Poll for Rem. 700 vtr's claimed accuracy of these guns?

How accurate is your 700 vtr stock or, with mods?

  • sub moa

    Votes: 22 40.7%

  • average moa accuracy

    Votes: 21 38.9%

  • 1-2" moa

    Votes: 5 9.3%

  • very poor and inconsistent accuracy

    Votes: 6 11.1%
  • Total voters
    54
P

p5200

New member
I bought a .204 model three weeks ago but, have not shot it yet due to the poor inconsistent accuracy reports some have claimed that I've read on a lot of other forums some say they shoot, and some say they are junk. I know Remington claims high accuracy even, at long ranges in their advertisements. All votes will help me and maybe, others make their decisions when buying a new gun. I have to make my decision, to keep or trade and take a big loss. I sure hope I haven't been misled by false claims by Remington. Thanks for all participation! :)
 
I have one in .308 that was terrible when I first got it so I sent it back to Remington. They did find enough wrong with it to send me a new one and the new one is supposedly sub MOA (they sent a copy of the target they tested it on) but I haven't shot it much to find out. I do have to say that Remington's customer service when dealing with this issue was second to none.
 
Bought a VTR in 204 and immediately realized the stock was junk. A Remington 700 for just over 600.00 had to have a weakness and that was it. Out of the box I got groups about an inch, ok for a deer rifle but not a varmint rig. I upgraded to a Bell & Carlson stock, Timney 2lb trigger, and Calahan firing pin. Cut the group size in half.
 
As you will see, most of these have to be "accurized" to shoot sub moa...New Stocks, pillar bedding, new triggers, etc etc....This can all add up to several hundred dollars. So, $600 rifle, + $200 Stock, + $150 trigger = $950.00 for what is still a $500 rifle to shoot sub moa.

I would trade it for a Savage and get Sub MOA from the box....
 
For not much more, you could get a Remington 700 VS, I bought 2 of them and have a few friends who also did after their fired mine, and all of them shoot sub MOA out of the box. Paid $625 for mine, but its been a few years ago.
Theyre heavy, unbalanced critters not too good for off hand shooting, but they love the sandbags:D
 
I have a feeling now, would not be a good time to trade anything with the name Remington on it. I'm sure they wouldn't want to give me much for it so, I'd probably be better off keeping it and mod it. I plan to hand load so maybe, I can find a good load for it. :(
 
Last edited:
I have to say here, don't take anyone's word for how sorry or how superior a Remington is. You bought this rifle, and are denouncing it w/o ever having shot it. This could turn out to the best rifle you ever shoot. I say this not because I'm a great Remington fan, but because I know that everyone that posts in here is not really credible. If you start a thread saying how a great a particular rifle is, there will one or two that post that whatever you praised is a POS.

In 1962 Remington introduced the MDL 700, in an effort to make a serviceable rifle, that a working class person could afford and was as reliable and accurate as many more expensive rifles. The MDL 700 is a compromise. My first magnum rifle was a MDL 700, 7mag, that I bought with my G.I. bill money in 1976. This was my first magnum rifle and was as serviceable and reliable as advertised. I didn't know then about all of the corners that Rem had cut to make this rifles affordable. I paid $130. I was, even then a life long shooter and hunter, but have since then learned what Remington did to cut costs. They didn't advertise it, even then.

I thought that all high powered bolt rifles had a solid bolt and integral recoil lug, because every rifle that I had owned or fired was solid and integral, Interarms MKX and Weatherby MKV. The bolt on many rifles that many swear by, Savage, Tikka, Remington and Browning, are not solid, they are assembled from pieces and either welded or pinned together to reduce costs and weight and lower machine costs. All of these rifles are considered benchmarks of accuracy. So accuracy doesn't have to translate into quality. This may not really be an issue. I think these rifles are as strong as they need to be, if not as over engineered as the high priced makers. I shoot and reload for cartridges that most people considered grossly over powered, so I want an old fashioned, solid everything, made from the very best materials, and I don't mind paying more to get what I know is quality. So I own Weatherby's and Cooper, and Rugers.

What I was really getting at was you should, IMO, take your new rifle out and give it a chance, before you get in line with the rest of the sheep, and repudiate it, because of what someone else says or thinks.
 
Last edited:
handler2,
i am not a great Remington fan either but I speak the truth from my personal experience. I agree the rifle should be shot before a judgement is made. Just curious what makes your post more "credible" than anybody elses.
 
7MM, have you ever read a thread where someone asks about a a specific rifle, and someone posts that they are all junk. Example the thread about a Model 60 jamming. There is a post, one sentence, says It's a Marlin, what do you expect? Do you consider that opinion or reasonable conjecture, supported by facts? My experiences are mine along with my opinions. I do like to believe my opinions to be supported by plausible reason, but are certainly not laws. I have owned a Model 60, and while there can be defects in any product, because you prefer a Ruger, or a Savage does not by default make Marlin junk. I like what i like for reasons, that are valid to me and if it as I expect, then I consider derogatory comments w/o facts to support it, to be less than credible. There are many that frequent this forum, that have knowledge of firearms that far surpass mine. Mine is limited to what I have experienced in a lifetime of shooting, reloading and hunting. I tend to be sceptical in most things and guns are no exception. If I make a statement about the quality of something, I tend to have some knowledge of it. It is really embarrassing to open your mouth only to insert foot. If I keep my mouth shut about most things then this is not an issue. My comment to the originator of this thread was pretty simple, and I did not intend for it seem as though mine was the only credible answer, but only for that person to rely less on hearsay, and to find out for himself what he has. It may well turn out to be junk, but I long admired Rem cartridges, and Like I said my first magnum rifle was a Remington and I had no issues with it. I have since learned that there are more solid, and yes much more expensive rifles available, and this is not opinion.
 
+1 Vote for shooting a rifle before you become disappointed in its accuracy potential.

Some time ago I bought a winchester model 70 and was very disappointed with its rough finish, big machine marks, sharp burs, etc etc. It looked good on the outside, but inside it looked like crap (reminded me of looking under a used car) And yes, I bitched about it, even considered not shooting it and returning it. But when I did shoot it, I relized that it shot great! The safety still takes the strenght of two men to operate, but it shoots Great!

I say clean it up, check for burs, dirt, powdered metal, flakes of plastic from the stock, etc etc. Then when its clean, go out and give it a try. I too have heard how many remington stocks are "junk" but that doesn't necessarily make a huge difference. If the rifle seats in well and doesn't giggle around in the stock during recoil then you can still have a shooter...despite a flexible plastic stock. Just set up the same way each time and pay attention to where you put pressure on the for end, and whether or not the for end bends enough to change pressure on the barrel. A friend of mine shoots a 700sps, after 2 mintues with some sand paper to remove a slight contact of stock to barrel he now is very happy with how it shoots "free floated". He just rests his sandbag a bit further back on the stock and doesn't put any downward pressure on it. (because it will bend enough to touch the barrel)
 
As to the reason I am taking polls is, in my area the local dealers I deal with will always, give me more trade in value on an unfired gun than one that's had one round fired through it since it's then considered a use gun. Therefore, if I was to shoot it without taking a poll which should give me at least, a (general) percentage wise idea of the accuracy of these guns and if it shot like crap, I've just lost some trade in value which means more cash out of my pocket. Like everyone, I take every opinion with a grain of salt not only about guns but everything which is the only sensible thing to do but, I do respect and appreciate all opinions . Had I picked the gun myself, I would of took a poll before, purchasing but, I received it as a birthday present from my daughters this month. Thanks for all the votes/opinions from everyone and keep them coming. :)
 
If you are trying to find out how well your rifle shoots, why are you asking other people? Put a good scope on it in good mounts, go shoot the rifle, and give it a fair run before you form an opinion about it. Anything else is just being negative. Reading forums looking for negative feedback will get you just that, negative feedback.
 
As I stated above, just looking for a general percentage rate of the shooters vs the non shooters from those who have actually, shot them that's all. I do realize, the best way to know is to shoot it I've known that for over forty years. :)
 
Last edited:
I find it really humorous to read stuff like this...Just makes my day.
I love it when somebody gets on a forum and talks about gun "A" is a piece of crap....
Not realizing that its not the gun - but more than likely the ammo or the person behind the gun.Anybody that wants to get rid of any Remington - feel free to send them to me.:D
 
I'm a Remington Fan.

I've owned a fist full of 700s (1970s through current) and still own 3 and two 788s. Have never had any problems making them shoot MOA or less. I'm not a target shooter, but my experience is a load that behaves at the chronograph is usually a very accurate load.
 
Try It First

You've got it, try it, there's no point in not giving it a try. Reports of unaccurate examples do not mean you got an innaccurate one, it's a crap shoot. You might be trading and taking a loss when you had a good one, then you enter into the chance of getting a bad example of whatever you get.

If you are not reloading get at least four or five factory loaded cartridge types, even the best rifles that will shoot half inch groups may shoot one and a half inch groups with ammo it doesn't like. I have had a lot of Sakos and they all were capable of half inch groups with ammo they do well with. Federal premiums were a universally good ammo in most of them, Winchester was a ragged hole ammo in a .22-250 varmint with a 6-24x scope, that rifle shot everything else at an inch.

Also try increasing the torque on the stock bit by bit if the groups don't look good, sometimes there may be a level of tightening the stock does better with. Give yourself as many ammo options, adjustment, and tweaks as possible before giving up on it, that inch and a half group may be well under an inch with a different ammo.
 
I plan to try a few different hand loads with some Bergers, Sierra BK., and Hornady V-max hopefully, I can come up with a load accurate enough for a little Prairie Dog hunting. If not I have a load worked up for my Savage 10fp that will get the job done as long as I'm, able to :D. Due to Glaucoma, Diabetes, and a darned Cataract right in the way of my shooting eye it's a real pain in the but sometimes especially, if I forget to put my eye drops in before I leave the house. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top