I want to replace my front coil springs on my 1969 witch has a 350 in it but not sure which spring to get... Ive used moog in the past on car's and they are never correct and are usually to long and ride height is to high and harsh... Or if a member here has a moog number which would be good and has used i would be fine with them.

As of now im to low and my tires actually hit and grab sub frame when im on a slope and turning sharp. Not sure if past owner cut springs or how would i tell if i have dropped spindles ?.

Tire size is 225/70 /14

Those tires are a little on the big side. 215's might be better. Springs can be a crap shoot. Detroit Eaton is supposedly the experts. But they sold me way too stiff Moog springs for my vert GTO. I had to beg them to take them back and give me hardtop springs which were better. I'd get them from either Ames or Detroit Eaton for the best chance of getting the correct ones.

First, have you checked the subframe mounts? Rubber will deteriorate over time reducing clearances to fenders and hood. It'll also cause excessive body lean and make handling sloppy. Check this first, before messing with springs.

Replace them with aluminum (many companies sell them) and you'll never have to replace them again. Plus it'll really tighten up the handling even on an otherwise stock vehicle.

Most ideas were shared already. I went through this a couple of years ago and IF all your front end components are in good shape and to your liking only then I would recommend to get into the springs. Moog in general makes a good and quality spring, still US made. I would get a strong spring for a big motor and AC, and most likely if installed correctly (I say that because of the positioning of the spring) your front end will be a tat low. Measure both sides to the wheel well and use a floor jack to put the front end were you like it. Then go here: http://www.globalwest.net/1105.html to order spring spacers to get the desired height. Spacers were actually installed from the factory to eliminate leaning. I have them installed on mine and am 100% pleased.

Got so hung up on the solid mounts, I forgot to add that. If you already like the ride, instead of replace, using a coil spacer to raise it would be a good alternative. Keep in mind, they are not linear (spacer height is not the same as how much it lifts the car) as noted in the Global West example. You could also check if there are adjustable ones to dial it in (this is just an example, contact the supplier to verify if they will fit in the Firebird). AdjustableHiddenSpacers

1969 Firebirds had F70/14 from the factory. F7014 is 25.6" tall
225/70/14 is 26.4"

We run 245/60/14 on the rear (25.6"), and 225/60/14 on the front. We have run up to 230/60/14 on the front, but the nose was a little too high.

The F70s Coker sells in a bias ply are 26.2". They also sell a radial version in that size that are 26.4", but I'm guessing it's really just a renamed 225/70.

https://www.summitracing.com/search/product-line/coker-firestone-wide-oval-tires/part-type/tires/tire-size/f70-14/tire-construction/radial?N=tire-construction%3Aradial&SortBy=Default&SortOrder=Ascending

Lucas sells Goodyear F70s which are 26.45"
https://www.lucasclassictires.com/F70-14-Goodyear-RWL-CWT-N-S-CB5KL.htm
.
Wide-Oval Firestone Bias Plys are 26.2"
https://www.performanceplustire.com/products/ts:f70-14:ty:Antique/

And "Big Al" (Whoever that is) has a list which shows 26.2"
http://www.bigalslist.com/numbers/tires&wheels/tire_dimensionsb.htm

I would say his 225s are pretty close to the original height. Plus bias-ply tires "grow" more with temperature than radials.

The rubber mounts seem to be good visually... But wouldnt aluminum mounts be to harsh of a ride

Surprisingly no. First of all, if you're familiar with vibrational dampening and compliance, the idea is for it to work within a specific response to the system. So as rubber slowly ages it's going to become less effective anyway. Plus, using the solid mounts stiffens the structure, which in turns transfers the energy to the suspension dampers (shocks), which is more effective at damping that a rubber mount. In other words, let the suspension do it's job. This is why modern vehicles that are unibody do use an isolator and why engineers go to great lengths to stiffen the chassis structures.

So does it make it noticeably harsher? No. I swapped mine with no other changes to the chassis or suspension (same shocks, springs, etc.). Drove it before down the road, across train tracks etc. Swapped them and did it again. No noticeable loss in ride quality. But man did it tighten going around a curve! Most people I've heard say otherwise are usually quoting 3rd-hand, or theory only. Or they changed more than the mounts (double the spring stiffness, bigger sway bar, stiffer shocks, etc.) so of course it's worse, but it was the other changes not the mounts.

If you're concerned about ride quality versus harshness with decent handling:
Run solid mounts, subframe connectors, a big front sway bar, quality adjustable shocks (QA1s, Viking, Koni), and moderate-rate springs.

P.S. If you ever intend to go with subframe connectors, you'll want solids anyway. You do want to have the rear half of the body tied directly to the front frame and then allow the front body structure flex relative to the same subframe.