Remington 721
- Thread starter Hawkeye
- Start date
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
It was the first of the "Can't blow it up" actions. The final "acid test" by Remington was a standard cartridge with a 220-grain bullet. BUT, three (3) (Yeah!) more 220-grain bullets were ahead of the cartridge. It didn't blow, and the bolt opened. In the test, the Model 1917 Enfield placed second; a Model 70, 3rd, and a Springfield wrecked with only one 220-grain bullet "extra".
If you're happy with the trigger, fine. I vaguely recall that as a "baddish" point about the rifle. If the bedding is good, it oughta group okay...
Regards, Art
If you're happy with the trigger, fine. I vaguely recall that as a "baddish" point about the rifle. If the bedding is good, it oughta group okay...
Regards, Art
The 721 was the predecessor of the 700 (yes, the numbers went backwards). A good, solid, reliable gun, it was usually scorned for its plain jane stock. The one you mention seems to have had that corrected. If the bore is good, and gun otherwise seems OK, it would be a good buy if the price is right. The regular ones only go for a max of about $300, any less than that would be a good deal. Over that... depends how bad you want it.
Thanks to our members for their contributions. I didn't know that the Remington 721 was touted as a "Can't blow up the action" type gun. Gee, I'm not as old as I feel. 
The Model 721 was Remington's first attempt at a cylindrical receiver. In adopting the cylindrical receiver, a separate and generous sized recoil lug was added to the face of the receiver. While some will argue that the integral lug is superior, the separation from the magazine cavity and the lug ensures that the lug exceeds the effectiveness of (some) integral lugs.
In developing the 700 from the 721, styling was changed to include a more swept back bolt handle, and on the receiver, a wider rear tang. The bolt itself is different in that it had a smaller extractor (of the same genre). There was also some difference in the trigger with the shoe being thicker on the earlier 721 than on the later 700.
There's more information if you care to pick up Lacy's book, "The Remington 700 - an Owner's Manual." Good reading and highly recommended.
If it's at a good price and the bore looks good, I'd buy it (if I had the $).
The Model 721 was Remington's first attempt at a cylindrical receiver. In adopting the cylindrical receiver, a separate and generous sized recoil lug was added to the face of the receiver. While some will argue that the integral lug is superior, the separation from the magazine cavity and the lug ensures that the lug exceeds the effectiveness of (some) integral lugs.
In developing the 700 from the 721, styling was changed to include a more swept back bolt handle, and on the receiver, a wider rear tang. The bolt itself is different in that it had a smaller extractor (of the same genre). There was also some difference in the trigger with the shoe being thicker on the earlier 721 than on the later 700.
There's more information if you care to pick up Lacy's book, "The Remington 700 - an Owner's Manual." Good reading and highly recommended.
If it's at a good price and the bore looks good, I'd buy it (if I had the $).
Harley Nolden
Staff In Memoriam
ART:
In the catagorizing of the test rifles I was interested to hear that the Springfield, 1903? went out on one firing.
As the Springfield experienced some difficulty with this, early on in it's life,with standard ball ammo, it would be interesting to find out what the serial number of that gun was.
Later on the Springfield Receiver was made with nickle steel, much improving the performance and strength.
HJN
In the catagorizing of the test rifles I was interested to hear that the Springfield, 1903? went out on one firing.
As the Springfield experienced some difficulty with this, early on in it's life,with standard ball ammo, it would be interesting to find out what the serial number of that gun was.
Later on the Springfield Receiver was made with nickle steel, much improving the performance and strength.
HJN
Harley,
If I remember correctly (and I will check further), the Springfield "went out" not because the receiver failed but because the case head failed. The Springfield cone breech leaves a lot of unsupported case head, and this just blew.
The Remington "three rings of steel" breech provides massive protection against case failure (the most common cause of rifle blowups), but like everything else is a tradeoff. By giving up the "controlled feeding" of the Mauser type extractor, the possibility, remote though it is, is increased that the bullet of a round being fed from the chamber may impact the primer of a partially fed cartridge. (This is the real reason for controlled feed, not preventing jams.)
Incidentally, those who say the early '03 receivers weren't brittle are wrong. I once broke one into three pieces with a 1/2 pound hammer.
If I remember correctly (and I will check further), the Springfield "went out" not because the receiver failed but because the case head failed. The Springfield cone breech leaves a lot of unsupported case head, and this just blew.
The Remington "three rings of steel" breech provides massive protection against case failure (the most common cause of rifle blowups), but like everything else is a tradeoff. By giving up the "controlled feeding" of the Mauser type extractor, the possibility, remote though it is, is increased that the bullet of a round being fed from the chamber may impact the primer of a partially fed cartridge. (This is the real reason for controlled feed, not preventing jams.)
Incidentally, those who say the early '03 receivers weren't brittle are wrong. I once broke one into three pieces with a 1/2 pound hammer.
Harley Nolden
Staff In Memoriam
Jim:
OoooooooooooooooooP's
HJN
[This message has been edited by Harley Nolden (edited April 15, 1999).]
OoooooooooooooooooP's
HJN
[This message has been edited by Harley Nolden (edited April 15, 1999).]
I inherited a 721 in a .270 last year, and hunted with her this past season. She (I'm extremely fond of this one) is a very solid, accurate rifle. I found her to also be very comfortable and responsive a variety of situations. The safety is a little awkward/stiff,however I took 2 9-point bucks, 2 does, and 3 turkeys with her this past season. That, and the sentimental value of her make her a permanent member of the family, and beyond price.
I did replace the old Weaver 4x with a new Leupold 3x9. IMHO No rifle is complete without a Leupold on top.
------------------
Let's go Huntin'
I did replace the old Weaver 4x with a new Leupold 3x9. IMHO No rifle is complete without a Leupold on top.
------------------
Let's go Huntin'
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Harley: From Sharpe's "Complete Guide to Handloading", 3rd Ed., 1949:
"Up to 1918, receivers were built...of a low-carbon steel, easily machined but not brittle.
With normal... breech pressure of about 48,000 pounds, the two small bolt lugs take an actual blow of about 6,500 pounds. (I included this for general info about the rearward force.)
Case hardening was resorted to to get a good wearing surface...They were the only ones used throught the entire war (WW I). More than 800,000 were made at Springfield, and approximately 2,000 additional made at Rock Island Arsenal...
(Here is the meat of the issue) The only trouble with the case-hardening of the receiver is the resulting inability to maintain uniform depth. Because of this, a great many of the early receivers were quite brittle, without the necessary soft core to give strength. If you have a Springfield with a serial number below 800,000, it should be safe with normal loads, provided all the parts are in perfect condition. It is unwise, however, to step a gun of this type to Magnum loads. If the serial number is over 800,000, the hardening process had been abandoned and a modern heat-treating process employed in its place. Early in 1927 nickel-steel was employed, replacing the old low-carbon steel. This change began with serial #1,275,707.
And Jim Keenan's test result is quite common!
So there you have it. Best to ignore Springfields under 1,275,707--except as a wallhanger.
"Up to 1918, receivers were built...of a low-carbon steel, easily machined but not brittle.
With normal... breech pressure of about 48,000 pounds, the two small bolt lugs take an actual blow of about 6,500 pounds. (I included this for general info about the rearward force.)
Case hardening was resorted to to get a good wearing surface...They were the only ones used throught the entire war (WW I). More than 800,000 were made at Springfield, and approximately 2,000 additional made at Rock Island Arsenal...
(Here is the meat of the issue) The only trouble with the case-hardening of the receiver is the resulting inability to maintain uniform depth. Because of this, a great many of the early receivers were quite brittle, without the necessary soft core to give strength. If you have a Springfield with a serial number below 800,000, it should be safe with normal loads, provided all the parts are in perfect condition. It is unwise, however, to step a gun of this type to Magnum loads. If the serial number is over 800,000, the hardening process had been abandoned and a modern heat-treating process employed in its place. Early in 1927 nickel-steel was employed, replacing the old low-carbon steel. This change began with serial #1,275,707.
And Jim Keenan's test result is quite common!
So there you have it. Best to ignore Springfields under 1,275,707--except as a wallhanger.
I'm not sure how we got here from there, but (a few of) the early '03 receivers were brittle not due to case hardening but because the bolt and receiver steel was over heated ("burned") in the furnaces while being heated for the forging process. The receivers made from that steel then became hard and brittle all the way through. At the time, temperature in the furnaces was judged by eye and errors occurred. (See Hatcher's Notebook, Chapter IX; he investigated the whole mess.)