These aren't your daddy's Remington's

P

Palmetto-Pride

New member
So I was checking out Remington's new guns and wow they have come along way since the 700.

firearm_carbine_ACR_10_ss.ashx


firearm_carbine_R5_4_ss.ashx


firearm_carbine_R4_1_ss.ashx


http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/~/media/Images/RemingtonMilitary/slideshow/firearm/firearm_carbine_R4_1_ss.ashx[/URL]

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Carbines/OVERVIEW-carbines.aspx[/URL]
 
What do you expect when they bought Bushmaster??? The original ACR's had a recall I believe, but should be OK now.

Now that R-5 that is a sharp looking shooter, when is it going to come out and at how much???


Jim
 
They're not remington's remington's either... Since Cerberus (owns Bushy, DPMS, Marlin, dakota arms) bought out Remington they've never been the same. I'm not saying there bad as the action hasn't changed, just cheaper components now. Take a synthetic stock remington 700 from the 90s or better yet a old 700 from my dads age group he's 54. Compare the quality in trigger, stock, fit and finish. It's no comparison. Bushmaster was supposed to help Magpul get the masada/ACR on mass production at a "promised" 1500$ max price. That didn't happen, it should've just stayed with magpul and it would've been a much better rifle IMO.

I'd stick with BCM, DD, LMT, noveske, colt, etc. on semi autos. Just my preference i'm not very fond of Cerberus especially after they bought dakota arms which put out some of the finest custom/production rifles out there. Now they've been reduced to standard. God i hope they don't get Cooper too.
 
Last edited:
That R5 DOES look cool... but I'd honestly buy it for the receivers and gut the internals and change them to BCM. I'd get rid of the useless gas piston as well.:cool:
 
The R-5 is very interesting it is piston operated, has a true monolithic rail/upper and is compatable with standard AR-15 lowers. I wonder if this is a consideration for the military so they could convert existing M-4s to a modern piston design. And yes I realize this rifle doesn't accomplish much more than the HK 416. Other than the fact that it is (hopefully) 100% American made.
 
or better yet a old 700 from my dads age group he's 54.
Click to expand...

Right!!

I have two Remington 700's. One in .270 and in .243, both where made in the early 70's. In comparison to what it being turned out today they are a work of art. Its sad to look at how far a company has fallen.
Cerberus only bought Remington because the name used to stand for quality. Now that they have cut every corner they could in production the product just isn't the same anymore.

Cerberus is a like oak wilt. Once it gets ahold of something it causes it to rot and die.
 
Was the quality of a 2006 Remington 700 at the same level as that of a 1970's Remington 700?
Click to expand...

Yes, I own a 1974 made 700. Nothing special. Some guys are impressed by a lot of sparkle and shine. The old guns had a lot of highly polished metal and brightly finished wood. That has nothing to do with accuracy or perfomance I'd rather have the new guns
 
I would agree that overall Remington's quality on certain guns isn't the same, but for some its how you perceive quality. Example I bought a 700 SPS brand new about 2yrs ago that is an absolute tack driver, yes it had a cheap stock, matte finish, and a plastic trigger guard, but it will put 5 holes that touch each other at 100yds if I do my part. 15-20 yrs ago that same gun probably would have had a deep blue finish, metal trigger guard, and a better stock, but I am not sure that it would be as accurate. (also I do realize that ammo has come along way also)
 
Was the quality of a 2006 Remington 700 at the same level as that of a 1970's Remington 700?
Click to expand...

No, It's not the same. And it wasn't just "sparkle and shine" either.
The action wasn't as smooth for one thing, the trigger wasn't as good (nasty creep) etc...
Just not the same. Other people don't see it or have other opinions. Thats fine, but I see a drop in quality from then to now. YMMV
 
First off the stocks were much more solid, as i said the action hasn't changed much. The guns were more accurate, or between my father's experience and mine with our guns they were. I'm not saying remington doesn't produce accurate rifles nowadays but savage is now known as what remington used to be. Remington has had much more "lemons" in the past years than they ever had before Cerberus bought them out. The trigger the X-mark pro is a POS. The old style remington trigger was great. There is no comparison other than the action. My God look at the horrible SPS stocks... that should be enough proof especially when the forearm bends due to tension from unfolding the legs of a harris bipod. My fathers old style 700 .308 was 600$ and for the quality rifle it is from remington it would now cost 1000+. A 600$ remington now is basically paying for a barreled action because the stock isn't worth crap.
 
A lot can be said about the company by just looking at the pictures of the product.

What kind of person would set up their ACR like that? Acog mounted too far forward to use, Tac light way too far back (massive shadow from the rifle) and not able to be reached easly, stubby VFG way out front (ergo's are very subjective but anyone that shoots with stubby's tend to use them as "hand stops" more the actual grips and that placment leaves no room for the offhand)

Why does the rail on the RG5 stop suddenly infront of the gas block. Piston adjustment? I don't see why they didn't just make the rail go the full lenght of the forend. It would also allow a longer sight radius.

I know a lot is subjective and I may be overly critical but it seems kinda silly to me.
 
What kind of person would set up their ACR like that? Acog mounted too far forward to use,
Click to expand...

I was going to comment on the ACOG being mounted way to far forward, I have the exact same one and mine has to be mounted on the very last rear rail slot for me to get a full picture. Maybe it just looked way cooler to the marketing dept that way............lol
 
mine has to be mounted on the very last rear rail slot for me to get a full picture
Click to expand...

I almost have to do the same when useing the 4x Acogs (I use the 2-3rd last rail slot though). But I have a Ta11 (the 3.5x) and the eye relief is much better. I shoot nose to charging handle and I can mount the Ta11's just about even with the dust cover (on an AR15) and get still have a clean sight picture. You have to deal with a little more weight but the field of view and eye relief are worth it in my opinion.

All the Acogs are great bomb proof optics that really shine in low light conditions.:cool:
 
I got nothing against Stoner's design, but I prefer my old school 700. Maybe I'm just old and curmudginly. It is a lot prettier tho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top