Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Really hate to bother you folk for something I’m sure has been asked, but not being able to put two-letter (or numbers) like 70 and 64 in the SEARCH tool here is clumber some and makes it near impossible to mine for information. So please forgive me for asking, if it’s been asked before.
Are there ‘actual’ torque specifications for the receiver and forearm screws for the Winchester Model 60 Standard Pre-64 (1940 in 30-06)?
I’ve been looking around in different references and of course ‘The Google’ and while a number of posts suggest various inch-pounds, none provide actual reference sources.
On a side note and not part of my question to y’all, my search did yield some interesting reading. I noted that other Win70 Pre-64 owners advocate adding pillers and bedding the action; the forearm screw seems to be a point of contention amongst the bedders. I thought it was interesting but not something entirely necessary for a hunting rifle, which mine is. I thought the Win70 Pre-64 was accurate as it was designed so I’m at a loss why anyone would piller and bed a Pre-64 in the first place. I guess I will find-out how sweet the Win70 Pre-64 shoots soon enough mine is almost ready for the range.
Thank you for your help in advance, and thank you to all in the forum how helped me bring this old girl back to life.
Bill
Not aware of any factory recommended torque specs for the pre64 M70 and I’ve never torqued anything on my guns.
[email protected] said
Winchester Model 60 Standard Pre-64 (1940 in 30-06)?
That was an error, should be”Model 70″
Tedk said
Not aware of any factory recommended torque specs for the pre64 M70 and I’ve never torqued anything on my guns.
Ted, Thanks I was not sure. I guess I should buy a manual for the rifle.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’m convinced it’s an individual rifle thing but that’s based on extensive experimenting on a few rifles. All I can say for sure is that the middle screw needs only be snug enough to keep it from backing out. 30 inch/pounds seems right in my post-64 sporters in walnut stocks with and without glass bedding. No idea about pillar bedding.
Mike
Bill-
That’s a great question to put to Justin and Andy Hale (pre64win.com) since they build pre-64 M70s to shoot using both originally inlet stocks and stocks they’ve pillar bedded. I’m sure they have at least their own shop specs based on pretty extensive experience.
As Mike says, the “conventional” wisdom with the pre-64 M70 action is to have the front and rear action screws “tight”, while not over tightening the front trigger guard screw. If I were working up one to hunt, I think I’d try it with the barrel bedding screw both in and out and see if it makes a difference. Especially as the barrel heats up. Sometimes, whether b/c the stocks “warp” a little bit with time or b/c the inletting wasn’t truly that precise in the first place, tightening the barrel screw puts pressure on the barrel. Usually pulling it down, but sometimes left or right. In the latter case it’s typically b/c the escutcheon dovetailed into the bottom of the barrel needs to be bumped a little left or right to relieve the sideways pressure.
I’ve never shot a truly “inaccurate” pre-64 M70 although a few I’ve played with struggle to achieve 2 MOA. Not to say those couldn’t have been improved with more load tweaking than I did with them. The “average” 270 WCF or 30-06 seems to me to be about a 1 1/4″ to 1 1/2″ group gun with no special handling. OTOH… I’ve yet to shoot a 220 SWIFT (three target rifles, a varmint, and a standard) that wasn’t easily sub-MOA with Speer 52 gr HPBT target bullets.
Let us know how the old gal performs… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Now that the experts have had their say and not trying to compare/compete, yet my say! 🙂 With wood, unlike metal, both differences in individual pieces of wood; the fact of differing climates to which a particular rifle may have been subject; owner modifications; wood shrinkage opportunities minimally over half century extending to the better part of one. In other words, a lot of individual specimen variables. The fact of some rifles seeming more accurate than others (excluding such as target rifles) more likely beginning with “human factors”, but definitely extending to the cacophony of factors both within the species generally, right down to particular rifles.
What does this all mean. Perhaps as suggested above (as I interpret), the need to treat the rifle individually.
Certainly the model formulas, of which presumably all such pre ’64 Models 70 are reasonably subject, initial pointer. Bedding as reference and with particular awareness/countermeasures concerning those wood changes over decades as noted. Beyond, perhaps looking at everything from sighting equipment, back to ergonomics. In this comment, neither begging the question/issue, nor intended to be insulting. Yet something of an empirical (scientific) approach.
“Putting the screws” to the screws, perhaps to see what results, but where wood has ‘matured’, less likely to be effective and that bedding seeming a better alternative. Just the predicate before hopping in to ‘fix’, seeming a very good idea to employ a comprehensive analysis rather than a fix which might simply complicate and obscure the problem.
Just my ‘amateur’ take!
John
Online
Louis Luttrell said
If I were working up one to hunt, I think I’d try it with the barrel bedding screw both in and out and see if it makes a difference.
Ever tried completely free-floating a 70 barrel? A light-wt. barrel (such as a standard 70) usually shoots more accurately with some pressure, but more important to me than absolute accuracy is absolute consistency in point of impact, which may often be more easily achieved by free-floating.
Hi Clarence-
Personally I have not, as the only actual hunting I’ve done with my M70s has been for whitetails (under 150 yards where 1.5 MOA is plenty good enough) or varmints (with my Swifts that didn’t need accuracy help). I’ve used other, less attractive, brands when undertaking more “demanding” hunts. Meaning rifles for which concern over scabbard wear would not cause me undue stress!!!
It’s kind of funny that period Winchester advertising specifically describes pre-64 M70 Target rifle and Featherweight barrels as “free floating”. Apparently they were referring to the absence of a barrel bedding screw on those models, as opposed to an intentionally created gap between the barrel and fore stock. The wood to metal fit of the barrel channel is the same on all of them and I can’t slide a piece of paper between the barrel and stock of any one them.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
TXGunNut said
All I can say for sure is that the middle screw needs only be snug enough to keep it from backing out.
Mike, There is four screws in total. The Rear Trigger Guard Screw, the Fron Action Screw, the Magazine Front Action Screw and then the Forearm Screw When you say the middle screw, are you talking about the Magazine Front Action Screw the one with the fillister head?
Thank you for the info and help. Bill
Louis Luttrell said
That’s a great question to put to Justin and Andy Hale (pre64win.com) since they build pre-64 M70s to shoot using both originally inlet stocks and stocks they’ve pillar bedded. I’m sure they have at least their own shop specs based on pretty extensive experience.As Mike says, the “conventional” wisdom with the pre-64 M70 action is to have the front and rear action screws “tight”, while not over tightening the front trigger guard screw. If I were working up one to hunt, I think I’d try it with the barrel bedding screw both in and out and see if it makes a difference. Especially as the barrel heats up. Sometimes, whether b/c the stocks “warp” a little bit with time or b/c the inletting wasn’t truly that precise in the first place, tightening the barrel screw puts pressure on the barrel. Usually pulling it down, but sometimes left or right. In the latter case it’s typically b/c the escutcheon dovetailed into the bottom of the barrel needs to be bumped a little left or right to relieve the sideways pressure.
I’ve never shot a truly “inaccurate” pre-64 M70 although a few I’ve played with struggle to achieve 2 MOA. Not to say those couldn’t have been improved with more load tweaking than I did with them. The “average” 270 WCF or 30-06 seems to me to be about a 1 1/4″ to 1 1/2″ group gun with no special handling. OTOH… I’ve yet to shoot a 220 SWIFT (three target rifles, a varmint, and a standard) that wasn’t easily sub-MOA with Speer 52 gr HPBT target bullets.
Let us know how the old gal performs…
Lou
Hi again Lou, I took your advice and dropped a note to the folk at pre64win.com, need a forearm screw as well so ask if they had any as I didn’t see them on their webpage; thanks for the lead. From your 2nd paragraph, I guess it cleared up my question to Mike (should read first I guess) the middle screw is the front trigger guard screw. Which leads me to the next question. Wouldn’t a loose forearm (barrel) screw eventually lead to it getting looser as you fire the rifle and possibly fall out without noticing it in the field? I suppose you could use blue locktight to possibly prevent that from happening. How did these screws come from the factory?
I’m looking at my reloading manuals and was thinking about Hornady’s 178gr ELD-X because of thats what I have in my stock right now, but the more I look at the book, the more I’m leaning toward a flat base Barnes 165 gr TSX since I can only hunt with non-lead bullets in CA why have to work up two loads
Thank again for all your help
iskra said
“Putting the screws” to the screws, perhaps to see what results, but where wood has ‘matured’, less likely to be effective and that bedding seeming a better alternative. Just the predicate before hopping in to ‘fix’, seeming a very good idea to employ a comprehensive analysis rather than a fix which might simply complicate and obscure the problem.
John, Your post and the others now has me wondering about pillers and bedding, something I really had not considered. It was the “wood has ‘matured’, less likely to be effective and that bedding seeming a better alternative.” that got me.
So, for 23 years I was a Test Engineer and what you did was spark the tester in me. I’m sure most on the forum have been seeing my posts about the abused rifle I purchased. There was one I posted about the deteriorated recoil pad. The consensus and I have to agree, the replacement recoil pads were ugly. I had planned to replace it with the reproduction Red Pad. In my searches and wanderings while looking for sights and other parts I happened upon a complete and what I believe to be year correct unneutered (still having the original metal buttplate) stock.
If this stock turns out to be what I think and hope it is, perhaps I will use the old stock to run piller and bedding testing to see if and just how much if any, change it would make to the accuracy of the rifle. Sigh… as if I don’t have enough projects…..
At least I found that Redfield scope mount that fits perfectly so I won’t be straining my old eyes though the irons…. Just got the vintage 30mm Redfield rings today.
1 Guest(s)
