Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Hello everyone,
I’ve been wanting a “decent” Model 70 in 30-06 for a long time. I’m not looking for anything special, just something original and solid. Could you please give me your thoughts on this one? https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/865709386 The auction ends soon, so I don’t even know if I’ll be able to bid on it or not, but I just wondered what you thought of it. Currently it’s at $900. Thank you!
Ethan
I really don’t know. I was hoping to mount a scope and using it as a shooter.
Looks like a nice one to me. 30-06 always brings the lowest 70 price, even though it’s the greatest all-around big-game cartridge ever invented; which is why so many were produced. Louis could tell you much more, but probably won’t see it before the auction ends.
I have a similar 1951 M70 in .30-06 with a Stith scope that I bought from Poulin a couple of years ago. Just under $1k with fees and shipping. Some of the members here were very helpful supplying manuals for the scope and mount, but upon first use it was dead nuts on as received. The rifle is amazing and has become one of my very favorite shooters.
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
clarence said
Looks like a nice one to me. 30-06 always brings the lowest 70 price, even though it’s the greatest all-around big-game cartridge ever invented; which is why so many were produced. Louis could tell you much more, but probably won’t see it before the auction ends.
Thanks Clarence. I agree about the 30-06. I love the caliber. I’ve had several, but never a Winchester. I’m just looking for something that’s as original as possible at a decent price.
supergimp said
I have a similar 1951 M70 in .30-06 with a Stith scope that I bought from Poulin a couple of years ago. Just under $1k with fees and shipping. Some of the members here were very helpful supplying manuals for the scope and mount, but upon first use it was dead nuts on as received. The rifle is amazing and has become one of my very favorite shooters.Steve
Thanks Steve. I’m tempted to take a chance on it if I can get it for a decent price. Just don’t know what a “decent” price would be. Your rifle is beautiful by the way.
Well, I didn’t get it. It went for $1,355. I didn’t want to risk that much, since I’m still learning the ropes. Given how many of them were made, I figure another one will come up sooner or later. Thanks everyone for your help.
I found my pre-64 model 70 in 30-06 at a local gun store. Definitely shooter grade, but it had a Leupold VX-II on it. Got it for 900 out the door. Try checking the local shops first.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi erush-
I’m too late to be of any use, but on the face of it the gun looked OK… The only thing I’d question is that the top of the comb doesn’t look “straight” which it should be on a M70 NRA style “low comb” stock. It maybe a trick of the camera lens, as I cannot figure out why somebody would want to sand down the comb of a MC stock and then do a reasonably authentic looking refinish.
FWIW… The low comb option was cataloged through 1959 in 270 WIN and 30-06 SPFLD (G7004C in 30-06), so the 1955 manufacture date on this one is fine…
Sights are something that will be hotly debated, but my impression is that the factory correct sights on a low comb M70 standard between 1954 and 1957 would be a Win 22K rear sight and 0.360″ tall Win 103C front sight. Not the 0.310″ tall 22G like the 1941-52 rifles. I’m pretty sure the front sight on this gun is the 0.360″ Win 103C. The rear sight (standard rifle version of Win 22G versus 22K) cannot be determined. BOTH were sporting type sights (as on this rifle) and according to factory blueprints seewin has they differed ONLY in the shape of the sliding sheet metal insert (which cannot be ascertained in the auction photos).
This becomes a long story, b/c the pre-war 22K (as still pictured in post-war parts catalogs) had a double scallop front contour, while the post-war sight that was given the same 22K designation around 1948 had only the simple scallop like the 22G. Then there’s the height of the standing leaf, b/c the “22K” on low comb M70 Featherweights has a taller leaf than the 22G, but seewin’s blueprints clearly state that the standard 22K used the same base as the 22G. If you think about barrel contours and sight height needs, this all makes sense, but it’s not written down anywhere. Anyway… I’d say the rear sight is also probably correct if it has the “right” sliding sheet metal insert (that I cannot make out). It might indeed be a clean gun, but I’d have to have it in hand for a minute to give an opinion I’d be willing to testify to… 
At $1300, the rifle was pushing retail price when I started writing this, but is wasn’t yet crazy if legit…
Not much help. Sorry!!! 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
Hi erush-I’m too late to be of any use, but on the face of it the gun looked OK… The only thing I’d question is that the top of the comb doesn’t look “straight” which it should be on a M70 NRA style “low comb” stock. It maybe a trick of the camera lens, as I cannot figure out why somebody would want to sand down the comb of a MC stock and then do a reasonably authentic looking refinish.
FWIW… The low comb option was cataloged through 1959 in 270 WIN and 30-06 SPFLD (G7004C in 30-06), so the 1955 manufacture date on this one is fine…
Sights are something that will be hotly debated, but my impression is that the factory correct sights on a low comb M70 standard between 1954 and 1957 would be a Win 22K rear sight and 0.360″ tall Win 103C front sight. Not the 0.310″ tall 22G like the 1941-52 rifles. I’m pretty sure the front sight on this gun is the 0.360″ Win 103C. The rear sight (standard rifle version of Win 22G versus 22K) cannot be determined. BOTH were sporting type sights (as on this rifle) and according to factory blueprints seewin has they differed ONLY in the shape of the sliding sheet metal insert (which cannot be ascertained in the auction photos).
This becomes a long story, b/c the pre-war 22K (as still pictured in post-war parts catalogs) had a double scallop front contour, while the post-war sight that was given the same 22K designation around 1948 had only the simple scallop like the 22G. Then there’s the height of the standing leaf, b/c the “22K” on low comb M70 Featherweights has a taller leaf than the 22G, but seewin’s blueprints clearly state that the standard 22K used the same base as the 22G. If you think about barrel contours and sight height needs, this all makes sense, but it’s not written down anywhere. Anyway… I’d say the rear sight is also probably correct if it has the “right” sliding sheet metal insert (that I cannot make out). It might indeed be a clean gun, but I’d have to have it in hand for a minute to give an opinion I’d be willing to testify to…
At $1300, the rifle was pushing retail price when I started writing this, but is wasn’t yet crazy if legit…
Not much help. Sorry!!!
Lou
Wow, Lou. Thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time to provide so much information. I’m so fortunate to have found this forum. Otherwise, I would definitely be flying blind. Thank you again! Ethan
Louis Luttrell said
At $1300, the rifle was pushing retail price when I started writing this, but is wasn’t yet crazy if legit…
Seems high to me for an ’06, but then GB prices are always high.
Louis Luttrell said
The only thing I’d question is that the top of the comb doesn’t look “straight” which it should be on a M70 NRA style “low comb” stock. It maybe a trick of the camera lens, as I cannot figure out why somebody would want to sand down the comb of a MC stock and then do a reasonably authentic looking refinish.
Lou, What do you think about the sloppy checkering on the left side of the PG? Could that suggest it was re-cut, or was that typical of the ’50s?
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Clarence-
I guess I didn’t pay it too much attention… You’re right that by the mid-1950’s the checkering wasn’t what it was in the 1930’s (let alone earlier) and like I said I’d have to have the gun in-hand for a minute or so in good outdoor light before I’d venture an opinion that I’d “argue” with somebody. To me the only obvious “red flag” on that piece was the shape of the comb (and that could’ve been a camera lens issue)…
For educational purposes (mine especially – meaning I hope to get criticism) I think this gun looks pretty good:
https://pre64win.com/collections/rifles/products/270-w-c-f-standard-rifle-1949
It’s a 270 WCF and IMHO is priced a few hundred on the high side, but I’m not seeing any problems. For a 1949 gun the rear sight should be (and appears to be) a Win 22G and the front sight a 0.310″ tall Win 103C (again in my opinion). The taller Win 103C came along after the MC stock was introduced in 1951-52.
Wha’cha Think???
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Lou,
What do you think of this one on that same site? https://pre64win.com/collections/rifles/products/30-06-featherweight-rifle-1958
Ethan
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Ethan-
To be up-front… Justin Hale (pre64win.com) is a friend of mine. He’s been to my house, etc… So keep that in mind with anything I say here…
IMHO he has a pretty good idea what’s original and what is not and he does not intentionally misrepresent guns. The fact that he says that they replaced the barrel on this gun is consistent with that, since the M70 barrels stopped being dated after 1955 (56 barrels are inconsistently stamped). So there’s no way we’d know the barrel was swapped except that he told us… OTOH… The plastic butt plate on a 1957 S/N receiver gun is a little on the early side according to my survey results thus far and Rule’s book dates the plastic plates to 1959 production. But I’ve got a good number of such 1957 S/N plastic butt guns in the survey, so can’t quibble too much… Receiver PR date and date of assembly/manufacture are different metrics.
As for that gun, IMHO it would likely be a good shooter but it’s priced on the highish side. I’d put a retail value of about $1250.00 on an all original 98% 30-06 FWT. For a 1957 gun I’d probably be happier with an aluminum butt plate, but as I said, I can’t get worked up in that serial number range.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
It’s a 270 WCF and IMHO is priced a few hundred on the high side, but I’m not seeing any problems. For a 1949 gun the rear sight should be (and appears to be) a Win 22G and the front sight a 0.310″ tall Win 103C (again in my opinion). The taller Win 103C came along after the MC stock was introduced in 1951-52.
Wha’cha Think???
Yes, it’s high, for a post-war standard grade…but anybody who grew up idolizing Jack O’Conner (like me) wouldn’t have to strain very hard to justify the “premium.”
But any 70 of any period or caliber that still retains it’s (worthless) open rear sight belonged to a shooter who didn’t deserve to own the “rifleman’s rifle.” A “thuty-thuty” lever-gun was HIS speed.
[email protected] said
Lou,What do you think of this one on that same site? https://pre64win.com/collections/rifles/products/30-06-featherweight-rifle-1958
Ethan
I think Monte Carlos, alum floor plates, & plastic BPs, at any price, all suck.
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Ethan-To be up-front… Justin Hale (pre64win.com) is a friend of mine. He’s been to my house, etc… So keep that in mind with anything I say here…
IMHO he has a pretty good idea what’s original and what is not and he does not intentionally misrepresent guns. The fact that he says that they replaced the barrel on this gun is consistent with that, since the M70 barrels stopped being dated after 1955 (56 barrels are inconsistently stamped). So there’s no way we’d know the barrel was swapped except that he told us… OTOH… The plastic butt plate on a 1957 S/N receiver gun is a little on the early side according to my survey results thus far and Rule’s book dates the plastic plates to 1959 production. But I’ve got a good number of such 1957 S/N plastic butt guns in the survey, so can’t quibble too much… Receiver PR date and date of assembly/manufacture are different metrics.
As for that gun, IMHO it would likely be a good shooter but it’s priced on the highish side. I’d put a retail value of about $1250.00 on an all original 98% 30-06 FWT. For a 1957 gun I’d probably be happier with an aluminum butt plate, but as I said, I can’t get worked up in that serial number range.
Best,
Lou
Hi Lou,
I really appreciate your observations and wisdom about the gun. I’ve been looking for a nice shooter in either 30-06 or 270, and it looks like both of these would fit the bill. (Only problem is, I can’t afford both ) But I also don’t mind paying a premium from a seller that someone can vouch for (as opposed to buying from a total stranger on gunbroker, etc.) Again, thank you so much!
Ethan
November 5, 2014
Offline
clarence said
I think Monte Carlos, alum floor plates, & plastic BPs, at any price, all suck.
Hi Clarence-
From the purely aesthetic perspective I’m totally with you… I’ve assembled my “collection” (such as it is) around the idea of representing the evolution of the model. So I’ve got representatives of all of the above abominations. Although like many/most I gravitate toward the pre-wars… 
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
1 Guest(s)
