Are newer 700's built better?
- Thread starter Z400ACDC
- Start date
trigger643
New member
If you consider the spate of recalls Remington has gone through lately along with the peppering of internet posts of 700 owners sending their guns back for other defects, I'd suppose their level of quality could be questioned.
I have a 1974 rifle in 30-06. Other than the gun firing without pulling the trigger it has been a very good gun. That problem was corrected with a new trigger design in 2006. But it seems that some of those were assembled with adhesive that dripped into the trigger mechanism and are being recalled for inspection and cleaning.
Remington builds a decent gun, but I'd not have any of them with the factory trigger. That goes back to the 1940's.
Other than the triggers I like the 1960's-1982 rifles best. The safety was redesigned in 1982 as a stop gap method to prevent the guns from discharging with no trigger pull. 1982 and newer guns no longer lock the bolt down and allows the chamber to be unloaded with the safety in the "safe" position. I really prefer to be able to lock down the bolt.
Remington builds a decent gun, but I'd not have any of them with the factory trigger. That goes back to the 1940's.
Other than the triggers I like the 1960's-1982 rifles best. The safety was redesigned in 1982 as a stop gap method to prevent the guns from discharging with no trigger pull. 1982 and newer guns no longer lock the bolt down and allows the chamber to be unloaded with the safety in the "safe" position. I really prefer to be able to lock down the bolt.
reynolds357
New member
The 700 throughout its history has had quality control problems. With regularity, you find 700's that are tack drivers. With equal regularity, you find 700's that wont hit the broad side of a barn. I have had to re-barrel quite a few 700's to make them shoot. Usuallythe problem is simply awful bedding, which is easy enough to fix.
Remington's decision to commercialize the M1917 Enfield action to their Model 30, later 720, then the 7XX series was the mistake they made decades ago. They did decide to button rifle barrels in the 1950's and those coupled with a cheap receiver were the rage in benchrest. Their sporter barrels were the most accurate ones on the USA market. Bent recoil lugs, poor triggers & safeties, failing extractors and round receivers twisting loose from epoxy bedding aside, they out sold and had more of a following than their competitor; Winchester. They sold actions and barreled actions for low prices and were therefore popular with custom rifle and benchrest folks.
Winchester's line started with commercializing the M1903A3 action (a Mauser 98 spin-off) into their Model 54 and later the 70. Extremely reliable, nothing broke, expensive actions (near 3 times as stiff as the Remington's) to make but worth it in the long run. Competitors liked them for those reasons but chose good aftermarket barrels for accuracy. Too bad their broach rifled barrels were so-so in the accuracy department. Even their hammer forged ones later were nothing to write home about. But Winchester new that and had Western Cartridge Company make larger diameter 30 caliber match bullets to shoot more accurate in their oversize factory bores. The hunting ammo sold was not all that accurate in them nor were aftermarket bullets exept for Lapua's .3092" diameter ones. Well made but expensive to do so meant they had to cut corners on barrels to make a profit to stay competitive against Remington. Winchester never sold actions alone, but they did make a couple dozen solid bottom single-shot ones for the US Army Marksmanship Team. That almost killed them in the 1960's when the USA military chose the Remington for their new sniper rifle.
I don't know when Remington switched to hammer forged barrels. Cheap to make but accuracy is average.
Winchester's line started with commercializing the M1903A3 action (a Mauser 98 spin-off) into their Model 54 and later the 70. Extremely reliable, nothing broke, expensive actions (near 3 times as stiff as the Remington's) to make but worth it in the long run. Competitors liked them for those reasons but chose good aftermarket barrels for accuracy. Too bad their broach rifled barrels were so-so in the accuracy department. Even their hammer forged ones later were nothing to write home about. But Winchester new that and had Western Cartridge Company make larger diameter 30 caliber match bullets to shoot more accurate in their oversize factory bores. The hunting ammo sold was not all that accurate in them nor were aftermarket bullets exept for Lapua's .3092" diameter ones. Well made but expensive to do so meant they had to cut corners on barrels to make a profit to stay competitive against Remington. Winchester never sold actions alone, but they did make a couple dozen solid bottom single-shot ones for the US Army Marksmanship Team. That almost killed them in the 1960's when the USA military chose the Remington for their new sniper rifle.
I don't know when Remington switched to hammer forged barrels. Cheap to make but accuracy is average.
Last edited:
Ridgerunner665
New member
Hammer forged barrels...
Not questioning or debating Barts assessment...but I've owned 3 of the new Winchester rifles with FN hammer forged barrels...and those are the most accurate off the shelf barrels I've ever seen...May not be benchrest quality, but pretty darn good for hunting accuracy to 600 yards...or at least my 3 are.
I don't understand how Remington barrels are still so rough inside, if they're hammer forged...
I have one Savage and 3 Winchester rifles with hammer forged barrels...pulling a dry patch through them is smooth and slick....pulling a dry patch through a Remington barrel feels and sounds like pulling it though a rusty pipe...don't understand that.
Not questioning or debating Barts assessment...but I've owned 3 of the new Winchester rifles with FN hammer forged barrels...and those are the most accurate off the shelf barrels I've ever seen...May not be benchrest quality, but pretty darn good for hunting accuracy to 600 yards...or at least my 3 are.
I don't understand how Remington barrels are still so rough inside, if they're hammer forged...
I have one Savage and 3 Winchester rifles with hammer forged barrels...pulling a dry patch through them is smooth and slick....pulling a dry patch through a Remington barrel feels and sounds like pulling it though a rusty pipe...don't understand that.
Ridgerunner665
New member
Makes sense....didn't expect the mandrel to be rough though...looks like that would make it difficult for the barrel to move on the mandrel as it goes through the machine.
Last edited:
Ridgerunner665
New member
Most of them are accurate...many exceptionally so....but even those have really rough bores.
It doesn't really hurt the rifle...but causes more fouling and low muzzle velocity.
It's one of those things most people will never notice or even care about...but for the ones that do notice and fret over such things, it ruins the whole thing.
WildBill45
New member
I have a Rem custom KS model seven in 350 mag 1988 vintage ... does anyone know if that line of triggers had problems as well? My rifle has never had that problem so far, but being a hunting rifle it was not shot like a varmit rifle and limited shooting was done.
Last edited:
In Rem 700s I have (3); 1963, 1971, and 1996.
In Win M70 I have (2); 1953 and 1956.
15 years ago I was reading here on TFL Gale McMillan post about how great Rem 700s were.
15 years ago I was reading on rec.guns Bart B post about how Win M70s were better than Rem 700s.
Things have changed with forums since then.
I don't think Rem 700s have changed much.
I do think Win M70s are better.
I do think Rem 700s with a good barrel are good enough for non dangerous game.
In Win M70 I have (2); 1953 and 1956.
15 years ago I was reading here on TFL Gale McMillan post about how great Rem 700s were.
15 years ago I was reading on rec.guns Bart B post about how Win M70s were better than Rem 700s.
Things have changed with forums since then.
I don't think Rem 700s have changed much.
I do think Win M70s are better.
I do think Rem 700s with a good barrel are good enough for non dangerous game.
Attachments
To answer the 1st question.
No!
And the old ones were not all that impressive to me.
I used an M-40 as a Marine. The Marines still use the basic receiver and bolt, but most of the rest of the rifle is not made by Remington.
Winchester used to sell the old M-70 to the USMC up until 1964, but in that year Winchester changed to the "new M-70" and all support for the old guns stopped or started to wane.
The USMC adopted the M-700 not because it was so good, but because it was available. It was accurate but that about where the praise ended.
I also have been gunsmithing now for a very long time. So I am one of those guys that get to fix broken guns.
I was fixing M700s many years ago, and I still am, but these days Remington won’t sell us the parts the way they used to, so fixing any problems usually means using after market or shop made parts. That has been a good business for many aftermarket parts makers.
Of all the bolt rifles that are easily obtainable in the USA I have to rate the 700 as my least favorite. In fact, if I think hard I am not sure I could think of a bolt action rifle currently made anywhere that I rate lower than a 700.
Civil liability suits force nearly all firearms manufacturers to make guns safely even if reliability is not much concern to many. So I am not saying a 700 is going to blow up. I am just making a side by side comparison to all other bolt rifles I know of from any country.
I have had to fix fewer bolt actions from every other manufacturer there is.
Sorry Remington, but that's just the truth.
No!
And the old ones were not all that impressive to me.
I used an M-40 as a Marine. The Marines still use the basic receiver and bolt, but most of the rest of the rifle is not made by Remington.
Winchester used to sell the old M-70 to the USMC up until 1964, but in that year Winchester changed to the "new M-70" and all support for the old guns stopped or started to wane.
The USMC adopted the M-700 not because it was so good, but because it was available. It was accurate but that about where the praise ended.
I also have been gunsmithing now for a very long time. So I am one of those guys that get to fix broken guns.
I was fixing M700s many years ago, and I still am, but these days Remington won’t sell us the parts the way they used to, so fixing any problems usually means using after market or shop made parts. That has been a good business for many aftermarket parts makers.
Of all the bolt rifles that are easily obtainable in the USA I have to rate the 700 as my least favorite. In fact, if I think hard I am not sure I could think of a bolt action rifle currently made anywhere that I rate lower than a 700.
Civil liability suits force nearly all firearms manufacturers to make guns safely even if reliability is not much concern to many. So I am not saying a 700 is going to blow up. I am just making a side by side comparison to all other bolt rifles I know of from any country.
I have had to fix fewer bolt actions from every other manufacturer there is.
Sorry Remington, but that's just the truth.
At Gale's shop some years ago, I offered to bring a Win 70 barreled action to compare against a Rem 700 one for how much the receivers bent with 50 pounds hung onto them at the receiver bridge to see which one bent the least being the stiffest; the issue his bet was based on. He refused saying that was no way to measure receiver stiffness.
He didn't want to believe the book (Rifle Accuracy and Facts by Vaughn) table showing mechanical engineering fourth order calculations for receiver stiffness showing the Winnie was near 3 times stiffer than the Remmie. Unclenick posted those numbers along with other actions in this forum some time ago.
Gale was smart enough to not take it further. I didn't want the money ($1000, the real amount) anyway.
Some people mention the single shot Rem 40X to compare against a box magazine Win 70. I mention the solid bottom/top single shot Win 70 ones that easily trumped the 40X.
To some people, facts are not good enough to make a point. It doesn't take much to see there's more metal in Winnie's resisting bending in the vertical axis besides having more steel in them. Do your own math or bending if you wish.
He didn't want to believe the book (Rifle Accuracy and Facts by Vaughn) table showing mechanical engineering fourth order calculations for receiver stiffness showing the Winnie was near 3 times stiffer than the Remmie. Unclenick posted those numbers along with other actions in this forum some time ago.
Gale was smart enough to not take it further. I didn't want the money ($1000, the real amount) anyway.
Some people mention the single shot Rem 40X to compare against a box magazine Win 70. I mention the solid bottom/top single shot Win 70 ones that easily trumped the 40X.
To some people, facts are not good enough to make a point. It doesn't take much to see there's more metal in Winnie's resisting bending in the vertical axis besides having more steel in them. Do your own math or bending if you wish.
Last edited:
reynolds357
New member
Bart, facts are often an inconvenience. 
Reynolds, I agree. They get in the way of changing the laws of physics when one's trying to make something happen when it's impossible.
Wyosmith , many 'smiths echo your comments.
Note another reason the military brass picked Remington over Winchester to supply actions for sniper rifles was the financial straits Winchester was buried in at the time. Remington was in good shape money wise. The fact that most of the military snipers were competitive shooters wanting Winchester actions for their reliability, maintenance and accuracy features was not important.
Wyosmith , many 'smiths echo your comments.
Note another reason the military brass picked Remington over Winchester to supply actions for sniper rifles was the financial straits Winchester was buried in at the time. Remington was in good shape money wise. The fact that most of the military snipers were competitive shooters wanting Winchester actions for their reliability, maintenance and accuracy features was not important.
Last edited: