Mod. 70, push to control feed?

dmachine

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2004
191
0
RI
Is there anyone out there that does a mod. to a std. Win. Mod. 70 rifle to turn it from push feed to control feed? We have 2 338 Whisper Mod. 70's that SHOULD have been made on a control feed system but were not. The problem is they don't eject the brass, you have to pick it out each time. (It's because the case is to short.)Any help guy's?
 

doc76251

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 5, 2003
1,747
39
Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

I don't think you can do that as it would require re machining the receiver raceway to accept the claw as well as adding a cut out or step on the barrel. Not to mention the mods to the bolt itself. Could you, probably. Cheaper to replace.

I'd look at your extractor and ejector combo again, it should work with any round as the extractor should be holding the case in the bolt. The ejector should be trying to shove it out as soon as it passes out of the neck in the chamber.

Perhaps a weaker ejector spring or lowered extractor would keep it from unseating as it comes out of the breach.

Just thinking on the last part.

Cheers,

Doc
 

swd

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 3, 2010
140
0
NorCal
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

The extractor has nothing to do with it. You need to have the ejector lenghtend or a new longer one made. The ejector timing is in the length of the ejector and your short Whisper case has thrown that off. All you need is a gunsmith that understands M70s.
 

doc76251

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 5, 2003
1,747
39
Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: swd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The extractor has nothing to do with it. You need to have the ejector lenghtend or a new longer one made. The ejector timing is in the length of the ejector and your short Whisper case has thrown that off. All you need is a gunsmith that understands M70s. </div></div>

Serious question here.....

On a push feed the ejector is a button inside the bolt face.

On a CR it is in the rear of the action.

His rifle is a Push Feed. How would lengthening the ejector work in this instance? I Understand the concept for a CF but not on a Push. Please elaborate.

Cheers,

Doc
 

swd

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 3, 2010
140
0
NorCal
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

Slight brain fade, I forgot the bump feeds have a Rem type ejector. Same thing still applies though. First make sure the ejector spring is in good shape with good tension. That may fix it right there. The ejector throw may need to be increased slightly. These are very sensitive! Take the ejector out and lengthen the rear of the slot about .005" for more ejector throw and try it. Repeat as necessary, between .005" and .015" will probably get it. Go easy, if you go too far {flings shells a mile} take a slight ammount off the ejector face. Also make sure the spring and plunger on the extractor are in good shape.

While the ejection system is simple on these, there is a fairly fine ballance in how it works. Spring tension and throw make a big difference real fast.
 

dmachine

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2004
191
0
RI
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

What is happening is this, the case is way shorter than the .308 case so it can not stay tight against the inside of the reciever long enough to eject. Because the case is short, it looses tention and falls off the bolt face to soon, before the opening so you have to pick it out. If you yank it real hard when you extract a case sometimes it will just land outside the rifle. A loaded round of course is no problem. We even called SSK and asked them: "What rifle should we buy and send you for the .338 Whisper? Push feed or control feed?" The answer was, it makes no difference. WRONG! You would think these people would know this by now. I really don't think the ejector could get long enough to help, but it's worth a try. Thanks guy's, I knew it was a long shot.
 

MZ5

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 23, 2010
102
0
49
Arizona, USA
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmachine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is happening is this, the case is way shorter than the .308 case so it can not stay tight against the inside of the reciever long enough to eject. Because the case is short, it looses tention and falls off the bolt face to soon, before the opening so you have to pick it out.</div></div>

Honest/serious question: If the length of the cartridge makes a difference (to push-feed style ejection) in the way you say it does here, then how could a 223 Rem (or 221 fireball, or whatever shorter cartridge you choose) push-feed short action rifle ever successfully eject a spent casing? Yet they do, and do it just fine. ??
 

dmachine

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2004
191
0
RI
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?


Honest/serious question: If the length of the cartridge makes a difference (to push-feed style ejection) in the way you say it does here, then how could a 223 Rem (or 221 fireball, or whatever shorter cartridge you choose) push-feed short action rifle ever successfully eject a spent casing? Yet they do, and do it just fine. ?? [/quote]

It all depends on the reciever and what it was designed to do. We went from a std. .308 system to using a 7mm BR case for the .338 Whisper. It would be like taking a .308 case and cutting off almost 1" of it, loading it into the chamber and trying to extract it. There is not enough case left to stay tight against the chamber wall long enough to reach the opening to flip out. The std. .308 case is still in the chamber holding presure on the ejector pin until the bolt is almost all the way back.
 

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2001
3,514
7,940
AL
None
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

No one in their right mind would recommend you spend the amount of money to convert a push feed to a controlled feed, you would be way better off completely changing out the action.

I read above what they said about the 223 M70's. The 223 M70 PF is the exact same length action as the 308, so, a short case can be made to extract and eject properly.
Its all in the ejector, extractor, and diameter of the inner bolt face, coupled with the depth of the bolt face.
If someone trued the action and cut the bolt face too deep, you will have the problem you describe. (And it may not be correctable with a push feed.)

If you hand feed a 308 EMPTY case into the action until the chamber stops it, then pull the bolt back, will the 308 case eject?

What you have not said is if the rifle will eject a loaded round.

Please answer those questions and I may have suggestions that will help fix this.
 

bcw1284

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 18, 2008
1,821
2
36
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you have not said is if the rifle will eject a loaded round.</div></div>

actually he did:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmachine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A loaded round of course is no problem.</div></div>

could you swap in a .223 ejector (or at least the spring) and see if that works better?
 

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2001
3,514
7,940
AL
None
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

I see where he said that about a loaded round working fine in his second post..

No, the 223 case is longer than the 338 case and that's not the answer, the springs are the same.

On a push feed, the minute any case clears the chamber, the case mouth will be pushed to the right into the bolt lug raceway. It rides in the raceway until the case clears the ejection port, then it ejects.

The case is held inside the bolt face when it is riding back, by the extractor and also by the bolt raceway backwards pressure, while pushed to the right side by the ejector spring. Said spring is supposed to have enough pressure to cause the round to eject when the case clears the port. A stronger spring will cause faster ejection.

While this is happening, the case head on the right side is under the extractor and the left side is still inside the bolt face left wall, but being pushed by the ejector.

The geometry of the angle of the case as it rides back, is such by design that the case head will be held on the left side until the case mouth clears the ejection port. Then the ejector spring tension causes it to jump out.
The shorter case is allowing it to come free of the left side of the bolt face sidewall before it reaches the ejection port, which drops it in front of the bolt before it reaches the port.

In other incidents with the proper designed case length, the causes for dropping the case are:
1. The extractor is broken, stoned too short, or the extractor spring is too weak to make the extractor hold the case head against the left side of the bolt face.
2. All the springs are fine, but the bolt face has been cut too deep and the slop causes the case head to go deep on the right side and out from under the extractor, which drops the case in front of the bolt.
3. The bolt face has been opened up too wide and the case head moves to the left side of the face and out from under the extractor.
4. A weak ejector spring and I do mean a weak ejector spring, but this requires much of #3 and #4 to allow the case to fall out.

In incident 1, replacing the extractor and extractor spring is the answer, not changing the ejector spring.
Incident 1A is to replace the extractor, extractor spring, and put in a weaker ejector spring.

Incident 2 may not be solveable, but is possible to fix with a fitted oversize extractor that is longer, we used to fix magnums with a 308 extractor slightly shortened.
This might require a Sako extractor to be installed.

Incident 3, generally requires a new bolt to minimum dimensions to be installed, but may be fixed with a sako extractor.

My first try would be a stronger ejector spring.

My second try on this would be to install a new tighter extractor spring, a new extractor, and extractor plunger, then maybe follow this with a weaker ejector spring.

I can see where in this case, a controlled feed action would be preferable due to the short case.
 

PFCSkoug

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 10, 2008
268
4
32
SE Wisconsin
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
3. The bolt face has been opened up too wide and the case head moves to the left side of the face and out from under the extractor.
</div></div>

This could be fixed with a simple bushing and a sako extractor. might not be as pretty because of the slot and hole for the extractor and spring and plunger but it would work if that was the problem
 

dmachine

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2004
191
0
RI
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one in their right mind would recommend you spend the amount of money to convert a push feed to a controlled feed, you would be way better off completely changing out the action.

I read above what they said about the 223 M70's. The 223 M70 PF is the exact same length action as the 308, so, a short case can be made to extract and eject properly.
Its all in the ejector, extractor, and diameter of the inner bolt face, coupled with the depth of the bolt face.
If someone trued the action and cut the bolt face too deep, you will have the problem you describe. (And it may not be correctable with a push feed.)

If you hand feed a 308 EMPTY case into the action until the chamber stops it, then pull the bolt back, will the 308 case eject?

What you have not said is if the rifle will eject a loaded round.

Please answer those questions and I may have suggestions that will help fix this.
</div></div>

I have never tried to feed a .308 case in it, but I'm sure it would eject just fine. And yes, I did say a loaded round will also eject fine. The rec. and bolt are bone stock for a .308, it just has a .338 Whisper barrel on it. It's pretty simple really, if the case is no longer touching the wall of the chamber there is no presure on the case to hold it in the bolt. It's like taking the bolt out of the rifle, hook a round under the extractor and push it up tight to the bolt face against the ejector...... now let go, what happens? Thats what happens in the rifle with the short 7mm BR cases also. I will play around with a few things to try and make it better, but I really don't expect much. I think the best thing is just to get another FN PBR and turn it into a .338 Whisper, and maybe put a .308 barrel back on the Mod. 70.
 

dmachine

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2004
191
0
RI
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see where he said that about a loaded round working fine in his second post..

No, the 223 case is longer than the 338 case and that's not the answer, the springs are the same.

On a push feed, the minute any case clears the chamber, the case mouth will be pushed to the right into the bolt lug raceway. It rides in the raceway until the case clears the ejection port, then it ejects.

The case is held inside the bolt face when it is riding back, by the extractor and also by the bolt raceway backwards pressure, while pushed to the right side by the ejector spring. Said spring is supposed to have enough pressure to cause the round to eject when the case clears the port. A stronger spring will cause faster ejection.

While this is happening, the case head on the right side is under the extractor and the left side is still inside the bolt face left wall, but being pushed by the ejector.

The geometry of the angle of the case as it rides back, is such by design that the case head will be held on the left side until the case mouth clears the ejection port. Then the ejector spring tension causes it to jump out.
The shorter case is allowing it to come free of the left side of the bolt face sidewall before it reaches the ejection port, which drops it in front of the bolt before it reaches the port.

In other incidents with the proper designed case length, the causes for dropping the case are:
1. The extractor is broken, stoned too short, or the extractor spring is too weak to make the extractor hold the case head against the left side of the bolt face.
2. All the springs are fine, but the bolt face has been cut too deep and the slop causes the case head to go deep on the right side and out from under the extractor, which drops the case in front of the bolt.
3. The bolt face has been opened up too wide and the case head moves to the left side of the face and out from under the extractor.
4. A weak ejector spring and I do mean a weak ejector spring, but this requires much of #3 and #4 to allow the case to fall out.

In incident 1, replacing the extractor and extractor spring is the answer, not changing the ejector spring.
Incident 1A is to replace the extractor, extractor spring, and put in a weaker ejector spring.

Incident 2 may not be solveable, but is possible to fix with a fitted oversize extractor that is longer, we used to fix magnums with a 308 extractor slightly shortened.
This might require a Sako extractor to be installed.

Incident 3, generally requires a new bolt to minimum dimensions to be installed, but may be fixed with a sako extractor.

My first try would be a stronger ejector spring.

My second try on this would be to install a new tighter extractor spring, a new extractor, and extractor plunger, then maybe follow this with a weaker ejector spring.

I can see where in this case, a controlled feed action would be preferable due to the short case. </div></div>

Bingo!
 

MZ5

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 23, 2010
102
0
49
Arizona, USA
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dmachine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Honest/serious question: If the length of the cartridge makes a difference (to push-feed style ejection) in the way you say it does here, then how could a 223 Rem (or 221 fireball, or whatever shorter cartridge you choose) push-feed short action rifle ever successfully eject a spent casing? Yet they do, and do it just fine. ?? </div></div>

It all depends on the reciever and what it was designed to do. We went from a std. .308 system to using a 7mm BR case for the .338 Whisper. It would be like taking a .308 case and cutting off almost 1" of it, loading it into the chamber and trying to extract it. There is not enough case left to stay tight against the chamber wall long enough to reach the opening to flip out. The std. .308 case is still in the chamber holding presure on the ejector pin until the bolt is almost all the way back. [/quote]

Don't most manufacturers use the same-design receivers, apart from ejection port length, for 223 through 30-06 cartridge lengths?
 

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2001
3,514
7,940
AL
None
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

MZ5,

There are two length Remington 700's. Short for 223-308, and the ejection port is the same for those calibers between 223-308. Long for 3006 to Magnums, and on the long, the ejection port is the same length.
On both, the front of the receiver from barrel back to the ejection port is the same length.

On the pre-64 Model 70s, there was one action length, with a standard ejection port length for all but the 300 H&H and 375 H&H, called a magnum action, which was half moon cut at the rear and notched in the front on top of the receiver.
The pre-64 had a 22 Hornet on the same receiver but with a wierd magazine box and other parts. They did not make a 223. The people who made a pre-64 222 had to cut up a 22 Hornet and this was not common as the 222 was a remington with an action set up for it and so little trouble.
To bastardize a 22 Hornet was sacriledge because there were so few of them and today they bring very HIGH dollars on the collector market.

The first non-pre 64 Model 70's were the same length action but 1/4" or so longer than the pre-64 (to keep from notching the ejection ports on the 300/375 H&H). They all had the same ejection port size **, and were limited to the 308-460 calibers. They did not make a 222 or 223 in those years. **There was an exception to the ejection port size in the clip slotted target models.

On the laster non Pre-64 Model 70's, both push feed and controlled, there are three length actions. Yes, three.
Short for 223-308, and the ejection port is the same for all those calibers in that range. Long for 3006 to Magnums, and on the long, the ejection port is the same length. In these models, they did not produce a target model with a clip slot.
Then there is the "short magnum" bastard action that was produced for a short time.

On all of the model 70's, the front of the receiver from barrel back to the ejection port is the same length.

So, with both the 700's and 70's having the approximate same length on the front end between barrel and ejection port, the push feed ejection issue was not a problem on the known calibers when the actions were designed and this goes back to the 1905 Mauser design.
Nothing has really changed on the front end of Remington and Winchester receivers since they were introduced.

The short case 6 and 7 Rem BR seemed to work fine in the 40X receivers, but I did have trouble with a 6 Rem BR in a built 700, with some cases doing the exact same thing our OP is having with his model 70.

How many of you here have even seen a factory 40X in 6 or 7 Rem BR? There are not many of them and I don't remember ever seeing a repeater.

No, a controlled feed model 70 would be our OP's way to go.
 

MZ5

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 23, 2010
102
0
49
Arizona, USA
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhuskey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...On both, the front of the receiver from barrel back to the ejection port is the same length...

...On all of the model 70's, the front of the receiver from barrel back to the ejection port is the same length...</div></div>

Thank you for this verification, jhuskey. The above clarifies that the geometry that I <span style="font-style: italic">believe</span> is under discussion is identical regardless how long the cartridge is. Thus, it is clear to me that either I don't quite grasp exactly what geometry is being blamed for the OP's issue, or else the issue is other than what is being blamed (specifically, cartridge vs. receiver length/geometry between the back of the barrel and the front of the ejection port).

I hope that resolution is found, and posted here, so that hopefully I can better understand whatever it is that I'm missing here.
 

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 27, 2001
3,514
7,940
AL
None
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

MZ5,

There is a minimum length of the case (and right now, I can't give you the number) that will allow it to drag the right side of the receiver and still hold the base of the shell in the left side of the bolt before it clears the ejection port and flips the shell out under ejector spring pressure.

When the case length goes under that length, and it hits the right side of the receiver, it is short enough that the ejector pushes the case out of the bolt face and drops it.

The length of the case is what holds it against the ejector and bolt face as the case rides back in the right side raceway. If the case can't ride the raceway or action side because it is too short to touch both at the same time, we have the OP problem.

Does this explain it?
 

MZ5

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 23, 2010
102
0
49
Arizona, USA
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

That is what I thought was being claimed as the issue. I have just discovered where my misunderstanding was: I had incorrectly recollected the case length of the 338 Whisper to be the same as the .223 Rem, whereas in fact it is ~0.35" shorter. Thanks for your patience with me.
 

dmachine

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2004
191
0
RI
Re: Mod. 70, push to control feed?

jhuskey has hit the nail on the head. This is what is going on. Also, don't forget, I'm talking about 2 rifles, the only difference is one is in a Mc. A2 stock. They BOTH do the same thing. Thanks again guy's.