Remington xcr Rifle looks cheap as heck

20 October 2005, 03:33

dgr416

Is Remington going to build as cheap as ot gets rifles are what.I think there new guns are getting cheaper and cheaper.Their prices sure aint going down.The Remington 710 was a walmart special that disposible.You use it up till the goodie parts gone then throw it away.The cheap winchester black shadows are junkie to me too.I think every one I seen in the store is prerusted.I hope Ruger keeps making good guns and does not go to cheapie versions.I am looking for painted guns soon in the future, no bluing with a recycled plastic stock.I hope someone still builds good guns in 20 years.

22 October 2005, 08:21

Heavy Metal 1

The lack of craftsmanship is just sad. I look at my Swedish Mausers with their fine wood/metal fit and butter smooth actions and then look at production guns nowadays and just shake my head in disgust. Most modern guns hold little interest for me as many are ugly and poorly fitted. Remington is really pumping out some crap. Maybe they are trying to "one-up" the 1964 Winchester fiasco. Producing an entry level product is one thing, but turning out pieces of shit will only alienate customers and destroy a company's reputation. If this manufacturing method is the wave of the future I feel bad for new shooters. There is nothing worse than equipment that doesn't work well.

24 October 2005, 03:44

GibR

I have a couple in stock and to be honest I'm not all that impressed for the $. Everything is OK but the stock is nothing more than an SPS stock with some rubberized panels. Their 'corrosion resistant' finish has a bit of a gold tint to it. Quality seems ok, but I don't think it's worth the extra dough over a Stainless SPS.

Gib

24 October 2005, 20:30

Scota4570

I would not own one of the modern stripped down, engineer designed pieces of junk. Remington 710s, Benelli Novas and such give me the willies. For less noney you can get a used Pre '64 M-70 or a Model 12. One explanation for the junkie stuff selling is that there is ageneration of younger shooters that were never taught about quality guns. They don't know what quality looks like and why it is important.

24 October 2005, 21:12

dgr416

I saw it next to the 710.I said dang they are turning the 700 into a cheap as heck make rile.The dealer had a few that were some special edition that he said were so easy to scratch on the finish that he didnt put them in the racks because of that reason.

25 October 2005, 07:02

Cal Sibley

Remington is the same as the rest of the US gun makers, obsessed with the bottom line. Gunsmiths and machinists have given way to bean counters and lawyers. I recently purchased a Remigton 700BDL in .25-06 that is pitiful. I always spend the extra $250. for glass bedding, barrel floating and trigger lightening. I don't expect miracles from the manufacturers. Even with this after purchase work the rifle still will not do better than a 1.3" group. Remington will tell you that's acceptable accuracy. We didnt learn a damn thing when we threw away the auto market. Now we're going to repeat ourselves again as if we never learn. Ok I'll settle for CZ and Tikka, but I won't continue to buy junk, US or otherwise. Just one mans opinion. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

31 October 2005, 21:19

Reloader

The Remington 700s are still good rifles even the current runs. W/ the huge amount of sales they do w/ 700s you can expect there will be a few lemons, it's no different than going and buying a Ford/Chevy/Dodge off the lot.

I've bought two new current production Remington 700s in the past year and both will shoot less than 1/2" at 100 yards infact, one (700 P) will shoot very small one jagged hole groups.

I know quite a few other fellas that have bought them recently too and haven't heard any complaints but, the usual "Long Throats now but, they still shoot."

Most accurate factory rifles I've ever dealt w/. Easy to do mods and a multitude of parts available. Don't understand the qualms about the Stock on the XCR, it's probably one of the best tupperware stocks on similarly priced rifles, if not the best.

Reloader

31 October 2005, 22:13

<allen day>

I've owned a bunch of Model 700s over the years, and as far as I'm concerned the best of them were built between 1962 and about 1989. After '89 quality took a noticable decline, and in recent years it's been almost atrocious.

The good news is that the Model 700 has been built for many years, it's been possibly the most sucessful and popular centerfire bolt-gun produce in the U.S. for over forty years, and there are tens of thousands of them available on the secondary market. I see older, excellent specimens of the Model 700 in new, unaltered condition at various gunshows and gunstores around here on a regular basis, and without exception they are cheaper to purchase second-hand than the current versions that are available at common retail establishments.

The difference in price and quality is astounding, and I can't see one single solid reson to buy a current Model 700 where there are so many good, old ones available. For example, this last year I purchased a circa-1962 Model 700 BDL in 7mm Rem. Mag., complete with a 3-9x Redfield on top, at a local country gunstore for less than $400, and it had barely been fired, plus it was unaltered. It shot well under 1 MOA with the first load I tried in it.

I say forget the current 700s. They aren't worth your investment........

AD

31 October 2005, 22:21

vapodog

quote:
Originally posted by allen day:
I've owned a bunch of Model 700s over the years, and as far as I'm concerned the best of them were built between 1962 and about 1989. After '89 quality took a noticable decline, and in recent years it's been almost atrocious.

The good news is that the Model 700 has been built for many years, it's been possibly the most sucessful and popular centerfire bolt-gun produce in the U.S. for over forty years, and there are tens of thousands of them available on the secondary market. I see older, excellent specimens of the Model 700 in new, unaltered condition at various gunshows and gunstores around here on a regular basis, and without exception they are cheaper to purchase second-hand than the current versions that are available at common retail establishments.

The difference in price and quality is astounding, and I can't see one single solid reson to buy a current Model 700 where there are so many good, old ones available. For example, this last year I purchased a circa-1962 Model 700 BDL in 7mm Rem. Mag., complete with a 3-9x Redfield on top, at a local country gunstore for less than $400, and it had barely been fired, plus it was unaltered. It shot well under 1 MOA with the first load I tried in it.

I say forget the current 700s. They aren't worth your investment........

AD

As time goes on I am in agreement...used guns are the best and this includes a lot of MFRs...including FNs and Winchesters as well.

02 November 2005, 00:54

DeltaHunter

My last purchase of a 700 soured me on 'em for good. I won't even think about buying a new one now. I might consider an older one, but really, it's not a design I'm very fond of, so that probably won't happen either.

02 November 2005, 02:26

PeterPan

I have few Remington rifles and yes, they don't look like Heym or Sauer, but they shoot well.
I load my own and for me shooting over 1MOA is no-no. ALl my Remington rifles are 1/2MOA or better at 100yr.

Greetings

03 November 2005, 04:19

Calif. Hunter

Personally, I fail to see the allure of the pre-64 Winchester Model 70. Now, I love my 1949 Model 94, and can see a difference in the bluing, wood quality, etc.

But - modern CNC machining allows for more accurate rifles today than what was produced in general in the 50's and 60's. There are far more factory rifles capable of shooting under an inch today than ever before.

I agree that the 710s and some of the "promo" quality package guns are crap...but that is because the stocks are cheap tupperware and not because the action or barrel are crap. (Except for the 710, which is pretty much crap personified with its platic bolt parts, etc.)

Rather than spend the money for a used, perhaps abused, pre-64 Model 70, I would buy a new Winchester Classic, CZ-550, Serengeti, or even a Savage! Just my 2 cents.

04 November 2005, 05:56

Cal Sibley

Hello Reloader,

You obviously got a good one from Remington. We're very happy for you. A lot of us weren't so fortunate. Some of us have a rack full of Remingtons that were surepbly made. That makes it even harder to accept a piece of crap from them now. There's a good chance that's what you'll get today, a piece of crap. It's unfortunate, that's for sure. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

07 November 2005, 23:14

Reloader

Cal,

You stand the same chance w/ any other Manu. out too. I don't doubt there are some Bumb 700s out there, I've dealt w/ a fair share of them that were made in the last 15 or so years and they all shot well. The Triggers are mighty easy to work w/ as well. I'll keep on Buying, Ya'll keep on Passing

.

Have a Good Day

Reloader

09 November 2005, 20:33

MajorCaliber

If you want to buy a new rifle, buy a Savage

09 November 2005, 20:46

416 taylor

Kimber is turning out some good rifles as well,and for only about 4300 more than a remington 700

09 November 2005, 22:34

papaschmud

quote:
Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
But - modern CNC machining allows for more accurate rifles today than what was produced in general in the 50's and 60's. There are far more factory rifles capable of shooting under an inch today than ever before.

I realize that this theme has been hit VERY hard by the gun mag writers who have a living to make, but I don't agree at all. While some makers are new since then (Kimber, Dakota, and a handfull of others), the major manufacturers are all down in terms of quality. Did the Pre-64 70 have a bad rap for accuracy? The 721? Heck it's hard to find one of those that won't shoot well if not very well with todays ammo. IMO that (ammo) was the thing holding the old guns back.

What the major manufacturers have done is used the modern processes to make the product cheaper.

I bought my first centerfire rifle a little more than 20 years ago and the same rifle today is only 20% more expensive now than then. Considering the HUGE increases in insurance costs for the gun industry, the maker had to cut costs to hold the line on pricing. The cutting of costs I believe was achieved through automation, eliminating hand work, and to a smaller extent, loosening of quality standards.

You still get what you pay for, but now increasingly, you are paying for insurance to cover the makers behinds.

Gabe