Some Model 70 issues

[Swamptrudger]

Thought I'd give a little (ex)gunsmith's report on my new Model 70 Safari Express, and its little brother a Model 70 Alaskan. Those are chambered in 375H&H and 30-06 respectively.

Gotta say both are great, but there were a few "issues" that needed correction. Both rifles had front action screws that barely made it into the action. I've read some reports on the net about this, and it seems I'm not the only one seeing it. The 375 fared better than the '06, but even at that, the thread engagement on the 375 was less than three full turns of the screw, just over 2-1/2 turns actually, or something .080". The '06 was about 1-1/2 turns or about .045". Not sure what's going on at FN/Browning/Winchester over in Portugal. I'm guessing the stocks are too thick. I honestly don't know for sure, as I've only ever final fit Boyds or Fajen stocks that were mostly pre-inletted, with final fitting the only requirement.
At the stock's tops, things appear as they should, or put another way the vent hole in the receiver barely clears the stock. Any lower, with the stock in its current form, and the vent would "vent" into the wood if something went sideways and there was a gas leak. I realize the stocks may not be as they ought to be on the top. On the bottom, they did an excellent job of fitting bottom metal the stock, either proud nor shy. On both rifles, there seems to be some excess "play" in the magazine boxes, but I'm unsure if that accounts wholly for the thread engagement.
I could re-inlet the bottom metal, which would then sit below the surface of the stock. That would eliminate the magazine box play, and gain me maybe another couple of turns on the front action screws. It would also look like hell, and I've have to trim then refinish the stocks to achieve a nice workmanlike fit.
My solution was to source some longer screws, which took a bit of Sherlock Holms'ing. It seems the standard screw length is 1.285 inches, but Winchester has produced 1.325 long screws on occasion. Not available presently. However the _rear_ screw from a M70 Featherweight Compact is 1.435 long, has the same head, shank and threading as the front guard screws. In both cases, that worked really well. One screw inbound for the .375 as we speak.

Both rifles also had tippy bottom metal. What I mean there is that the inletting was higher at the middle of the bottom metal than at the holes. You could take the trigger guard and see-saw it in its inletting, with one side being better than 1/4 inch high, when the other was fully depressed. What I'm finding is a "bump" in the inletting right at the front of the trigger guard proper, where it meets the floor plate area. Not sure if that's a production thing, an oversight perhaps in the machine inletting, or if its intentional, allowing some final fit by hand? Dunno. At any rate the 06 got scraped in its bottom inletting in that area until things didn't tip, longer screw added, and thin bedding material (Brownell's gel) added at the screw ends as a base. Yes, I could have pillar bedded. I didn't. That's open to future project time. I plan on doing the same with the .375 once its screw arrives from BACO (damn, they can't even spell bacon right....).

I just find the stock issues interesting, since both new rifles had similar issues, with others reported as being equally similar.

The only other sore spot was the MOA trigger on the .375. It was pretty bad. The adjustment screw was useless (as it is prone to be). I could rest the cocked barreled action (no stock) by the trigger from my index finger, and the mechanism would not release. That's gotta be 8lbs of trigger pull at least. There are lots and lots of stories on the net about guys having poor MOA triggers, so this is nothing new. Not saying this is the case for all the poor triggers, but here's what I found. The sear is pressed upon by the striker at its rear, and the front of the sear engages an "actuator" arm at the front. The trigger pushes the actuator, sliding it out from under the sear, which falls, releasing the striker. Fairly simple. Not as simple as the old Model 70 for sure, but not a terrible mechanism. Mine had some positive angle on the sear. What was going on was that as the actuator began to disengage, it was actually lifting the front of the sear which tended to add more tension to the striker. Better put, when the trigger was pulled, the mechanism actually cocked the striker just a little more. Not good. It would have been better suited to being done precisely on surface grinder, but... I managed to put a non-wavy surface at the correct angle (neutral lift) on the sear, by hand with diamond hones. Result being a trigger that is just under 3lbs (holds 2-1/2, breaks 3). Screwing the adjustment tighter gains about 1/2lb of weight. That's almost exactly the same as the '06 trigger. The sear itself is a metal injection molded item, which gave me some hesitation. Not sure what sort of post-sintering those parts were subject to, and thoughts of the ultra thin Colt AR trigger hardening came to mind. I don't think there will be problems. After quite a few dry fires, the sear surface has no deformation, groove, or wear, other than shining up a bit where the actuator arm rubbed. Needless to say, anyone wanting to do this to their own poor trigger, is advised that gunpartscorp has factory replacements for under $12, just in case things get out of hand.

So that's it. I've decided to wait on range time until I get the action screw and bottom metal sorted on the 375, but there are now 25 rounds of ammo loaded up - fifteen 270g boat tails, and ten 300g solids. Hopefully, all sorted out for next weekend.

And, I sincerely hope that someone may find my ramblings useful on their own modern Portugal Model 70

 

[Wyatt Smith]

I had the same issue with the action screws on my rifle. I found some screws from NECG I believe that were a little long and needed trimmed. They sold them advertised as such.
I counted the turns until the screw bottomed out in the barreled action, the filed the end down until I had one less turn with the stock on, than I had with the stock off.

 

[Swamptrudger]

TY @Wyatt Smith that sort of vindicates my findings. I was tempted to go with the NECG screws, but since the ones I got were available from BACO I went with those. Under 8 bux plus shipping.

There was one other little thing actually. Its a non issue, but I'll mention it.

In the sort of strangely written "instruction manual" on page 15, it mentions the serial number of the rifle being engraved on the bolt.

IT IS NOT ENGRAVED ON THE BOLT

Even BACO doesn't have a clue here. At least not in Arnold, nor in Morgan. I called 'em when I got the 06, and they said "we quit putting the numbers on the bolts a few years ago". I asked, "how do I know I've got the right bolt for the gun then?". Their answer was "You don't, but don't worry about it."

On the bolt, there is engraved an "assembly number", which is not the serial number. At a shop, unless the management allows disassembly of the rifle, no casual user would know if they were getting the correct bolt. However, upon disassembly, you can spot the same assembly number at the bottom of the recoil lug on the action, and also again on the barrel. That is... unless its a Safari Express, in which case, the 2nd lug has been welded over the number (ahem....). As an additional tell-tale, the receiver lug will imprint the number "in retromarcia" (in reverse) at the bottom of the bedding.

Mine match.

Also gotta say the bedding job on the 375 is really a class act. I realize they don't make very many of these, and I'm guessing perhaps a bit of extra care is taken? Or I got lucky. Folks think "the factory doesn't make many, because they don't sell many", and that is not quite the case. In almost all production, jobbers will place orders with the factory, who only build what jobbers demand. Those jobbers may be distributors themselves, but also supply other distribution channels, who supply dealers. Jobbers take the risk, trying to foresee market conditions, factories just make what's ordered, maybe a few extra when it suits them. Every wonder why everybody and his uncle has a 6.5mm "something" right now? Market glut, caused by optimistic prognostication! They'd like to make you think 6.5mm's are flying from shelves. They're not, its just all that's available because that's how things got ordered by jobbers. No knock on the 6.5mm's, just saying don't blame the factories. Thank God for Lipseys, who actually know something <--- shameless plug, no skin in the game there though

 

[gbflyer]

Good write up. The mag box needs a little room to wiggle or it will bind with the receiver. Standard Mauser/M70 stuff. Why don’t they use longer screws? And finally I guess I understand that the MOA trigger must be cheaper for them to make. The old trigger was perfect. Another silly change. Just charge $20 or whatever more for the correct trigger.

 

[Swamptrudger]

Yup some wiggle. Nobody ever told me how much, but I'm thinking someplace like .015 or so. Just enough to know its not binding. These have more than that.

I like simple. The old trigger had its good points - not prone to dirt for one. Utter simplicity for another. Any trigger that's set into a milled out box with a sideplate, such as the MOA is more prone to some sort of debris messin' with its operation. Its what there is though, can't change to mo'simpler-mo'better that I know of. All the aftermarket triggers are as complex, or even more so. If things got really bad with the trigger, its entirety is changeable in the field with only a small punch or nail to drive out the roll pin at its front. It is a nice feeling trigger once set up and adjusted.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Curious, what happens if the mag box doesn't wiggle vs action?

 

[Swamptrudger]

The mag box is sandwiched between the receiver and the bottom metal. Tightening the box in there between the two could result in a deformed box, deformed bottom metal, or not being able to get the bottom metal and receiver to get a good tight grip on the stock. Sandwiched as it is, the box is a free floating affair, and should have the ability to float just a bit.
Fair warning - I am not the stock fit guru. I did final fitting, refinishing, crack fixin', even a few checkering fixes, but I've never inletted an action into a blank stock. I have.... I can remember maybe two or three times.... takin a magazine box to the belt sander and shaving it a hair so there would be a little bit of room for it to float in, but if there's some magic number associated with that, someone with more experience is gonna need to provide that. I recall, more usually, fitting bottom metal to be just shy of touching the box, then trimming the bottom of the stock to get a nice appearance with the bottom metal. In those days, "glass bed" was the word of the day, not "pillars". I think I did two or three a year over the 10+ years in that sort of business. I will say that where most stock makers would probably use a chisel, I used endmills on the Bridgeport. A stock maker might say "relieve it a bit more", but I'd be thinking it needs about .035" more. That was the world I was in, so I'm totally open to suggestion/education on this sort of thing.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The mag box is sandwiched between the receiver and the bottom metal. Tightening the box in there between the two could result in a deformed box, deformed bottom metal, or not being able to get the bottom metal and receiver to get a good tight grip on the stock. Sandwiched as it is, the box is a free floating affair, and should have the ability to float just a bit.
Fair warning - I am not the stock fit guru. I did final fitting, refinishing, crack fixin', even a few checkering fixes, but I've never inletted an action into a blank stock. I have.... I can remember maybe two or three times.... takin a magazine box to the belt sander and shaving it a hair so there would be a little bit of room for it to float in, but if there's some magic number associated with that, someone with more experience is gonna need to provide that. I recall, more usually, fitting bottom metal to be just shy of touching the box, then trimming the bottom of the stock to get a nice appearance with the bottom metal. In those days, "glass bed" was the word of the day, not "pillars". I think I did two or three a year over the 10+ years in that sort of business. I will say that where most stock makers would probably use a chisel, I used endmills on the Bridgeport. A stock maker might say "relieve it a bit more", but I'd be thinking it needs about .035" more. That was the world I was in, so I'm totally open to suggestion/education on this sort of thing.

I'm asking because I had to do some adjustments to mag box and action screws before my 404 with Swift 416 Rem bottom metal would fit together in the second stock I picked up. The action was Brno vz.24 and everything fit together fine with the first stock.

But the second stock was thinner through the wrist and the tangs would not pull together. Not even close. I carefully started trimming the rear action screw while keeping an eye on the hinged floor plate. Sure enough the floorplate lock seized slightly. So I started trimming the sides of the mag box at back end. The end plate drew closer to the bolt but I kept an eye on that too. Dremmel tool with grinding wheel did the trimming. Eventually I was able to pull the tangs into the stock with all the thread remaining on the action screw consumed in top tang. The mag box is fairly snug against the bottom of the action and bolt JUST clears the box's end plate (which I had cupped per Duane Wiebe's booklet). Rear action screw hole is pillored with military steel sleeve that also had to be shortened. The forward action screw was also trimmed but not as much. The action cavity is generously bedded at both ends with JB Weld. This was a used stock with lots of wood removed in questionable places, particularly the trigger box and back end of magazine cavity. Given this stock's thin construction, I felt it advisable to add crossbolts and a 3/16" steel rod through the wrist.

Anyway, everything fits together like a glove. Floorplate doesn't bind. It actually requires some effort to work the bottom metal free of the stock. Do you think it's too tight ... if that's possible?

 

[Swamptrudger]

See if you can put the rifle together with no magazine box. You can then judge if that box is hindering anything. With the magazine box back in, my thinking is one should be able to move it up and down ever so slightly once the stock screws are tightened the way they ought to be.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

See if you can put the rifle together with no magazine box. You can then judge if that box is hindering anything. With the magazine box back in, my thinking is one should be able to move it up and down ever so slightly once the stock screws are tightened the way they ought to be.

My rifle does not have a detachable magazine. The box is integral component of bottom metal. So I should put the action/barrel in the stock without bottom metal and tighten it down? Hmm. I'll have to use spacers and washers.

 

[Swamptrudger]

Ah, different animule.
In that case, set the box and bottom metal into its inlet. Then push the action into the stock. If the bottom metal is upset, aka pushed a bit by the receiver, then you might need to trim things a little or possibly use some bedding material to act as a spacer between the bottom metal and the bottom of the stock.
If the action doesn't upset things you're good to go.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Ah, different animule.
In that case, set the box and bottom metal into its inlet. Then push the action into the stock. If the bottom metal is upset, aka pushed a bit by the receiver, then you might need to trim things a little or possibly use some bedding material to act as a spacer between the bottom metal and the bottom of the stock.
If the action doesn't upset things you're good to go.

Okay. I'll check it. Note how much I had to modify the trigger shoe on the Timney before it would fit inside the trigger guard when the gun was changed to the second stock. Fit fine without modification inside same bottom metal when action was mounted on the first stock. Big difference.

Even after modifications to action for thinner stock, this Mauser still holds three 404 cartridges in the box. I can still push a fourth round underneath the extractor and close the bolt. Or drop it in the chamber and snap over. Cycles flawlessly.

 

[Swamptrudger]

Well working flawlessly is always a good thing!

I gotta thank you @Ontario Hunter. Ya got my brain goin, and at my age... well we'll just leave it at that.

Here's a test you can do. Take the action from the stock. Fit the bottom metal until the screws are mildly snug. Now COUNT the turns as you unscrew the screws, from the snug point to the point that they skip on the first thread backing out. Write that down if you're an ol' fart like me, so it don't get fergot. Now put the action and bottom metal in the stock and tighten the screws until mildly snug. Do the same thing, count the turns as you unscrew them. You wanna count on the "unscrew" motion because then you'll know for sure as the screw skips that first thread. Goin' the other way, you won't know exactly when the threads engage. At any rate, you ought to have fewer turns with the stock being utilized. That means you got a little bit to go before things really "bottom out". Simple.

Remember - the woods gonna move, especially with moisture, even just from the air. Bring the rifle from my ol' stomping grounds in upstate NY down to FL, and its gonna grow. I dont know how much, maybe 1mm in thickness. That's roughly .030ish. Conversely, if I was to fit things real close here in FL, and brought a rifle to a dry spot, the wood would shrink. That being the case, could be the metal won't be squeezin the wood like it oughta.

Hope that's all food for thought!

 

[fourfive8]

In the case of short screws…. since this a current M70. I’d just get some longer, hex drive screws. Then trim them to best length. Also a little play in the magazine box is needed to ensure the action does not tighten down upon it creating a “rocking horse” situation. Also, the best “customizing” option for these is to pillar bed.

 

[Swamptrudger]

An update.....
Longer screw arrived today, part #U354912960
That's the rear action screw for a Model 70 "compact".
Took out the bolt, took out the front action screw on the .375H&H
Screwed in the new action screw, knowing it would be too long.
Put the bolt in and very gently tried to close it. No go.
Back off the screw one turn. No go.
Back off the screw another turn. Almost go
Back off the screw another 1/2 turn. Go.
Ok, I need to take 2-1/2 turns off the screw, plus one more, making 3.5 turns. That's about .109 to be removed from the screw.
Stuck it in a 1/4-32 die, adjusted things so .100 stuck out the die.
Ran the die and screw against the belt sander until the die face just kissed the belt.
Backed off the screw, chased the threads a bit at the end.
Tried in the rifle, no issues. That should leave about .025ish "clearance" from the bolt lugs (at least). I can just barely feel the head of the screw with my pinkie finger down in the breech. Its shy of flush with the inside of the breech lug recess when snugged up.
I think that's a good thing. Now I've got 6-3/4 turns engagement of the threads, much MUCH better than the 2-1/2 turns of engagement of the previous screw.

Used to have machines in my shop, but I think even back in the day, I'd have shortened the screw the same way. I can still parkerize things here in a small tank, so next run of phosphate I'll blast and park up both action screws, and the magazine box, and call it "done". Probably do the '06 the same way when that happens.

Good news, is rifle is ready, ammo is ready, scope should be in Friday.... maybe I'll have a good sore shoulder come Monday AM.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Good to hear it was an easy fix. Looking forward to a range report. Nothing wrong with your scope choice. I would have went that route before Schmidt & Bend-over. Long before.

 

[Swamptrudger]

My (limited) experience tells me any optical issues will be some color fringing - which can be a problem sometimes, and general fuzzy at the edges depending on the magnification. I got the Leica Trinovid 8x42s because when I look thru binocs, I'm wanting to see a "field" of vision. With a scope, its more like a tunnel vision thing, so as long as the central part of the image is good, I can stand a little color fringe. But.... the proofs in the scope itself. If I gotta go more pricey, I gotta. Hope I don't have to though.