Why a 25" Barrel On the Pre-64 M70 Alaskan?
I've been a Pre-64 Model 70 fan for a long time. I have a copy of Roger Rule's book and use it religiously to answer questions about the Rifleman's Rifle. However, a friend and I were recently discussing the Pre-64 Alaskan in 338 WM and came up with a question that Rule's book didn't answer. Why was the Pre-64 Model 70 Alaskan in 338 WM fitted with a 25" barrel?
At the time the Alaskan and 338 WM were introduced, most standard grade M70s were fitted with 24" barrels and some, like those chambered in 220 Swift and 300 H&H, came with 26" tubes. Why, at a time when the Pre-64 M70 was getting hard to produce and Winchester was struggling to keep costs under control, would the company deviate from the standard 24"/26" paradigm and create a rifle with a unique barrel length? Seems to me this simply would have driven up costs? Does the 338 WM perform optimally with a 25" barrel, or at least enough so to warrant Winchester producing barrels of that length for the Alaskan? On the other hand, was this simply a marketing tool to make the Alaskan unique and perhaps more desirable?
I know the answer to my question won't solve world hunger or bring peace to the globe, but I'm intrigued enough to ask what others may think. Please chime in, especially anyone with personal insight into Winchester's marketing and/or production philosophy at the time. Thanks.
At the time the Alaskan and 338 WM were introduced, most standard grade M70s were fitted with 24" barrels and some, like those chambered in 220 Swift and 300 H&H, came with 26" tubes. Why, at a time when the Pre-64 M70 was getting hard to produce and Winchester was struggling to keep costs under control, would the company deviate from the standard 24"/26" paradigm and create a rifle with a unique barrel length? Seems to me this simply would have driven up costs? Does the 338 WM perform optimally with a 25" barrel, or at least enough so to warrant Winchester producing barrels of that length for the Alaskan? On the other hand, was this simply a marketing tool to make the Alaskan unique and perhaps more desirable?
I know the answer to my question won't solve world hunger or bring peace to the globe, but I'm intrigued enough to ask what others may think. Please chime in, especially anyone with personal insight into Winchester's marketing and/or production philosophy at the time. Thanks.
0
-
Believe pre-WWII .375 H&H Magnum Model 70s had 25" barrels, too; don't know why. 0 -
Current CZ 550's in .375 have 25" barrels as well. Much like the number of licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know...[:)] 0 -
I was aware M70s in 375 H&H had 25" barrels, but always assumed it was so due to the barrel's heavy contour and the need to lighten the load a little. Obviously, one wouldn't want to chop off too much and expose the shooter to undue muzzle blast. Likewise, chop off too much weight and recoil becomes an issue. So perhaps 25" was a logical compromise. Could the same be true for the 338 Win Mag? 0 -
Don't know if you'd caught it yet, but the 458 was also 25".
375 and 458 had the same barrel contour, so that makes sense
to use the same blank for those two heavy calibers. But the 338 on a standard weight contour? Interesting.0 -
Maybe it was marketing. They thought to differentiate between the standard length rifles on the rack of a retail establishment, strickly to catch your eye?[?] 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments