Post 64 Model 70 Target


This is a very nice Post- 1964 Model 70 Winchester target rifle. I would own this rifle and be proud, but you can see the difference in quality from a pre64.

An instant clue is that the claw extractor is gone. The post 64 guns are all push feed design. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Still slotted for stripper clip use.

Shoots great though.


  1. Yup, mine is a very lightly used 1965 in 30-06. I really wanted a 308 but the gun was in nice shape, so I can put up with it.

  2. “An instant clue is that the claw extractor is gone. The post 64 guns are all push feed design. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

    Well, as the owner of Mauser 98 action rifles since…errmm…1979, I think we might have to to talk this through a little.

    • you can talk through it until you pass out, post 1964 Model 70s do not have a claw extractor, unless you want to show me where the CRF is on that rifle rght there mister mauser action expert since 1979

  3. Of all the changes that Winchester made in 1964 to the Model 70, the issue of the extractor elicits the most attention, but is perhaps the least genuinely objectionable for shooters.

    Let’s step back in history a bit: The “claw” extractor that made its debut on the Model 98 Mauser wasn’t the first design of the extractor for the Model 98. An extractor setup that is very, very much like the extractor on the post-64 Model 70 was, in fact, Peter Paul Mauser’s first design. It was the German armaments board who decided that they wanted something more robust, and Mauser designed the famous claw extractor as a response to that requirement. Mauser’s claw extractor is justly famous – the harder you pull on the bolt, the harder the extractor is pulled onto the case rim, etc. It is a very influential design in firearms history.

    From the perspective of rifle design for most civilian shooters who aren’t shooting African-style dangerous game, there’s nothing “wrong” with the post-64 M70’s extractor. It’s a solid little bit of mechanism, far, far better in design and execution than the factory extractor on a Remington 700, better than the Sako or M16-style extractors that get pushed into service on Model 700’s when someone gets rid of the factory extractor of a Model 700. The post-64 M70 extractor leaves the bolt nose intact, is easy to repair and is safer under gas escape scenarios than the M16/Sako extractor designs.

    The Post-64/M70 extractor needs no cut in the barrel tenon, it doesn’t leave the case head protruding as far as the M98 extractor does. From my perspective, it’s a good design. Is it my preference? No, but when I stack it against the competing ideas in extractors, it’s better by far. Everyone wants to compare it to the pre-64 M98-style claw extractor. OK then, why do you allow Remington to get away with the absolutely crap extractor on the M700?

    For me, the worst changes in the post-64 Model 70 are:

    – the magazine/trigger guard assembly. Changing to aluminum was a horrible choice.
    – the quality of the finish declined quite a bit, both on the metal and the stockwood.
    – the barrel no longer had a cone breach, which was a large part of what made the claw extractor system so reliable. It wasn’t just the “controlled round feeding” of the claw that made the Model 70 so reliable on feeding, it was also the cone breech.

    Personally, when I find a post-64 1968 or late Model 70 for the right price (usually it’s a ’06 rifle), I buy it and then part it out, just to get the action. The actions between ’64 and ’68 had some issues with binding, and I prefer the post-68 models, in which they solved the binding. They work well, and often in .30-06 or .270, they can be had in “well used” condition for $400 or so because no one thinks they’re worth anything without the claw extractor. You can buy magazines/trigger guard assemblies made out of steel for the M70, and of course you can find pre-inlet stocks for these rifles.

Leave a Reply to Geoff Patch Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here