225 winchester

Doug Kennedy

Doug Kennedy

Hemi Road Runner
Any 225 win shooters here? I just picked up a 1964 heavy barrel model 70 in 225. I'm curious as to what luck others have had with a 225 model 70. Please post your results both good and bad. Thanks
 
Savage

I picked up one in a Savage 340, a few years ago, haven't shot it much. Rumor has it that it'll run with a 22-250.
 
The 225 is a fine cartdidge--similar to the 219 Improved Zipper.

The 1964 M70s vary quite a bit in accuracy. Some were excellent, others mediocre. You just have to experiment with one to see how it performs.

Years ago in my 219 Improved I used IMR 3031 powder with good success. You might try it in your 225 along with other powders of similar burning rate.
 
After 4 long days with my model 70 225, I see why winchester (the riflemans rifle) went belly up. What a big pos,reminds me of the model12 and superx1
 
Worker said:
Why was it a pos? The rim on the case give problems? Feeding?
Click to expand...

So far the rifle won't shoot. My best group so far is 1.250-1.500. I've tryed IMR 4064,3031 H380,H414 and H4895. I have used a 55gr nosler bt a sierra 52 gr match bullet and 50 gr hornady vmax. Thinking about making it into a "safe queen"
 
Pos?

Yes please elaborate.
I have never ever heard anyone call a Win. M70 anything bad. Now you said 1964 so I take it it's the first generation push feed model, ie no claw.
What are the problems?
 
Have you messed around with seating depth?

Is the BBL copper fowled? That really poor accuracy no doubt ,but that's not the fault of the caliber! Sounds like some other dynamics are at play.
 
I've had bad luck with used rifles in the high performance calibers. I think people shoot them out then trade them.
 
Just got off the phone with Ed Matunes. He wants me to try WW-748 and IMR-4350. Ed worked at winchester during the 225 final days. He also has done 2 or 3 lyman reloading manuals. Ed told me that my 225 will either be a good shooter or a bad one,and the results can very on a day to day bases. He really doesn't know why it was such a "trouble some" round.

I would like to thank everyone that has helped me. I'm going to let the rifle sit for a couple of days for a cooling off period!:)
 
vicvanb said:
The 1964 M70s vary quite a bit in accuracy. Some were excellent, others mediocre. You just have to experiment with one to see how it performs.
Click to expand...

I repeat--some 1964 M70s were fine shooters, others were mediocre.

Don't blame the cartridge--blame the rifle, the shooter, the scope, the wind or the ammo.

By all means, be sure the bore has no copper or carbon fouling.

Fiddle with the bedding. Be sure the scope is OK. Use wind flags.

But in the end you may have a 1964 M70 that is mediocre--or worse.
 
Poetry

vicvanb said:
I repeat--some 1964 M70s were fine shooters, others were mediocre.

Don't blame the cartridge--blame the rifle, the shooter, the scope, the wind or the ammo.

By all means, be sure the bore has no copper or carbon fouling.

Fiddle with the bedding. Be sure the scope is OK. Use wind flags.

But in the end you may have a 1964 M70 that is mediocre--or worse.
Click to expand...

Hey that reads pretty good ! Are you a poet?
 
Observation,

Doug Kennedy said:
I forgot one other thing. The rifle was a new in the box model 70, push feed
Click to expand...

If this was new in the box push feed, I do not beleive it to be pre 64?

Somebody correct me if I a wrong, but all the push feeds were manufactured after 64.

The post 64 rifles got a bad rap because everyone wanted the control feed of the pre 64. They were fine rifles in need of just a little beeding work and lapping of the rails in the action.

Between 65 and 71, the rifles were mediocre, but were not bad.

In my opinion, the rifles built after 71 were better than the pre 64, JMHO

Randy
 
I've never owned one but from all the second handed info I heard, they didn't do well for a reason. They couldn't shoot. The cartridge, not the rifle.
I'm sure some excellent and knowledgable bench shooters tried every trick in the book to make them go but they just couldn't compete.
 
beemanbeme said:
I've never owned one but from all the second handed info I heard, they didn't do well for a reason. They couldn't shoot. The cartridge, not the rifle.
I'm sure some excellent and knowledgable bench shooters tried every trick in the book to make them go but they just couldn't compete.
Click to expand...


Beemanbeme,
Are you talking about the 225? If you are, that is not entirely true. I have owned a couple of them that shot very good for a factory rifle. They would not run with a tuned modern rig, but they shot minute of Prarie Dog.

Would they set the world on fire, nope, but they were not bad. I have played with one that was just plain bad, never could make it shoot.

I built a High Wall in 6mm/225 that flat shot well, made alot of 400 + yard shots with it on lawn poodles.

Would I build a 225, NEVER. Alot of better rounds at our finger tips today, but don't turn your nose up at it.

We all have a tendency to down play the older rounds, in their day, they were just fine.

If I ever do another High Wall, it will prob be in a 6mm/225.

Randy
 
In defence of the 225

I have two model 70,s(Varmint Models) in 225 and have shot a High Wall clone in 225. The model 70,S are box stock and often shoot half inch or a tad better, and the same with the High Wall. Try about 30grs of Benchmark and put a 52gr match bullet .001-.003 from the lands. Works in all 3 for me and the poetry is free. Good Shooting, Dave :)
 
About this rifle not shooting well

I've given it a lot of thought. Some body should write a letter to their congressmen. I'd write my two congress whatever's but their not of t:eek:his world
 
Worker said:
Hey that reads pretty good ! Are you a poet?
Click to expand...

Thanks! I have written a poem or two, a bunch of newspaper columns, over 100 technical papers, quite a few magazine articles, and a book.

But I'm still learning how to write clearly!
 
Ramsh00ter said:
If this was new in the box push feed, I do not beleive it to be pre 64?

Somebody correct me if I a wrong, but all the push feeds were manufactured after 64.

The post 64 rifles got a bad rap because everyone wanted the control feed of the pre 64. They were fine rifles in need of just a little beeding work and lapping of the rails in the action.

Between 65 and 71, the rifles were mediocre, but were not bad.

In my opinion, the rifles built after 71 were better than the pre 64, JMHO

Randy
Click to expand...

The Pre-64s came to an end in December 1963. The "Post-64s" came out in January 1964.

The rifle in question here is a first-year M70 Post-64 push feed but made in 1964. It is NOT a pre-64.

It should have the BIG gap where it was free-floated, heavy 26" barrel, the pressed checkering, all the post-64 action features, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top