Leupold Detacho bases for .264 Winchester Mag Featherweight with serial number 58000|Winchester Sights|Forum|Winchester Collector

Hi Timmy-

The 264 WIN MAGNUM was first made in 1959 and first appeared in the catalog with the Standard Westerner in 1960.  The 264 WIN MAGNUM Featherweight Westerner was only cataloged in 1963, but most were made with 1962 receivers in the 540XXX serial number range.

If your rifle S/N is really 54,000 range (not 540,000 range) then it is a non-factory custom re-barrel conversion to Short Magnum built on a pre-war receiver.  Such things did occur.  Thing is that I don’t think that the Leupold Detacho mounts were ever made for the pre-war (under 66,500) receivers…  

So the first thing is to figure out what you have…  The first picture is of a pre-war Standard receiver (c/w your stated 54,000 serial number), which could have been converted to short magnum.  Note the bridge with clip slot, roll marked, and undrilled bridge (these were often drilled for scope mounts outside the factory but this is what they looked like from the factory):

This is a Short Magnum receiver circa s/n 500,000.  The original Featherweight Westerners (circa s/n 540XXX) used this receiver. Note the smooth bridge with two factory D&T holes:

If your rifle looks like the second picture, then the Leupold Detacho mounts for M70 receivers above s/n 66,500 will work.  Standard and short magnum receivers in the pre-64 M70 were the same length and used the same hole spacing.  If it looks like the top picture then you’ll have to figure out what hole spacing the non-factory gunsmith used and go from there.

Hope this helps,

Lou

Good morning, Timmy.  You have a rifle with a somewhat notorious reputation for blinding muzzle flash and heavy recoil, at least according to some writers of that day. 

I have always suspected that reputation was exaggerated. It was based on the notion that the twenty-two inch length barrel and relatively light weight of the Featherweight Model 70 was inappropriate for such an “overbore” cartridge as the .264 Winchester Magnum. 

There are two reasons I am skeptical. First, the late Warren Page, the long-time shooting editor of Field & Stream magazine, a Worldwide hunter of broad and deep big game experience,  a leading light in the development and growth of Benchrest competition, author of what was once the technical Bible of rifle accuracy, and an avid developer and proponent of the Six millimeter and magum Seven mllimeter cartridges– famously used a custom built 7mm Mashburn Magnum rifle WITH A 23″ BARREL to take all manner of game. The rifle itself had been Swiss-cheesed and hollowed out to weigh only a bit over 7 pounds. And the 7 Mashburn was REALLY overbore. 

Secondly, I had and used for several years a Remington Model 600 Magnum carbine in 6.5 Remington Magnum caliber, that weighed about 6.5 pounds and wore an 18.5″ barrel. That cartridge is based on a 375 H & H case shortened to .308 WCF length, whereas the .264 Winchester Magnum is based on the same case shortened to 30/06 length. 

Therefore, the 6.5 Remington holds slightly less powder than the .264 Winchester but the Remington 600 has a 3.5″ shorter barrel and is at least a pound lighter.  

I never found the Remington carbine unpleasant to shoot or lacking in range or power. 

I’d be curious to hear your opinion of your rifle after you’ve had some range experience with it.