Idiot designer

S

SJCbklyn

New member
Seriously, I would like to meet the knucklehead Remington 783 designers / engineer that designed the the 783 to not accept a standard 700 scope base.

WTH were they thinking ?

Budget rifle or not...keep it consistent.

My Dad has a 783 in .223 that he got as a package. The scope was not great so I got him a vortex and some weaver rings.
First off , none of the ring screws or base screws on the existing scope were more than snug. One of the base screws was actually already loose. I had planned on leaving the bases but they are apparently crap too.

The only available option I have seen so far are the one piece base/ring available from Remington. They have decent reviews so I ordered them. Not what I wanted to use but nothing else I could see.

I don't get it. Dumb marketing move IMO.
 
I'd just swap it for an Axis but that's just me. :D

Sub MOA outta the box and uses 2 piece model 110/10 bases.

Sorry about your troubles, though, I have heard the 783s shoot well, so theres always that.
 
Does the rifle not come with bases. They are "Weaver" style and as good as you'll get anyway.

The receiver is a solid top design. It would simply be impossible to make bases fit that rifle and a 700. Most conventional rifles, including the 700, have the rear receiver ring machined lower than the front. The rear scope base has to be thicker than the front for the scope to sit level.

On a solid top design like the 783 it is level. It would be like complaining that bases made for a Marlin 30-30 won't fit a Remington 700.
 
Seriously, I would like to meet the knucklehead Remington 783 designers / engineer that designed the the 783 to not accept a standard 700 scope base.

WTH were they thinking ?
Click to expand...

It was the same guy that designed the proprietary forward sling mount I am sure. This makes attaching a standard Bipod on the rifle impossible.

I am guessing they were hoping that instead of making difficult improvements to the rifle you would just pitch it and get one of their better and more expensive, standard models.
 
Seriously, I would like to meet the knucklehead Remington 783 designers / engineer that designed the the 783 to not accept a standard 700 scope base.
Click to expand...

If you wanted a rifle that accepted Rem 700 parts, then why didn't you buy a Rem 700? Expecting that you should get Rem 700 features without paying for a Rem 700 is a bit silly, especially when that issue might have been ascertained before making the budget purchase.

They design their different models with different features to set them apart from one another. Some ideas are good. Some are not.
 
Things to understand about the 783 before complaining that it's not a 700:
1. It's not a 700.
2. It started life as the Marlin X7. (XL7, long action; and XS7, short action)
3. It was Remington's attempt at (primarily) cosmetically altering the X7 to kill the rifle that was out-selling Remington's own 'budget rifle'; but making the superior design (the X7) even cheaper to manufacture.
4. It's still mostly a Marlin design. Marlin, however, was smart enough to set it up for Win M70 bases. Remington, in order to cut production costs, did away with that design feature.
5. If Remington can't make as much money on the rifle, then they try to make it up with over-priced accessories.
6. Remington sucks. Everything they're making right now sucks. Some people disagree, but that's my opinion: Remington currently makes garbage, across the board.


They're decent rifles, and generally fairly accurate. But they started life as a very good rifle with one notable flaw (see Appendix A), and were then cheapened by Remington to be more profitable with some cosmetic and minor functional changes.


Appendix A:
Watch out for extractor issues.
The failing point of Marlin X7s was the ridiculously cheap extractor design, which Remington made worse by increasing tolerances for faster/cheaper production. And since the Rem 783 is using EXACTLY the same bolt head and extractor design (with Remington's increased tolerances), the 783 has even more extractor issues.
They're decent rifles with an Achilles heel............
 
FrankenMauser- All of which is even worse because Remington has owned Marlin since 2007, longer than they have been making the 783, and Marlins are made in the Remington plant.
ugh.gif
 
Plenty of things set this gun apart from the 700 to which I have a bunch. Don't think my Dad expected a 700 for $350 either.
That being said, I think it's silly to think the designers felt that moving the mounting screws would set the 783 apart from the 700. Reconfigured receiver, it's own crappy trigger and an odd magazine those are things that separate it. Mounting screws not so much IMO.
 
FrankenMauser- All of which is even worse because Remington has owned Marlin since 2007, longer than they have been making the 783, and Marlins are made in the Remington plant.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
...But not any more.
Remington killed the Marlin X7 when the 783 was introduced.
 
If you wanted a rifle that accepted Rem 700 parts, then why didn't you buy a Rem 700? Expecting that you should get Rem 700 features without paying for a Rem 700 is a bit silly, especially when that issue might have been ascertained before making the budget purchase.
Click to expand...

I guess if they were some kind of special 700 feature that might ring true. Lots of budget rifles have normal sling mounts and scope bases. The Axis for example that is superior in every way to the 783.

The 783 has several awesome feature going for it.

- Cheap. I paid less than $250 for mine NIB out the door with a case and scope. They normally go for more than that but at that price I simply could not say no.

- It is accurate enough out of the box.

- It is cheap enough to use as a trunk gun brand new. Since it is such a dumb gun you literally won't care if someone steals it.

- Since making improvements and adding accessories is expensive and a pain that makes it even cheaper since you won't bother doing so. You would think they might have learned a thing from Ruger on how making an inexpensive gun is to modify makes it super popular... but no.

Is it high quality? No but.... It is higher quality than a Chinese SKS or most AKs or a Mosin. So it is better than Soviet era guns built by slave laborers with cheap materials.
 
OBD, I have an old Rem 788, another excellent shooting budget Remington rifle and it definitely has some interesting parts on it that don't fit any other rifle. It is somewhat unique. Unique rifles can be hard to part, especially once they go out of production.

I went a different route in trying to scope mine. I found a picatinny rail that would fit it. Finding scope rings to fit picatinny rails is quite easy.

If you want interchangeability between guns (models, brands) where parts are not interchangeable, then you need to come up with a fix. For me, that was putting picatinny rails on my guns.

Here is a google list of some options for the 783.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rem...utf-8#q=remington+783+picatinny+rail&tbm=shop
 
Bad thing is you can get a 700 fo $50 more if you keep your eyes open. I bought some SPS a while back because I could buy them cheaper than the bare action. I think $340 each. Now actions are cheaper, but at the time they were not.
 
SJCbklyn took on the Remington design engineers in the thread "Idiot design".

The problem is you don't know what was their design criteria, but that's easy to find out. Absolute lowest cost? Intentionally compatible / non-compatible with something else? A transitional product that fills a specific niche? yada yada yada.

For mass marketed products, which the Remington 783 is, there's nearly always a 'marketing blurb' that is published, which identifies the target market, and detailed features. If people don't do their due diligence before buying a product, then that's too bad in my book. Also realize that for most any firearm or other product that could have safety issues, the number of reviews is extensive (dozens+), which includes all the documentation that is produced.

I've designed over 100 products, and many wouldn't make any sense to people who had no idea what the design criteria was. On the other hand, the very precise "Design Reference Documents" answered every issue you've brought up. Different companies call them different things, but that information is known on the front and back end, and the features / non-features get published.
If people don't read the information, that doesn't make the engineers, designers, marketers and sales guys the knuckleheads.
 
TXAZ
I can somewhat see your point. Since you are an experienced designer, where would the common consumer, in this case, find the information that would enlighten him as to whether or not the 783 is compatible with 700 aftermarket parts.

I know in this case the gun was purchased for plinking and vermin. There were no high expectations for,it. The scope was inadequate amd needed replacement that led,to the discovery of the crap bases. Which than led to the realitization there is very little aftermarket support for,the product.
 
Several areas to look for the info: Web sites, the product brochures, the user manuals which most are online, youtube how to videos, and product reviews.
The number of product reviews is massive.

If I try to put myself in the Remington marketing and design staff place, I'd bet they're trying to fill a niche with the 783 that a foreign product is encroaching on. So they take a beautiful 700 basic model, change a few things intentionally (like the very items you're unhappy with), *spending money* designing a cheezy trigger group, ugly nylon stock, and replace the scope mount with something that may be harder to manufacturer (+/-).

They probably could have made as much money making a "700 minus" (exactly the same as a 700 but with a wood stock from Home Depot :) and at the 783 price )
But they're being smarter about it: Their basic 783 cost is likely about the same as a 700, but they can claim it's a totally different model, even though it might be made on the same line with the same or derivative components.

This was very common with gear we designed and sold (for a couple of really big communications company you'd instantly recognize and probably have had in your pocket): Come out with the the top of the line product first,collect the $$$$, then design a lower price version (that's really the same on the inside except we only put 5 feature buttons on the outside instead of 20 that you could get to if you knew where to look), put it in a cheaper looking case, and cut the price in half, and offer it for sale at 7-11.

Come to think of it Remington stole the idea from my 1990's design team :)
 
The 783 is a Marlin X7 with just a few mechanical changes, and some obvious cosmetic changes.

The X7 was a successful model before Remington was ever involved with Marlin; but they were lucky enough to get their hands on the design in the Marlin buyout.

After a few years, Remington (in my opinion, and based on the information I have been able to obtain) was unhappy about the more profitable Marlin out-selling their own, much maligned and almost universally derided 770 -- itself originally introduced as an "updated" version of the 710, in an attempt to compete with the superior X7.

So, being a greedy parent, they took their child's toy (the X7), gave it a cosmetic make-over, tweaked the bolt body a hair (and receiver to match), designed an even cheaper stock, added detachable magazine functionality to differentiate it and help the marketing department, and called it the Remington 783.

The Marlin fire control assembly is used on the 783.
Most bolt parts are the same, including the entire bolt head assembly.
The bolt bodies, though marginally different, are interchanged by people wanting the Marlin bolt knob on a 783.
Barrels are the same.
And more...


Lipstick on a bear, to make it look like a pig. ;)
 
The problem is you don't know what was their design criteria, but that's easy to find out. Absolute lowest cost? Intentionally compatible / non-compatible with something else? A transitional product that fills a specific niche? yada yada yada.
Click to expand...

LOL, what you are saying is that it may be that it was a genius designer that managed to bring it all together and meet the design criteria. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top