If your 700 shoots 1 MOA at 100 with your scope, spending three wads of money on a high priced one might end up letting it shoot 7/8 MOA at a hundred. Is that worth the cost?
Use the scope you have. Or aperture sights; the difference between scope sight and aperture sight bullseye target scores are small, very small.
Scope quality does nothing to improve a rifle's accuracy; they don't shoot the bullets down range. ...
I kind of agree with this. The problem I have seen with cheap scopes is usually:
1-Failure to maintain zero from one shooting session to another.
2-Failure to adjust precisely.
These two issues can become a circle of frustration as you end up needing to sight in every time you go to the range, and adjustments are not predictable. I had a long range shooter school me on this when I was getting frustrated.
He ran what he called the box test on my scope, which was:
Put a target spot on paper, then one exactly 12" to the right, then another pair exactly 12" below the first two. Zero the scope, then put 3 rounds in the upper left target at 100 yards. Turn the turret to adjust the scope 12MOA to the right, then aim at the target already shot and shoot three more. They should hit on the upper right target. Adjust down, 12MOA and shoot at the first target again. They should hit bottom right. Repeat to hit the bottom left, then come up again to hit the original target. The Bushnell I was using ended up being off by at least an inch (and not necessarily in the direction I adjusted on all targets. When I got back to the first target, I was 3" off or so...even though the scope was set exactly the same as it was when we started.
I ran it on a Tasco 3-9 I pulled out, it was better, but not perfect. I shot my .223 with a cheap CenterPoint on it and it passed the test, or close enough. So I moved it to the .308 and it would not hold zero shot to shot (yes, it was torqued and loctited.)
He recommended I go to a SWFA as a starter scope due to the build quality of the scope, as well as the cost. Fixed power only. I got the 10x42 $299 Mil/Mil version. When I ran the box check the last group was right on top of the first. After several years of use, it still is.
Having a scope that was mechanically predictable let me focus on the real problem with accuracy, the shooter. A more expensive scope is better for clarity and low light, but I shoot at a range in the daytime. As long as the crosshairs are where I expect them to be, the quality of glass is a non-issue. When I was using the scopes I got free with rifles or bought on the cheap, I was chasing 2 problems at once.
If your scope maintains zero and you don't switch target distances, you may not see the problems I had. If you switch from 100-300+ using mechanical adjustments, make sure your scope does this exactly the same every time.
Spend one (or one and a third) wad of money on a high quality match grade barrel and having the receiver and bolt face squared up then properly epoxy bedded and your scope might enable that renewed rifle to shoot 1/2 MOA or thereabouts.
Any recommendations on a good 'smith to do the barrel work? Most of the smiths around here are big on talk, small on performance with anything that requires slow work or precision. Someone who does good work without charging a truckload would be good