. At least they aren’t collecting Savage 110’s.

 

Mike

  

There is no fight to have a dog in and there are unlikely to be many “newcomers” intentionally restricting their collections to post-63 Winchester Model 70s.  I think Lou has best expressed what those interested in the Model 70 should be: Students. As such, we should all take an interest in what Mike has just had to say about the BACO Winchesters and why we should follow his example, if not to buy such models in their present state of development, but maintain an interest in what happens to the line. I suspect FN, which has the capital and the expertise, will not be content with very many Carolina barrels that aren’t up to snuff. That BACO took Mike’s warranty issue seriously is a big change from what New Haven used to do for the average customer who didn’t like the way their Model 70 was shooting. And, of course, New Haven didn’t have its product liability insurer breathing down its neck to squirt Superglue on its trigger housings, which difference now keeps Timney et al. hip-deep in business. 

I should point out that, in the glory years of WRA, at least according to Carmichael, the company took no particular interest in how well or poorly the sporting versions of the Model 70 shot on the target range and did not publish a set of accuracy standards for any of their sporting rifles. At a guess, the management simply had no particular desire to [urinate] in the soup – All but a very few customers were perfectly happy with their Winchester rifles if they got the job done and were not fascinated with shooting minute of angle groups.  The popularity and publicity of Postwar benchrest competition and an increasing interest in varmint hunting, with diminished availability of big game hunting for many — plus an increased interest in handloading — all combined to make sporting rifle buyers more concerned with how their .30/06 would group.  

It was the late Jack 0’Connor who opined a good-shooting big game rifle was one that could consistently shoot 1.5 – 2.0 MOA – which is what his Al Biesen, Len Brownell, and Earl Milliron rifles (built mostly on Model 70 actions) would do.  If I could afford it, I’d collect anything that any of these three guys made, just to gloat over them every evening. 

All this to say, let’s have more stories like Mike’s about the current Model 70 and its travails.  Even good horror tales sell well, don’t they? 

(Note to Mike: I don’t know what Lab Rats do but I’m confident not even trial lawyers collect Savage 110s.)

clarence said

Zebulon saidI should point out that, in the glory years of WRA, at least according to Carmichael, the company took no particular interest in how well or poorly the sporting versions of the Model 70 shot on the target range and did not publish a set of accuracy standards for any of their sporting rifles.

  

Not Carmichael, but another gunwriter equally well known in the ’70s & ’80s wrote a piece in the Rifle about one of the 70 TARGET models he owned that was deplorably inaccurate, & couldn’t be improved by anything he tried.  His complaint to Win was totally rebuffed, but it did elicit the rather amazing admission that even for target models, there was no accuracy standard!  I think, but can’t remember for sure, that the gun in question was a pre-64.

I’m very surprised Mike received the attention he described.  Would have predicted he’d be told gun “falls within our accuracy parameters,” or some similar BS response.

  

I WAS told the original rifle met their standards, I countered with their MOA trigger ad. I tried over a dozen loads in addition to some proven loads along with 2-3 variations of many of the loads for a total of over three dozen loads in addition to a few boxes of factory loads. I spent over $300 on bullets and ammo trying to make a $1000 rifle shoot. The replacement rifle had headspace issues that I proved with Go/No Go gauges along with accuracy issues. They declined to tell me what they did but I was able to figure out some of it. It will now print the promised MOA group but only with a three shot group…sometimes. It generally shoots five shots under 2”, good enough for a hunting rifle…and it looks damned good doing it! I’ll never forget the first time I took the barreled action out of that beautiful stock; the “bedding” was a bead of hot glue across the recoil lug recess and under the rear tang. After the last trip to BACO it returned with a professional bedding job.
My ugly old 670 was another matter. My pre-hunt sight-in consisted of posting my business card in the “portrait” orientation at 100 yards. My first and only shot would print slightly below the centerline and I’d go hunting! It would shoot an occasional .5 MOA group but quite honestly I’m not a half MOA shooter. Nowadays it is chambered in 35 Whelen and prefers loads a lot stouter than I enjoy shooting…and it’s a reduced cast bullet load. But it looks good in that Boyd stock and if I plan my shot it will knock a S Texas white tail halfway back to camp.

Mike

As my late grandmother used to say, “Handsome is as handsome does.”  I would bet unserious money Doug’s 225 will prove to be satisfyingly accurate with more than one load. “Old Ugly”, the 1966 M70 .243 I bought one evening after being overserved — opening the box was part of my extended hangover — became easier to look at after only one range session. 

Ain’t it funny that Old Ugly and its bordello sisters are universally known often to be very accurate; while the really handsome new FN Model 70s, at least based on reports from our fellow members, do not live up to their appearance.  They remind me of an English cocker I once owned. She was bred from champion hunting stock for four generations back and had gorgeous conformation.  While she was a fairly good retriever, otherwise the wind blew between her ears.