JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Theoretically you can hang upside down and chamber a round with a control feed rifle, not so with a push feed.

Such was the basis of the theory that push-feed guns were a liability in Africa. It was believed that if you shot something that "looked at you like you owed it money", and on its first pass in your direction you ended up not necessarily perpendicular to the forces of gravity, then when he came back "looking at you like a collection agent", your gun would not chamber a round.

Never one to miss an opportunity to test a theory, just now I loaded 4 cartridges into the magazine of a late '80's M70 XTR Sporter .25-06. Prudently stepped outside looking for something walking around that I hadn't paid yet. Failing that, I turned the rifle upside down and worked the bolt as if in a moderate mood of "I'M GONNA DIE!"

Flawless function. Except for caliber choice, in a place on the other side of the earth it may have been Mr. Mbogo whose account came due.

But then, didn't Roy Weatherby bust a nice Dugga Boy with his .257?

I sure like that word, "Theory". Grants a lot of wiggle room.
 
The pre-64 discussion was hot and heavy for several years after the introduction of the 1964 Winchester model 70. I was working in a sporting goods store in 1965 and Winchester's line was lack of contact of the stock to barrel. To most of us at the time it just looked like "cheap". Winchester later improved their model 70's and although I would not purchase a 65 type, I did purchase a model 70 in 7mm mag in about 1978. It has been my go to rifle ever since- shoots MOA (after some trigger work) and has held up well.

I also have a pre-64 Model 70 super grade- wonderful checking and workmanship but just too nice to take into a snow storm hunting second season elk.
 
I think that despite the varying quality over the years, if someone has a gun that works for them they should enjoy it, even if it isn't what others would prefer, or it wasn't hand signed by Moses on Mt. Sinai.

I was stationed with an officer whose family owned a winery. Everyone expected him to be a snob, but his advice was: "If you enjoy the taste, drink it. If you don't enjoy the taste, keep sampling other types." I think that is a good policy for guns too, with exceptions for some military or defensive uses. (E.g., carrying a single action revolver in public without a transfer bar, hammer cocked over a loaded chamber with the trigger guard exposed).
 
Some of the above is right. Some of the above is guesswork. Some of the above is misinformed or a mistaken use of absolutes.

The sweeping change that Winchester embarked upon in 1964 was a decision of survival. No longer could they compete against guns specifically designed for manufacturing economy and simplicity by adhering to designs that required large amounts of tooling changes in process and hand labor toward fitting and finishing.

The change was indeed "sweeping", encompassing not only the Model 70, but the Model 94, Model 88, and new models were introduced as well to take the place of the Model 12 shotgun, a line of "modernized" .22's (Models 150, 250, etc.).

For Winchester, this was a GOOD thing. They survived. Even prospered before the howls of foul faded from the air. For the consumer still WILLING to pay extra for hand-machined guns with hand-cut checkering, high polish blue and familiarity with the older designs, this was a BAD thing.

But they were in the severe minority. Far more numerous (just as today) were the "Joe Six Packs" of the gun-buying world who just wanted a nice looking new gun that shot well. For Joe, this was a GOOD thing. The guns looked good enough for his less-discerning eye and they indeed shot well.

To those who knew, held, owned and operated a pre-64 Model 70 or 94 or 88, the new guns were shiny rattletraps carrying poor smashed-in excuses for checkering, "Pot Metal" and "Plastic" parts (aluminum was not to be trusted against steel, and polymers--unlike today--were considered blashphemy on a firearm). As to the abandonment of controlled-feed in favor of push feed on the 70, those that "knew" considered it unreliable for the deer woods and downright dangerous for the Cape Buffalo woods.

Some of the above was right. Some of the above was guesswork. Some of the above was misinformed or a mistaken use of absolutes.

One of the new design features of the Model 70 was a truly free-floated barrel. TRULY free-floated to the extent that one might paddle a canoe in the canals on each side of the barrel down the length of the forearm. Gone was the buttress mid-barrel with its screw that mated it at that point to the wood stock. Also, the later guns were "glass bedded" around the recoil lug (or at least a fair excuse for it: a blob of hot-melt resin was dumped in the recess).

The result was that the new 70 in many cases (some say in nearly ALL cases) outshot the old 70. This was not so evident to those who went to the local hardware store once a year and bought the cheapest box of ammo on the shelf to get through this deer season (and probably next). It was quite evident to those who were beginning to embark on handloading and critically evaluating their guns on paper.

As to controlled feed, yes, it was a statement that still lives in some circles that anyone in Africa that goes after the big stuff is "rolling the dice" should he choose a push-feed gun to do the work. It is also a statement that still lives in some circles that anyone choosing ANY bolt action gun over a double gun is at the same crap table.

Against such "truths" of the time, Winchester sent an accomplished White Hunter to Africa with their guns. "Our Man In Africa" read the magazine ads. Amazingly he did not die as an instant (or probable) result of carrying a new Model 70. But big mean stuff did.

Since that time, bolt guns (controlled OR push feed) have earned their chops on the Dark Continent, to the extent that controlled feed may now be more of a purist's status symbol (much as a double gun) than any life insurance policy. Many of the best and current Bwanas (and PH's) see no fault in a push-feed gun in tight and dicey places.

Some do not know that in 1972, Winchester sought to "remedy" some complaints about quality in their guns. "1972:Winchester the Way You Want It!" was the slogan. The '94 got a re-work that tightened up its action A LOT. Finishes were improved. Machine cut checkering made its debut. The 9422 (arguably the nicest looking lever.22 ever made) pushed the 150 and 250's of "space age design" to the wings of the stage.

And later (in the early 90's), a controlled-feed Model 70 was re-born. (Made possible by computer aided machining).
Nice recap.
I, enjoy elk hunting with my pre 64 270 fw 70 and 30 06 and my 88 308.
To me, they are part of history.
 
The Cardinal Sin of Birth Period is occasionally redeemable.

This is a first-year production (1964) Winchester Model 70 in .225 Winchester:

PB140332.JPG
Restocked by a Gentleman in Eastern Oregon that has spent his life negotiating with wood to convince it to do what he wants. (He also gave me the gun).

The original stock is shown alongside for those who while in high school enjoyed "compare and contrast" essay questions. Could not bring myself to leave off the campy "Cobra" wide leather sling it came with. Retained this stock in the admittedly unlikely event that "Post 64 Model 70's" prices start going thru the roof.


PB140333.JPG
Here's a better detail of the wood that makes this "offender" a polite member of society again.
Also shows the vintage Redfield 6x-18x Adjustable Objective scope...wait for it...WITH "Accu-Range"! (It really does work.)

PB140334.JPG
And here with a nice goat toward which it successfully contributed to its demise despite the poor rifle being born a year too late.
 
I turned 2 in late '64. All of my hands on obviously came well after the transformation.
I prefer the old guns for many reasons, most having to do with quality of materials and attention to detail when the gun was built. The biggest reason I pass by many Winchesters built post 64 until the later 70's has to do with the UGLY freaking stock/checkering used on those guns. I've handled mid 60's 94s that were nearly new, but were sloppier than my now 100+ yr old version. I also have a 1980-81 94 Carbine that's a very nice gun. Looks very good, action works smoothly and it's a good shooter. Huge improvements were made to the Post 64 changes by then and it shows.
In '99 I went shopping, looking for a bolt action '06. The Winchester Model 70 Classic in stainless I handled several times almost came home with me... Almost. It was very nice. In any way I could tell just by handling and looking at it, it was a quality piece. The newer Featherweights are simply gorgeous, in my opinion.
These days damn near everything is computer controlled and tolerances are very tight. We have guns made with materials nearly unheard of in 1950. Winchester was trying to survive in the economic climate of the early 60's and incorporated changes that made the guns financially viable for sale. Rumor is/was that Winchester was losing money on the 70s by 64 and needed to take action to survive, as Spitpatch rightfully pointed out. Changes were made to reduce labor costs (human involvement) and materials cost. An early form of "lean manufacturing techniques". It worked, but it wasn't pretty.
Controlled Round Feed (CRF) has it's followers, most based on assumptions, theory and traditions. I like it cus my brass doesn't fly off into the puckerbrush.:D
 
WOW! A J K Cloward rifle- THAT IS AS FINE A RIFLE AS YOU CAN own (imho). I don't think he is in business any longer, but not sure. I think he used to build rifles for 1000 yard competitive shooters, as well as the general public.
 
Somewhat related to a pre-'64 Winchester model 70 is my model 50 J.C. Higgins 30/06 rifle produced by Belgium's Fabrique Nationale using a commercial 98 Mauser action and 22 inch chrome lined barrel from High Standard.
It was an attempt by Sears and Roebuck to muscle in on Winchester's ever popular model 70, but lacked the graceful stock and checkering.

Here's a review on it:




JC Higgins 001.JPG
 
Somewhat related to a pre-'64 Winchester model 70 is my model 50 J.C. Higgins 30/06 rifle produced by Belgium's Fabrique Nationale using a commercial 98 Mauser action and 22 inch chrome lined barrel from High Standard.
It was an attempt by Sears and Roebuck to muscle in on Winchester's ever popular model 70, but lacked the graceful stock and checkering.

Here's a review on it:




View attachment 777441
THAT is a solid gun.
 
I did add a Timmney trigger and also bedded the action. I bought it new in box from the nephew who inherited it from his uncle.
The uncle lived in Tillamook who had ordered it from a Sears catalog and had it delivered to his door.
The box hadn't been opened. Other then sighting in the Leupold scope, it's been residing in a safe.
I don't hunt and every year I think about selling it, but never get around to it.
 
My Dad purchased a JC Higgins model 50 in 1956, hunted with it until age 85, then I hunted with it and now my grand son hunts with it. Solid work horse rifle- the only negative is the load safety. Missed the largest Blacktail buck I have been close to due to the noise of the safety. Not usually a problem unless your really really close.
 
There is an aftermarket bolt part that will eliminate the Mauser rear of bolt safety lever when you install a new trigger with the side lever safety switch.
I didn't know about it when I installed the Sportsman Timmney trigger.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Replies
3
Views
691
Replies
1
Views
845
  • Locked
Replies
5
Views
631
  • Locked
Replies
1
Views
965

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top