Remington 783 budget rifle vs. Remington 700

[peacebutready]

Many people have claimed Remington quality has gone down in recent years. Their current budget rifle is the 783. Could this model be made better than their 700 models or at least their less expensive 700 models? I'm wondering if this could be because Remington obviously wants to give a good first impression to a new shooter/hunter. Also because at least one of their past budget models didn't fare too well (forget the model number).

 

[1stmarine]

The 783 is a response to the entry level market following savage design directives like mossberg, ruger and others have done.
The issue is that Savage is decades ahead of everyone in this type of materials, barrel making and manufacturing w/o sacrificing value.
The 783 is not a bad design but like the ruger it is still new and consistency is not 100% there yet. The 700 continues to be a time tested
battle proven action although we know other makers of remington 700 actions and rifles make a superior out of the box product like Berbara.
The out of the box average 700 is a good rifle but if one wants to even begin to compare to some other actions and makers one needs
to take it apart, blue printed, time the bolt, rebarrel, new stock... etc... then it becomes one of the best rifles in the world.
But one might end up spending less looking and some brands and actions and their out of the box offerings.
All entry rifles come wiht garbage stocks so this is not very different and one can do some things to address some issues if one is on
a budget but the R700 ADL is perhaps the worse stock and plastic of all the budget rifles. they are flimsy, soft and can be blemed with your
own nail. that is how soft they are.
But there are amazing rifles for $500-700 so one needs to consider is it something I can live with or if I am thinking about upgrades a
good value out of the box might be cheaper than a budget plus aftermarket upgrades.
aftermarket upgrade for the 783 is very limited whil the 700 is the most popular followed by the savage 10/11 both time tested and battle proven
actions very popular all around the world.

 

[cdb1]

I believe that under the aegis of CEO Jim Marcotuli that Remington has done a complete turnaround and their quality is as good as it's ever been.

I also believe there is no way a 783 is as good quality wise as even the 700 ADL Remington makes for the big box stores.

 

[peacebutready]

I believe that under the aegis of CEO Jim Marcotuli that Remington has done a complete turnaround and their quality is as good as it's ever been.

If true, it is interesting. When did he take over?

 

[cdb1]

Summer of 2015.

 

[Fishbed77]

'm wondering if this could be because Remington obviously wants to give a good first impression to a new shooter/hunter.

It's been quite a while since this was the case at Cerberus/Freedom Group/Remington.

 

[natman]

Many people have claimed Remington quality has gone down in recent years. Their current budget rifle is the 783. Could this model be made better than their 700 models or at least their less expensive 700 models? I'm wondering if this could be because Remington obviously wants to give a good first impression to a new shooter/hunter. Also because at least one of their past budget models didn't fare too well (forget the model number).

The 783 is based on the Marlin X7 series, which was one of the better budget rifles. Remington just gave it the large dose of ugly they seem to think a budget rifle requires. Still it should be a pretty decent rifle, which is more that could be said for the execrable 710/770, which was truly a miserable excuse for a rifle. Remington's desire to make a good first impression has not been particularly evident.

 

[LoonWulf]

Id heard remingtons quality was coming back around, which is excellent!
Until recently I hadnt handled any of the 700s made after about 2013
The new 700s i handled last time i was at one of our lgs visiting, were much nicer finished than my circa 08, and seemed to be as good as my mid90s. The bdl wasnt as nice as my buddies mid 80s bdl, but his gun is really nice for a mid lvl factory rifle.

I compared the synthetics to a bergara (which the shop surprisingly stocks.....i had to special order one only a few months ago), and found them comperable on blueing and general fit and finish. The stocks on the bergaras are nicer imo.
Compared to my 08 700, my bergara is WAY better in every way, so its nice to see the 700s come back inline.

I handled the xl7 but never shot it, I really wanted sports authority to get an xs7 in 7-08 but they never did. If Remington didnt do anything besides add a stupid looking bolt shroud and handle it should be a good gun. On par functionally with the 700, but cheaper looking and feeling.

 

[jmr40]

The Remington 700 series of rifles dating back to 1946 were the 1st budget rifles. They were harshly criticized at the time for using a steel tube for an action instead of a machined block of steel. The recoil lug is a washer over the barrel, the bolt handles were brazed on, they used cheaper plunger ejectors, stamped sheet metal extractors and cheap stamped checkering on the wood. All of these design features were considered manufacturing shortcuts and a cheap rifle. Savage took the concept several steps farther with their floating bolt head.

Yet today most consider the 700 and Savage 10/110 rifles to be top tier rifles and the others are now budget rifles. In my experience some of the steps on the original 700 series have proven to not only make a less expensive rifle, but a more accurate one as well. Same with the floating bolt head on Savage. It was intended as a cost savings measure, but has proven to be more accurate. Todays budget rifles are no different. Some of the cost savings are proving to make for very good accuracy. In my experience most all of the budget guns shoot as well as the top tier rifles.

The disadvantage is long term durability and long term value. Even the 700 series of guns won't hold up to harsh, long term use as well as older traditional designs. By the time you get to todays budget guns most of them cost more to repair than the gun is worth if anything breaks. While they are accurate,reliable and durable enough for most casual shooters I'd not want any of them in my hands on an expensive hunt or if my life depended on it working.

 

[Captcurt]

I have heard that the Remington quality went down the tube, but the 700 ADL that I bought as a demo gun for song is one shooting machine. It has the so-called flimsy stock, an excellent trigger and will shoot cloverleafs with 3 different loads. The 783 that I have played with was not the quality of the 700 and the trigger was not in the league with Savage, Mossberg or Ruger American.

Then there is the Bergara. The B-14 is a lot of gun for the money. You can get a nicer gun, but it will cost you twice as much money.

 

[Laphroaig]

The Remington 700 series of rifles dating back to 1946 were the 1st budget rifles. They were harshly criticized at the time for using a steel tube for an action instead of a machined block of steel. The recoil lug is a washer over the barrel, the bolt handles were brazed on, they used cheaper plunger ejectors, stamped sheet metal extractors and cheap stamped checkering on the wood. All of these design features were considered manufacturing shortcuts and a cheap rifle. Savage took the concept several steps farther with their floating bolt head.

Yet today most consider the 700 and Savage 10/110 rifles to be top tier rifles and the others are now budget rifles. In my experience some of the steps on the original 700 series have proven to not only make a less expensive rifle, but a more accurate one as well. Same with the floating bolt head on Savage. It was intended as a cost savings measure, but has proven to be more accurate. Todays budget rifles are no different. Some of the cost savings are proving to make for very good accuracy. In my experience most all of the budget guns shoot as well as the top tier rifles.

The disadvantage is long term durability and long term value. Even the 700 series of guns won't hold up to harsh, long term use as well as older traditional designs. By the time you get to todays budget guns most of them cost more to repair than the gun is worth if anything breaks. While they are accurate,reliable and durable enough for most casual shooters I'd not want any of them in my hands on an expensive hunt or if my life depended on it working.

In a way, I agree with some of what you have said. The 700 was engineered to maybe make its manufacture a little more efficient. What I don't necessarily agree with is the assertion that the 700 is a "budget" rifle that "won't hold up to harsh long term use". 700's were the flagship rifle of one of the worlds major gun makers. Umpteen million were made and used all over the world. I've never heard of them (except for the recent poorly manufactured ones) referred to in such a negative light.

I have a mid-1980's 700 that is a beautiful rifle. Cut checkering, deep bluing and a nice piece of wood. I admit it isn't my go to rifle primarily because of the caliber (25-06) but it was my most accurate rifle until I bought a Savage. I think that it is as robust as any other rifle that I own.

Then I am reminded of J.Y. Jones' book "One Man, One Rifle, One Land" in which he hunted, and killed, every species of North American game with the same M700ADL in 30-06. That's over 40 species in some pretty tough conditions. Probably a good testimonial to the durability of the 700's in general.

 

[LoonWulf]

compared to other designs, the 700 with its soldered on bolt handle, small pressed in extractor, spring backed plunger and complicated trigger mechanism is viewed as being more fragile than say the beefier all milled and manual eject model 70 or mauser.
I obviously have little experience with hunting truly harsh conditions, but after cleaning some of my buddies 20-40 year old guns up i can see the validity of the issues with remingtons trigger packs. They crud up something awful, and if that crap froze your trigger would fail to fire at best.
Ive also never seen ANY bolt handle snapped off, nor actually known anyone who has had it happen. I have replaced both extractors and ejectors on guns that werent very old, as well has had springs, plungers rust up almost solid (yay hawaii).
Ive also seen rust take a savage ejector out of action, as well as cause issues with the sliding extractor returning to hold the cartridge properly.
Add cold/heat/dust/mud etc to that and i can see more issues that something with a big claw extractor, simple trigger, and heavy blade ejector might not have.

and after all that....the only mauser type guns i own are Arisakas. So obviously im quite happy with remington, and many other manufactures "short cuts"

 

[Decoy80]

Most of the 742 problems were from factory magazines, I also encountered the same issue with the 597 chambered in 22 win mag. I currently dont own any Remington bolt action rifles. I own one Browning, and two on Mauser actions. As far as the newer entry level rifles I would not buy any of them until I had the opportunity to fire one myself. Surely you can get your hands on one if anyone you know has one they are very pleased with as their ego may be used long enough to send a few downrange. Good luck, may all your efforts to aquire a tackdriver on the cheap be successful. Just to add my bolt Browning is an entry level model and I much prefer my old Mausers

 

[mshootnit]

I'd buy a 783 before I bought a 700.
Nice for budget gun . If I go nicer than that, then I buy Vintage 700 bdl, Ruger, Kimber, Vanguard S1 stainless, Montana X2.
Ive got a 795 that is straight shoots real good, nothing wrong with Mayfield Ky. barrels

 

[SwampWolf]

Not always true but, generally speaking, you get what you pay for. This most of the time true axiom is apropos imo when comparing the Model 783 with the Model 700. The extra money is worth it for me in terms of the better fit, finish and workmanship as evidenced by the Model 700-which isn't to say that the Model 783 isn't worthy and, in fact, it might well be the "best value", if not the best rifle between the two.

 

[peacebutready]

Not always true but, generally speaking, you get what you pay for. This most of the time true axiom is apropos imo when comparing the Model 783 with the Model 700. The extra money is worth it for me in terms of the better fit, finish and workmanship as evidenced by the Model 700-which isn't to say that the Model 783 isn't worthy and, in fact, it might well be the "best value", if not the best rifle between the two.

I heard a lot of bad things about the M. 700 in recent times, though the poster above claims quality is going up.

 

[cdb1]

The quality of all Remington and Marlin products has gone up big time IMO.

Right now you can get a 700 ADL from Academy for $379.99 and a 783 scoped combo for $329.99. For me it's a total no brainer which is more bang for the buck - 700 ADL. I don't see how the 783 action could be considered better than a 783. And this is purely personal but you will never see me own a rifle with a tiny ejection/loading port ala 783, RAR and Axis. I can't stand them.

 

[LoonWulf]

And this is purely personal but you will never see me own a rifle with a tiny ejection/loading port ala 783, RAR and Axis. I can't stand them.

Thats a good point, while it dosent usually bother me shaking the relatively small .300 blackout cases out of my RAR after a miss feed or they fail to eject is surprisingly hard.

 

[MAKster]

People are saying that you should buy a 700 over a 783, but I haven't seen any specific criticisms of the 783. Comparing it to a more expensive rifle doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the 783. The 783 is totally different than the 770.

 

[mshootnit]

The quality of all Remington and Marlin products has gone up big time IMO.

Right now you can get a 700 ADL from Academy for $379.99 and a 783 scoped combo for $329.99. For me it's a total no brainer which is more bang for the buck - 700 ADL. I don't see how the 783 action could be considered better than a 783. And this is purely personal but you will never see me own a rifle with a tiny ejection/loading port ala 783, RAR and Axis. I can't stand them.

With the detachable mag it is not a loading port...
783 has some true advantages.

 

[LoonWulf]

With the detachable mag it is not a loading port...
783 has some true advantages.

It is if you ran your mag empty and are trying to toss rounds in, or at the range single loading....but thats a fair point, my issues have mostly stemmed aroumd getting cases out lol.

 

[cdb1]

If you want to nitpick so be it. I consider it to be both. And ditto to what Loonwulf said.