Are the newer Model 70 Super Grades good shooters?

Considering their bedding, free floated barrel, trigger, etc. ( and I guess this goes for the Sporter as well) do they have reputation for being good "out of the box"?

same as a regular model 70. The stock makes it a SG----unless things have recently changed that is

I think they are a well-made unit that produce reasonable accuracy. I have a few Model 70s, including one Super Grade, and all produced sub-MOA out of the box.

I could say something here about Portugal, but I will bite my tongue!
Lol

Every one I’ve shot has been a good shooter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 280 is a Portugal made model, and it shoots as well as my oldest M70..The MOA trigger is a really nice trigger. Out of the box it was sub MOA.

What's your load on the .280? I have an older Model 70 FWT chambered in .280 that was produced in New Haven. It will provide me with similar grounds with a variety of 139/140 grain bullets. I've never been able to get the enviable groups with heavier bullets. They will shoot sub-MOA, but never those nice bug-holes. Yet, with 139 grain Hornady Interlocks, 140 grain Partitions, 140 grain Ballistic Tips or even with 140 grain A-Frames, groups were 0.5 inches or less. I have used that rifle for many years to harvest a number of fine deer.

Better not tell Scotty this; he will tell you the barrel must be marked wrong! He told me if it was a choice between an old rusty Russian musket that would NOT even fire; or a M70 Supergrade, made in Portugal , he would go for the Russian gun every time! He says guns with enclosed triggers and 2 piece bolts give him instant heartburn!
When he shows up here for his Moose hunt, I may hide his old 1955 Model 70, when he can't find it; tell him the only rifle I have for him to hunt with is a Portugal gun!!!! LoL
Either that or put him to work on the woodpile!

DrMike":24v1uhry said:

What's your load on the .280? I have an older Model 70 FWT chambered in .280 that was produced in New Haven. It will provide me with similar grounds with a variety of 139/140 grain bullets. I've never been able to get the enviable groups with heavier bullets. They will shoot sub-MOA, but never those nice bug-holes. Yet, with 139 grain Hornady Interlocks, 140 grain Partitions, 140 grain Ballistic Tips or even with 140 grain A-Frames, groups were 0.5 inches or less. I have used that rifle for many years to harvest a number of fine deer.

Click to expand...

Mike that group is a 154 Interbond on top of 57.5 of RL-22 and Fed LRM set back .050..Collet neck sized 1x fired Norma brass with just a kiss of a crimp from a LFCD...I'd have to look in my notes for a definite speed, but it was right around 2875..The 150 Scirocco II produced similar results, albeit a slightly larger group, with the same load. Although the Scirocco's were jumped .100"

That load will work! Good stuff. As I said, I have had such great success with 139/140 grain bullets, I simply quit looking at the heavier pills.

Wow that looks Tikka good ! Very nice group, by golly appearently Browning hasn't been building guns in
Portugal for 40 years for the fun of it! Those folks over there seam to know how to build em just as good
As the kids from New Haven! Ain't that something???? :wink: Don't tell the Marine, he could have the "big one" :mrgreen:

Is the bottom of the SG receiver "rounded", like a Mod 70 or more "flat" like an older Ruger 77? Can't stand flat/corners...its hard to be OCD on some things, ha.

I think its the same contour it always was but Scotty can tell you the best , he is a student of the 70's........

I meant the stock dimensions? You know, the older ruger 77 was kinda bulky and flat on the bottom ( around the bottom metal?) It made it difficult ( or weird feeling) to hold the rifle with one hand at its balance point. I passed up an order for a Cooper custom years ago when I found out they are flat on the bottom. When I "cup" my hand, "it not square, it round (oval)", ha.

Yes and No..The only SG I have is about 5 years old, and it's sort of flat near the bottom metal, but the side edges have a radius that rolls into the bottom..So its not squared off where the sides meet the bottom.

Another thing to consider with a SG is the weight ! My 150th Anniversary model has highly figured wood that is Stunning to look at but it weighes nearly 3 lbs! Put that on a barreled action that weighes nearly 5 lbs and you have a gun that weighes almost 8 lbs unscoped! So your going to be north of 9lbs with optics and rings???
Which didn't matter to me, as I have a couple of Tikka lites, and a Sako 85 that are 2 lbs lighter than my SG if I need a " mountain rifle" to carry all day.
One of our old guides; calls the SG: the gun, with a " Marble Cake" stock! There is NO plastic
in this one, guaranteed!

Love Marble Cake, both kinds, ha! I had a 90's model SG in 30-06. had it rebarreled to the 338/280. Only issue was I could only find the Remington nickeled cases then it would "flake" around the shoulder when fire forming. And...it was a crowbar, yes, very beautiful wood but very heavy. I got rid of it so was envisioning just "what" I would even "do" with another one! If I still lived in Texas, and could drive right up to the box blind, I'd be fine, ha. But not in the Mountains! Thanks for the info.

I had a Super Grade 338 for years; with a VxIII 1.5/5 on it; the gun weighed 9.5lbs! But I thought nothing of lugging that SG around all over Alaska at that time,(In my 30s/40s) My Dad, when he was that age, owned a Model 81 Rem Auto in the 50's that weighed around 9 lbs! And he told me, they used to walk all the way around the "burntland" with that darn thing! So if you left camp before daylight, it was a looong all day hump if you were in great shape , and not many could make it. Besides being difficult walking in lots of spots,
It was 18 miles around the whole outside of the burntland!!!! He lugged that old monster around for bout 20 years and thought nothing of it, at that time...... However: nowadays I like 7.5 lbs with a scope, if I am going very far?
Though on stand, or sitting in ambush situation it really wouldn't matter much, so around here hunting from the canoe, or calling Moose, etc; the weight really isn't a factor at all. In a big Magnum I much prefer the weight
As the 338 was about my limit off a bench. It would knock my glasses right off my face even at 9.5lbs!

I hear that, I had a buddy who bought a Mod 70 338 back in the mid 80s. I loaded him two bullets, the Speer 200 ( for deer) and the Sierra 250 sbt ( for elk) his request. OMG that thing was brutal! Fast forward, I bought one of the new Mod 70 Sporter classic in 7mm STW that was very pleasant to shoot! I think Winchester changed the dynamics of their stock design? Anyway, I have talked myself out of a SG....for now!

35 Whelen":tdxr4b58 said:

Another thing to consider with a SG is the weight ! My 150th Anniversary model has highly figured wood that is Stunning to look at but it weighes nearly 3 lbs! Put that on a barreled action that weighes nearly 5 lbs and you have a gun that weighes almost 8 lbs unscoped! So your going to be north of 9lbs with optics and rings???

Click to expand...

Scotty would carry one in each hand and another across his back.... :mrgreen:

Ya, I love the looks of the newer Super Grades, but sometimes that fancy walnut is a tad heavy, no doubt.

Guy