Mr_Pale_Horse
Member
Unless my Windows/browser is set up differently, THR does use Remington green as a box/banner/button color, so we gotta bash a little to keep things fair 
Remington 700, what's the consensus?
- Thread starter Redneck with a 40
- Start date
- Status
I am a long time owner of Remington firearms. In past years they were identified as "quality guns that could be had at affordable prices". In my opinion they have somewhat morphed from that identity to one that could be described as "quality is questionable for premium pricing". I'm sure some bean counter is calling the shots...probably some Harvard or Yale business type who doesn't know sh&t about guns who's only concerned about the bottom line. Remington needs a "gun guy" in there who understands quality; they need someone who can look back at where they've been and redirect where they are going...otherwise that companies a sinking ship with no one at the helm. I happen to own a Remington Model 700....one of the good ones before skimping on the product was made the plan of the day. My Model 700 has quality finished metal (satin smooth); the action is superbly polished (slick sliding); the wood was finished to the quality of fine furniture and was made from quality walnut stock, with a Monte Carlo styled stock. My Model 700 is a quality weapon by anyone's standards. It shoots MOA to sub MOA depending on the ammo used. I am proud to own my Model 700, but recently I went to look for one for my son for his first hunting rifle; I undoubtedly went to what I had and was proud to have. Low and behold I looked at the "Thing" they were calling the Model 700. It looked and felt nothing like what I had. The fit and finish were piss poor and the quality of the metal was terrible. The action on the new 700 is NOTHING like it is on the 700 I own. The price is way too high for the low quality weapon that Remington is now turning out. If you don't believe me compare a new one off the rack to one that's 15 to 20 years old....it's disgraceful. Remington is trading on their former reputation and that will only take them so far. People at Cerberus better wake up and fire the clown running the show at Remington.:banghead:
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
The rifle I picked up last year is an SPS Tactical, with the 20" heavy barrel. It was on the used rack for $500 with a Pro-Staff 3-9x40 already mounted and zero'd. I jumped on it! I'm far from a skilled long range shooter, but I'm keeping the groups at 1"/100 yards and just under 2"/200 yards. I like the looks, I like the way it handles, I like the parkerized finish, I'm very pleased with it. It doesn't "feel" crappy at all, I think this is a quality rifle. This thing looks brand new too, probably doesn't have more than 100 rounds through it.
I also really like the Hogue stock, soft and grippy, with a very nice recoil pad.
This thing looks brand new too, probably doesn't have more than 100 rounds through it.I also really like the Hogue stock, soft and grippy, with a very nice recoil pad.
A close friend of mine bought a new 700 ADL youth in .270 last year for under $400. It is a great rifle; cheap, accurate, and well made. The action isn't very smooth, but it works fine. If I were buying a new rifle with a matte or stainless finish, I would still likely go with a 700. If I were going for a budget minded rifle in a glossy blue finish with wood, I would go with a CZ 550. I couldn't get the same value, choice of calibers, or fit/finish from Remington.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
Great rifle. I have 2.
700P .308 26" heave barrel. Tac driver. If you are standing @ 1,000 yards I'll hit you. Less than 1moa at 100 yards. mist groups look like clovers. one group of 5 resembles one ragged hole smaller than a dime.
&
700 CDL .30-06. 24" light and perfect for any game in N America.
IMHO you can't go wrong with the rifle that sets the standard.
700P .308 26" heave barrel. Tac driver. If you are standing @ 1,000 yards I'll hit you. Less than 1moa at 100 yards. mist groups look like clovers. one group of 5 resembles one ragged hole smaller than a dime.
&
700 CDL .30-06. 24" light and perfect for any game in N America.
IMHO you can't go wrong with the rifle that sets the standard.
billybob44
Contributing Member
Have a 700 VLS in 6MM that I actually did that (Drove a thumb tack) through the target/stand, on my second fouling shot. Did it last spring while working up some Sierra BlitzKing/Hornady V-Max 70 grain loads, with IMR-4064... This was at 125-130 yards.
Last edited:
Uncle Mike
Member
Savage!
frankiestoys
Member
I just bought a new 700 ADL in .270 ,( 2008 model) haven't fired it yet.
Ive been reading some mixed opinions here, hope i bought a good rifle.
My other choices were the Marlin XL7, Savage 110, i even was thinking of the Mossberg
4x4. I know very little about these guns so i hope i won't be dissapointed.
Ive been reading some mixed opinions here, hope i bought a good rifle.
My other choices were the Marlin XL7, Savage 110, i even was thinking of the Mossberg
4x4. I know very little about these guns so i hope i won't be dissapointed.
Remington's 7XX and 40X centerfire barrels have been more accurate in all calibers compared to Winchester's Model 70 ones since the early 1950's when they started using button rifled barrels.
Winchester broach rifled their Model 70 barrels from the beginning just as they did their Model 54 which was a direct decendant from the M1903A3 Springfield. With their post '64 push feed actions they hammer forged their barrels. They've all been a bit too big in the groove to shoot most bullets very accurate. Only when bullets larger than their oversize groove diameters were used did they "drive tacks." For example, fat match bullets such as Lapua's .3092" 185-gr, the military .3086" 172-gr. and Winchester/Western 200-gr. FMJBT and 197-gr. HPBT .3087" 30 caliber match bullets shot very well in their barrels typically about .3083" in groove diameter. No other bullets did well unless one just happened to get a barrel that was the last few broach rifled and its groove diameter was smaller as the cutting teeth had worn down to Winchester's minimum spec.
Winchester's best performance happened in 1976 when their run of special .308 Win. Palma rifles for the World Long Range Championships at Camp Perry. Shooting military M118 match ammo, they did very good accuracy wise with the fat match bullets used. A few hundred were built with special barrels and triggers then shot by folks from all over the world. Those using them in that match could buy them fairly cheap and most were sold. People tried Sierra match bullets in them but accuracy was nothing to talk about.
Meanwhile, Remington's smaller groove diameters did well with most bullets and the vast majority of them were tack drivers. This alone, in my opinion, was the death knell that almost got delt to Winchester in the late 1960's when they first got into financial trouble. The rifle buying public heard from all over that Remmie's were tack drivers and Winnie's were bucket punchers. They thrived on accuracy and Remington delivered. And Remington sold barreled actions which the benchrest crown bought then glued them in aluminum sleeves winning matches and setting records with them. That alone may have been the biggest sales primer for Remington's greater sales volumn than Winchesters.
I talked to a man at Winchester in the 1990's about their barrel issues. He was supposed to be one of their "experts" but didn't seem to have any knowledge of what that hole down a barrel's center had to be relative to the copper jacketed lead slugs people shot through them if good accuracy was the objective. He also told me the reason they fluted their barrels was to make them stiffer.....to which I said that's a fallacy that any one of their mechanical engineers would easily disprove. But that's another horse race.
On the other hand, the Winchester actions were favored by competitive shooters for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. As few Winnies were used in competition compared to the other shooting disciplines, it didn't matter. The good thing was Winnie actions and used rifles could be had for only one verse of a song. Remmie's still held value but the masses preferred them.
Winchester broach rifled their Model 70 barrels from the beginning just as they did their Model 54 which was a direct decendant from the M1903A3 Springfield. With their post '64 push feed actions they hammer forged their barrels. They've all been a bit too big in the groove to shoot most bullets very accurate. Only when bullets larger than their oversize groove diameters were used did they "drive tacks." For example, fat match bullets such as Lapua's .3092" 185-gr, the military .3086" 172-gr. and Winchester/Western 200-gr. FMJBT and 197-gr. HPBT .3087" 30 caliber match bullets shot very well in their barrels typically about .3083" in groove diameter. No other bullets did well unless one just happened to get a barrel that was the last few broach rifled and its groove diameter was smaller as the cutting teeth had worn down to Winchester's minimum spec.
Winchester's best performance happened in 1976 when their run of special .308 Win. Palma rifles for the World Long Range Championships at Camp Perry. Shooting military M118 match ammo, they did very good accuracy wise with the fat match bullets used. A few hundred were built with special barrels and triggers then shot by folks from all over the world. Those using them in that match could buy them fairly cheap and most were sold. People tried Sierra match bullets in them but accuracy was nothing to talk about.
Meanwhile, Remington's smaller groove diameters did well with most bullets and the vast majority of them were tack drivers. This alone, in my opinion, was the death knell that almost got delt to Winchester in the late 1960's when they first got into financial trouble. The rifle buying public heard from all over that Remmie's were tack drivers and Winnie's were bucket punchers. They thrived on accuracy and Remington delivered. And Remington sold barreled actions which the benchrest crown bought then glued them in aluminum sleeves winning matches and setting records with them. That alone may have been the biggest sales primer for Remington's greater sales volumn than Winchesters.
I talked to a man at Winchester in the 1990's about their barrel issues. He was supposed to be one of their "experts" but didn't seem to have any knowledge of what that hole down a barrel's center had to be relative to the copper jacketed lead slugs people shot through them if good accuracy was the objective. He also told me the reason they fluted their barrels was to make them stiffer.....to which I said that's a fallacy that any one of their mechanical engineers would easily disprove. But that's another horse race.
On the other hand, the Winchester actions were favored by competitive shooters for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. As few Winnies were used in competition compared to the other shooting disciplines, it didn't matter. The good thing was Winnie actions and used rifles could be had for only one verse of a song. Remmie's still held value but the masses preferred them.
SSN Vet
Member
Capital management buys companies with one thing in mind.... and one thing only... to squeeze as much profit out of the company as quickly as possible...
R & D and QC are viewed as impediments to short term profitability and money spent on marketing hype will have more immediate affect on sales.
When they have returned solid profit numbers to their investors for a half a dozen years or so, they'll then show off those numbers and dupe someone into thinking the company is riding high and dump the company for a premium, leaving the new buyter to discover that the company is a house of cards and that product reputation and customer loyalty are badly damaged. Either that or they'll farm all the manufacturing out to China and continue to gut the company.
This is the epidemic problem that has plagued American manufacturing for some 30 years now. It's the new corporate culture of greed.
Just yesterday I read an interesting article about the developement of the Oldsmobile 350 rocket (the proto-type for modern V-8 engines) written by an engine designer I met years ago, F. G. Butler. Reading this article it was very apparent that once upon a time, the leaders of American manufacturing corporations wanted to win by developing better products through innovation.
IMHO, internal combustion engines and firearms are similar in that they are now both very mature technologies, and most of the ground breaking advances have already been achieved. This makes it much more difficult for manufacturers to distinguish themselves with innnovation and leaves the market much more driven by price.
R & D and QC are viewed as impediments to short term profitability and money spent on marketing hype will have more immediate affect on sales.
When they have returned solid profit numbers to their investors for a half a dozen years or so, they'll then show off those numbers and dupe someone into thinking the company is riding high and dump the company for a premium, leaving the new buyter to discover that the company is a house of cards and that product reputation and customer loyalty are badly damaged. Either that or they'll farm all the manufacturing out to China and continue to gut the company.
This is the epidemic problem that has plagued American manufacturing for some 30 years now. It's the new corporate culture of greed.
Just yesterday I read an interesting article about the developement of the Oldsmobile 350 rocket (the proto-type for modern V-8 engines) written by an engine designer I met years ago, F. G. Butler. Reading this article it was very apparent that once upon a time, the leaders of American manufacturing corporations wanted to win by developing better products through innovation.
IMHO, internal combustion engines and firearms are similar in that they are now both very mature technologies, and most of the ground breaking advances have already been achieved. This makes it much more difficult for manufacturers to distinguish themselves with innnovation and leaves the market much more driven by price.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I have more than 1 Rem rifle that I just love and they are crazy accurate, BUT they are all 15+ years old to ,sooooooooo. I don't know about the new ones, it would be interesting to know what (if anything) changed
deolexrex
Member
I picked up a 700P used a couple years ago. I put a Super Sniper 10X42 on it with a Harris bi-pod. The action is slick, it goes bang while I pull the trigger, and it places bullets where I point 'em.
What's not to like?
What's not to like?
hillbillydelux
Member
All I can say is I must be lucky. I have 5 model 700 rifles from varmint to deer calibers and have never been dissapointed. First one was bought used in 1987 and the last was a stainless SPS 30-06 I bought 2 months ago. All are excellent shooters and have never failed me in any way. The only thing I absolutly despise is the SPS stock. I orderd a grey laminate from remington to replace the plastic and couldnt be happier The new gun actually shoots better than my old BDL. I paid 400 for the sps stainless (after rebates) and 100 for the new stock. I think 500 is a damn good price for the gun.
loadedround
Member
All I can say is that I bought two Remington 700BDL rifles in mid 1963 and they were two of the best made and accurate rifles I have owned. I still have them and they are not for sale.
I recently acquired a 700 in .375 rum , a screaming deal I couldn't pass up ,plain jane stock that's no comparison to earlier 700s , harsh trigger that since it's now been tuned is actually quite nice , equipped it with standard Rem open sights since it was originally intended as a defensive far northern bear gun.
I was rather skeptical about both the caliber and the specific rifle , the newer 700s not having the best of reputations ( but remember it was a screaming deal) , lets just say that I was more than pleasantly surprised in all areas , enough so that the rifle will get a stock and glass that will do it justice.
And likely it will soon wear a muzzle brake , and I may go from the 26 to a 28 with a brake. I'm not unduly sensitive to recoil , regularly put fifty rounds through both a .338 mag and 7mm mags , but 37 rounds across a morning with this thing is a whole different skyscraper falling on your shoulder , I won't shoot anything heavier than a .243 for a week.
Caveats: are of course cost of shooting , the recoil and the basic fact that for anything in the lower 48 except the very largest moose it's drastic ( and I do mean drastic) overkill , miss two inches too far forward on a big hog and ruin BOTH front shoulders overkill.
Surprises: I view ballistics data at times with a skeptical eye , how does it perform in the field? being primary.
Open sighted anecdotal screwing around evidence. Surprisingly accurate at extended ranges for open sights , 5 out of 6 bleach jugs filled with water at a measured 250 yards. Flatter shooting (seemingly) than my .338 mag , don't pick a small oak ( 5-6 inches) to hang a target on ,the oak won't survive two direct hit's in a row. Overall performance trajectory wise ,insofar as I can judge with open sights is very .270, .30-06 maybe close to 7mm mag like ,I *think* better than .338 mag is quite likely at the same ranges once they begin to extend.
And you are unlikely to hit diddly squat offhand without practice , sit down and sling it and/or get a rest , shooting sticks are ok for one shot , *DO NOT* attempt to hold the sticks AND the forearm like you might do with your favorite varmint rifle.......OUCH!!!....
And frankly in an eight lb ( haven't weighed it but it'll be close to eight ,won't be much over) opensighted rifle the recoil is a bit over the top even for someone that's pretty recoil tolerant , as in someone dropped an anvil on you and the damn mule was standing on it , my buddy shot the other three rounds out of the first two boxes and just handed the rifle back to me and shook his head and said 'that's enough'. And THAT is I'm completely SURE that's why the rifle was such a "screaming deal" used , it came with three boxes of ammo ( factory loads) , only ten were missing from one box ,waddaya want to bet that someone bought it fired ten rounds and that was enough?
Some more weight via the right stock , good glass and a muzzle brake I may very well have a semi exceptional shooter here.
And in a circular way we come back to the original point , despite some initial skepticism based on current Remington 700 feedback from the general rank and file I'm quite pleased with this one and it's pretty close to stock save the barrel and a minor trigger tune by a local smith.
I'm expecting good things out of it ,and the one thing you can say about the 700s unequivocally is that they are the Chevy small block of rifles , what do you want it to do? Someone makes the parts to do it.
Most rifles still shoot better than most shooters.
So off to salivate over scopes and stocks. YMMV
I was rather skeptical about both the caliber and the specific rifle , the newer 700s not having the best of reputations ( but remember it was a screaming deal) , lets just say that I was more than pleasantly surprised in all areas , enough so that the rifle will get a stock and glass that will do it justice.
And likely it will soon wear a muzzle brake , and I may go from the 26 to a 28 with a brake. I'm not unduly sensitive to recoil , regularly put fifty rounds through both a .338 mag and 7mm mags , but 37 rounds across a morning with this thing is a whole different skyscraper falling on your shoulder , I won't shoot anything heavier than a .243 for a week.
Caveats: are of course cost of shooting , the recoil and the basic fact that for anything in the lower 48 except the very largest moose it's drastic ( and I do mean drastic) overkill , miss two inches too far forward on a big hog and ruin BOTH front shoulders overkill.
Surprises: I view ballistics data at times with a skeptical eye , how does it perform in the field? being primary.
Open sighted anecdotal screwing around evidence. Surprisingly accurate at extended ranges for open sights , 5 out of 6 bleach jugs filled with water at a measured 250 yards. Flatter shooting (seemingly) than my .338 mag , don't pick a small oak ( 5-6 inches) to hang a target on ,the oak won't survive two direct hit's in a row. Overall performance trajectory wise ,insofar as I can judge with open sights is very .270, .30-06 maybe close to 7mm mag like ,I *think* better than .338 mag is quite likely at the same ranges once they begin to extend.
And you are unlikely to hit diddly squat offhand without practice , sit down and sling it and/or get a rest , shooting sticks are ok for one shot , *DO NOT* attempt to hold the sticks AND the forearm like you might do with your favorite varmint rifle.......OUCH!!!....
And frankly in an eight lb ( haven't weighed it but it'll be close to eight ,won't be much over) opensighted rifle the recoil is a bit over the top even for someone that's pretty recoil tolerant , as in someone dropped an anvil on you and the damn mule was standing on it , my buddy shot the other three rounds out of the first two boxes and just handed the rifle back to me and shook his head and said 'that's enough'. And THAT is I'm completely SURE that's why the rifle was such a "screaming deal" used , it came with three boxes of ammo ( factory loads) , only ten were missing from one box ,waddaya want to bet that someone bought it fired ten rounds and that was enough?
Some more weight via the right stock , good glass and a muzzle brake I may very well have a semi exceptional shooter here.
And in a circular way we come back to the original point , despite some initial skepticism based on current Remington 700 feedback from the general rank and file I'm quite pleased with this one and it's pretty close to stock save the barrel and a minor trigger tune by a local smith.
I'm expecting good things out of it ,and the one thing you can say about the 700s unequivocally is that they are the Chevy small block of rifles , what do you want it to do? Someone makes the parts to do it.
Most rifles still shoot better than most shooters.
So off to salivate over scopes and stocks. YMMV
chuckusaret
member
My son has a 700P LTR TWS .308 that can't be beat in any respect. Looks good, was fairly cheap and very accurate. Bottom line---Does what it was designed to do.
I was rifle shopping a couple of months ago. The 700 CDL was high on my list. The ones I handled at local shops seemed to be very decent rifles, but I went with the new Winchester Featherweight. It just seemed smoother and better finished for considerably less money than the 700.
No regrets.
No regrets.
VanBurne01
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6
I own a Remington 700 ADL synthetic stock in 30-06 with a decent scope.
A light weight tack driver, drop whitetail in there tracks.Didn't pay much
for it, brand new out of the box. I know for a fact the newer model
Remmy's don't do it for me, seems to have lower quality....
A light weight tack driver, drop whitetail in there tracks.Didn't pay much
for it, brand new out of the box. I know for a fact the newer model
Remmy's don't do it for me, seems to have lower quality....
dubbleA
Member
I am opened minded and in my experinces the Remington is no better or worse than any other make these days. Driven and fed properly just about any rifle can be made to shoot well. Unless you are talking about a Dakota, Cooper or simular there isnt a make be it Savage, Remington, FNH Win etc. that stands head and shoulders above.
With that said I shot this last week with a current production $360 Rem SPSV.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vakmvgZb9aE
With that said I shot this last week with a current production $360 Rem SPSV.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vakmvgZb9aE
Last edited:
I've had a few through the years, mostly heavy barrels. Even had a couple of 5R milspecs, I was less impressed with them than the PSS's I had. One of them looked like they had slammed it together on a Friday between 4:30 and 5.
The PSS rifles were solid, just plain solid. But both of those were early/mid 1990's builds. Either one of them would shoot .5 at 100 with factory match ammo. I have a .308 VSF right now that I haven't had the chance to shoot yet. It's one of the last ones using the HS stock. Have to see how it works out....
I just can't see how they can ask what they ask for the so called custom rifles, the north american, african plains, etc. All pushing 2000.00 or better. There are other hunting rifles with far more handfitting and detail work for that price, or a hair cheaper. I'm no fan of the current synthetic stocks either.
The PSS rifles were solid, just plain solid. But both of those were early/mid 1990's builds. Either one of them would shoot .5 at 100 with factory match ammo. I have a .308 VSF right now that I haven't had the chance to shoot yet. It's one of the last ones using the HS stock. Have to see how it works out....
I just can't see how they can ask what they ask for the so called custom rifles, the north american, african plains, etc. All pushing 2000.00 or better. There are other hunting rifles with far more handfitting and detail work for that price, or a hair cheaper. I'm no fan of the current synthetic stocks either.
DirtyHarry31
Member
I have owned my Remington 700 Sendero in 270 win with the HS stock for several years now. It was made somewhere in the mid to late 90's. I bought it used on GB for $600 three years ago barely used (looked new). When I got it my smith took it apart to check it out. The recoil lug was cocked slightly. He straightend it out & adjusted the trigger. With Federal standard (blue/black box) 130 gr. pointed soft point ammo @ 100 yards I had groups between .30 to .50, and this with standard off the shelf ammo. Have a Burris Black Diamond 8-32 x 50 on top with a Harris Bi Pod. It will hit where I point it. I will reload for her someday. Remember the Marines Snipers use the Remington 700 action so how bad can it be? New, maybe there's some quality in assembly problems but you will get that with almost any rifle manufacture, some less than others. With the economy the way it is I'm sure all the manufacturers are working harder to provide a better quality rifle, even Remington if they want to stay on top.
banjoman2255
Member
I got a 700 xhr in .300RUM for Christmas this year. I'm shooting the power level three, 150gr. scirocco tips for whitetail. I have no complaints except $65 a box ammo and lack of expansion under 100 yards. Major complaints but the core lokts should expand better on whitetail.
That's why I tend to stay with the common calibers....ammo is a bitch when you go to those specialty calibers. I can always find 12 guage, 30.06 and .270 Win where ever I go and it's usually affordable. Premium bullets for the 30.06 might go for 30 or 35 bucks a box, but there's a lot of standard ammo out there for 16 bucks a box also. I still think Remington's quality control has taken a very long vacation. Their stuff just isn't the same anymore and it's no longer the bargain it used to be.
- Status
