Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Hello all! Thanks for the membership to this forum.
An incredible amount of information it will take me some time to digest!
I was referred here by a fellow from the Milsurps forum. I posted there about a couple of Model 70s. Both are set up basically like the one shown in the attached pictures.
I’m mostly a US military collector but I’m also an FFL and I buy/sell on the side for fun money. These rifles don’t hold much of my interest and I will be passing them on to someone that wants them. However, my usual methods of research don’t do me much good if I don’t even know what to call them!
I have two and their serial numbers are 24718 and 254545.
Any help would be much appreciated!! Thanks!
Pictures can be seen here on imgur:
Welcome!
No expert. But feeling fairly safe to say…
One picture not revealing much and as I understand, such not even either actual gun!
Guess from what I see, perhaps stretching a bit to term: “maybe interesting target fashioned Bubba”? Not perhaps the ‘tech’ name you’re seeking. But seeming good, practical, descriptor.
If a lot more photos of actual gun(s), perhaps to revise opinion. I am with you in concurring, likely not to hold much interest to me either!
Good luck!
Thanks for the reply!
That seems to be the general consensus thus far over at Milsurps.
However, if you follow the link I have five pictures there to see.
Also thought I’d clarify that these are pictures of one of the rifles I bought. The other is set up pretty much the same as it too though.
Hi again!
The rifle I’m seeing is a prewar Win 70. Reblued, non-original holes, replaced barrel & stock. Not much original left! Such collector value , non-existent. Presumably 30-06/other standard chambering. If wildcat, likely lesser value. As a target rifle, dated. Reasonably priced MOA rifles available new & used, getting job done without weight & bulk as portrayed. Not really a ‘clicky’ era rifle either in terms of ‘name’ builder or configuration I can see. This was someone’s ‘baby’ of bygone era. Today, neither quite fish nor fowl. Receiver sight perhaps valuable?
I have a few such rifles, not target models, but achieving the same econo-result. Adopted as ‘closet’ babies. No articulable rationale; just like them.
Good luck and…
Just my take.
The rifle I see in pictures started out as a 1953 vintage target rifle(254XXX). All holes I see in receiver are original. It does look reblued, and barrel/stock have been replaced. It appears to have a very nice rear sight with adjustable diopter. I’m sure this is a great “over the course” competition rifle, but as mentioned, it has little to no collector value to a die hard Winchester collector. With sights, and equipped as I see in pictures, I think it is in the $1k range. Receiver alone would make a sizable dent in $1k estimate.
Steve
Thanks for being generous with your info with a new guy, fellas!
I’m liking what I’m hearing. I’m in them both for about $425 each. I’ll do them one at a time and maybe start the auctions at $800. $1k would be awesome but $800 would be OK too.
Thanks again! You’ve given me a great starting point. I’ll post some better pictures once I have them in my hands. Those sights are neat and definitely worth showing more of.
Admitted second ‘bad’. Thinking “postwar” based on striker assembly observed… writing “prewar”. The aside, ‘my recollection’ – postwar receiver bridge clip guides feature – limited to the National Match rifle, not target models.
Yet frankly ‘pre or postwar’, irrelevant in terms of same substantial ‘non-originality and obsolescence’ factors controlling collector/target use & resulting value. Such analysis I stand by as ‘same results’. Re “holes”, I do see that interesting target diopter sight secured forward on receiver sidewall beyond the aft, factory receiver sight holes. If correct, such additional holes location in left sidewall, considerably larger value negative than atop the receiver.
The very factors which make the Model 70 dear to us as collectors and field guns, material & workmanship of comparative uncompromised quality and the CRF design feature. Yet, technology trumping all such in current genre target rifles. Push feeds and similar variants now largely dominate the serious target shooter field, though a lot of ‘improvements’ barrels, up to date ergonomics including weight reduction.
As a ‘fun gun’, again like some of mine, whatever turns you on. In terms of dollars invested here, quite possibly the complete bolt assembly and that diopter sight to return the investment plus. But then, speaking of “parts guns”, yet another category.
Thanks again for posting Ryan!
Just another wordy take here! 🙂
John
Hi John-
Just a comment about clip slots in post-war standard length M70 receivers… When the factory went to the type II (transition) action they eliminated the clip loading slot and started drilling two holes in the smooth bridge. The EXCEPTION was that the clip slots were retained on competition models chambered in 30-06. This included the National Match, Target Model and Bull Gun, but only in .30 GOV’T’06. The other Target Model chamberings that were still cataloged in 1947, .220 SWIFT, .257 ROBERTS, and .270 W.C.F., (generally) used the regular smooth/drilled bridge type II receiver of the regular models.
The clip slot was retained in 30-06 competition models throughout type II and type III receiver production. The photo below is of a 1957 manufactured 30-06 SPFLD. Bull Gun I used to have (S/N 411042):
As for D&T of the bridge… The type II competition model receivers (like the H&H receivers of the time) were not drilled. Apparently there was some issue of standardization related to the hole spacing that had to be worked out. However, by 1953 (when the subject rifle S/N 254545 was made) the bridge was being drilled as in my Bull Gun photo. My Van Orden M70 from 1955 (S/N 351439) is likewise D&T (maybe this pic shows the general layout better than the first):
I THINK (???) that the factory started routinely D&T the bridge of 30-06 competition model receivers about the same time they started routinely D&T the bridge of H&H length receivers, which was sometime in the 120,000s (it’s really not uncommon to see type III H&H receivers as late as the 160,000s that are not drilled). I’ve not handled enough 30-06 target rifles from the type II to early type III period (1947-1950) to do much more than speculate that the D&T bridge appeared on target rifles about the same time as the H&H actions.
Just my best guess,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
As long as I’m bloviating… 
The attached photos show the receivers of two transition M70 Target Models. The first, S/N 64932, is a type II-1 in .220 SWIFT. Since it’s not .30 GOV’T’06, it has the regular transition receiver (cloverleaf tang, D&T bridge with no clip slot):
The second, S/N 87131, is a type II-2 (late safety) in .30 GOV’T’06. It has the clip slot and the bridge is not D&T:
Since the National Match was only offered in 30-06, ALL postwar National Match rifles have clip slots. OTOH, the Target Model and Bull Gun had other chamberings. Even though more M70 Target Models were made in 30-06 than all other chamberings combined, only SOME Target Models have clip slots (the ones in 30-06). Likewise the Bull Gun, where 30-06 is the less common chambering. The .300 H&H Bull Guns lack clip slots (since the front bridge was curved to allow loading the longer H&H cartridge), but the relatively few chambered for 30-06 have them.
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Really great information, Louis!
Looks like I’ll be able to share some more information sooner than I thought. These are due in on Tuesday! The auction was only Thursday night…very impressed with that turnaround.
Stay tuned for more!
Ryan, please do share. Looking forward! And to note, in Louis’ response, you just had it from ‘The Man’, on all things Model 70 here!
And… Louis, my thanks again so much for guidance! Here concerning clip slot and bridge D&T matters.
Please allow me to synthesize the information provided, for self-benefit, according to your guidance.
Regarding clip slots, my understanding comports with yours, excepting only the fact of in addition to N/M, Target & Bull guns in ’06 with such feature into 3rd configuration. Thanks for clarification!
Regarding bridge D&T, standing corrected in respect of definite implementation time line concurrent with intro of Transition configuration; excepting only mags & “competition” models as defined. My prior belief, implementation varying & more sporadic during transition period. Good to know!
Info only: Following data re my several postwar Transition 70 specimens perhaps of use: 65K Sn, 30-06 Target, cloverleaf tang, pristine but for aftermarket D&T bridge w/Lyman 48 as acquired. / 69K Sn, 257 Roberts S/G, cloverleaf tang, D&T appearing original & otherwise all orig. / 99K Sn, ’06, cloverleaf tang, D&T appearing original. / 110K Sn 300 Mag, 110K, 3rd style tang, D&T status – from appearance inconclusive; per your guidance – aftermarket.
Personal observation that very many of such earlier Model 70 rifles tending to reflect aftermarket D&T. Simply modernization to keep pace. Wild estimate, perhaps as many as ¾ of pristine bridges tapped. Second item, aftermarket pads. Quite a few, though as ‘wearing items’, sometimes simply replacement of aged factory originals. Third factor, mix ‘n match. Over eight decades since intro, much swapping of numerous components. Such made easy by general ‘fungibility’. Motivation, from simple utility
substitutions/modifications, to collector inspired ‘upgrades’. Leaving us sometimes with obvious clues/tilts. Other instances, simply not worry where happily appearing all original & harmonious; including such as wear pattern consistency. Where the claim of “special order”, “custom shop”, etc. Believing “show me” attitude appropriate or adjusting ‘value’ to risk factor ratio.
Wordy take number… Forgotten the count! 🙂
John
Hi John-
First, to be fair there are several WACA members, e.g. seewin and vicvanb, who know much more about M70s that I do, and many who have bigger/better collections. When posting here, I do try whenever possible to provide a photo or two on the theory that “a picture is (often) worth a thousand words”… Especially my long-winded rambles…
Regarding the D&T status of transition bridges…
You’re right, I think, that a 65K S/N 30 GOV’T’06 type II-1 action on a target rifle would have a smooth top, clip slot, and no holes (like S/N 87131 above). If I think about it, it’s not clear why the factory ever did start drilling the bridge of those 30-06 target receivers. About the only thing you could do with it was to stick a short Weaver scope base on the bridge, and why would you want to do that with a match rifle? I guess you could use a Unertl 70M base and get wider spacing of the scope mounts if you wanted to sacrifice the option of using a receiver sight???
A 69K S/N type II Super Grade in any (non-H&H) chambering would be factory D&T and lack a clip slot, as would a 99K type II standard rifle in any (non-H&H) chambering. That type II (cloverleaf tang) 99K S/N 30 GOV’T’06 sounds like an interesting rifle. I’m guessing it’s a standard rifle? Conventional wisdom, i.e. Roger Rule’s book, put’s the transition from the cloverleaf to the oval tang in standard length actions at about S/N 87,700. Your rifle shows that the “clean-up” of partly finished not-yet serialized cloverleaf tang standard receivers went on quite far into type III production. The latest type II-2 standard length action that I’ve got is S/N 100313 barreled in .257 ROBERTS, which would have been serialized in about December 1948 (at least 6 months after the change to oval tang type III receivers).
As for the 110K S/N .300 MAGNUM with oval tang, it’s hard to know whether it “should” be D&T or not. I think there was a lot of crazy/unpredictable overlap going on at the time. For magnum actions Rule gives (approximate) S/Ns 63,200 to 121,700 for the type II (cloverleaf tang) action, and 121,700 to end of production for the type III (oval tang) action. Obviously, there was no such “clean break”, as your gun illustrates. I suspect that the factory started making the type III magnum receivers at the same time as the type III standard receivers, it’s just that the “phase-in” period took longer with magnum actions. The type II rifles with high serial numbers, say between 87,000 and 121,700 to go with Rule’s numbers, were made-up from partly finished receivers that had not yet been to the polishing room and when they finally got there they got numbered mixed in with type III receivers.
I’m pretty confident that the type II magnum receivers weren’t routinely D&T. I currently have one type II standard rifle (375 MAGNUM), two Super Grades (300 MAGNUM and 375 MAGNUM) and one Bull Gun (300 MAGNUM) and they are not D&T. The highest numbered is S/N 123892, the 375 MAGNUM Super Grade. As for exactly when they started to D&T the type III magnum receivers, it’s hard for me to be sure. The latest type III magnum receiver S/Ns I’ve written down that were NOT D&T are 169701, 169706 and 170827, which is about December 1950!!! Surely they were D&T magnum receivers well before this… So at 110K I’d say maybe, maybe not??? I would expect two holes 0.425″ on center, located in the same place on the bridge as in the photo of S/N 351439 above. If the the ones on your S/N 110K gun are in that location, are counterbored (not countersunk), have blued threads, and there’s no sign that the finish on top of the bridge was altered, then I’d just go with it and not worry… 
OK… That ramble was MUCH longer than intended…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Alright, here are some more pics. I’ve arranged them in two separate galleries by serial number for ease of viewing.
Unfortunately, one did get some damage in shipping.
Anything to add in light of these new pics?
Thanks!
Viewing pix; rifles as ‘packaged’, my conclusion… Likely heck of deals. Really great! Actually looking about like two different rifles each! Such between action-forward and buttstock-aft. Just the sighting equipment alone, extraordinary! Perhaps if mine, I’d try to trim down the buttstock area to more ‘livable proportions. Unsure what all the extra weight & bulk was intended to achieve there. Presuming Walnut, must be considerable weight aft! Not at all sure of what appears a strengthening sleeve on the barrels, yet now wondering if those might have originally been National Match rifles based on barrel diameter beyond sleeve. All in all, very interesting packages.
Unchanged conclusion these aren’t collectible rifles in any “pre ’64 Model 70” sense I can conjure. Likely whatever residual value as target guns, IF sufficiently accurate and perhaps with some stock modification averting ‘clunkiness’.
I like them more for what they could be if trimmed down stocks.
Perhaps some target shooters can weigh in concerning residual usefulness in that capacity. If not… Fun guns, Ho!
(Additional pix of left side would be interesting too, IF convenient!)
Just my ‘non-expert’ take
John
The first rifle, 24718 is an interesting one. Look’s like a pre war receiver which has had the top of rear bridge milled flat and and a post 64 bolt installed.
By the way, the Swenson sights are excellent pieces.
None will win any beauty contests, but most likely excellent target rifles. As mentioned, absolutely no collector value, but worth every penny paid for target use, or just the components.
Steve
iskra said
(Additional pix of left side would be interesting too, IF convenient!)
Lots of pics available if you follow the link. I think I have about twenty each.
And thanks for the kind words. I have started an auction for SN 254545. I’ll update how it does, of course.
I want to say thanks again to everyone that responded so generously…especially knowing I was just going to sell them anyway!
Hopefully we’ll have consolidated some knowledge for future searchers once this is all said and done.
And not a single bite on GunBroker with a starting bid of $600. That’s a bummer.
Maybe I’ll invest a bit more to put it in a more attractive stock. That may help.
[email protected] said
Maybe I’ll invest a bit more to put it in a more attractive stock. That may help.
Think it’s more likely to put you in a hole; recovering the cost of a “more attractive” stock will be hard to accomplish, unless you can find a used one cheap.
clarence said
Think it’s more likely to put you in a hole; recovering the cost of a “more attractive” stock will be hard to accomplish, unless you can find a used one cheap.
You’re probably quite correct. No sense in throwing good money after bad.
I’ve been contemplating consigning a few slow-moving things I have to Rock Island. Maybe I’ll just toss these in too.
If I can’t sell it on GunBroker, it’s just cash that’s not working for me elsewhere!
1 Guest(s)
