Figured I'd ask the guys who knows. Well sounds like a fine piece. And fancy. Can you all tell me about this rifle? There's one for sale in my area. Assuming it's a model 7000 in 3006, 26 inch tube. Only made em for several years. He knows he gots something special and im thinking of offering him a wad of $. I don't know much just from google.

If you have access to Stuart Otteson’s excellent book, The Bolt Action, Vol. II (Wolfe Publishing Co., 1985), you’ll find a thorough and detailed analysis of the Nikko Golden Eagle Model 7000 in Chapter 16 of that book.

This rifle had a short run in the mid-1970s. Although it was an attractive rifle, with a sculptured receiver and nice walnut stock, it was not a particularly effective action. First, it was very heavy, with a total action weight of 52.4 oz., almost a full pound heavier than the Remington M700 action at 38 oz., as just one example. The end result is a very heavy rifle—probably close to 8.5 lbs. bare, and 9.5 to 10 lbs. when scope and mounts are added. In my opinion, this is too heavy for a 30-06.

Second, it is a rear-locking action, something that is far from ideal if one reloads. The effect of rear-locking is brass-stretching (from bolt compression) on firing and occurs with all rear-lockers like the Schultz & Larsen, Colt-Sauer, Steyr-Mannlicher, and Remington M788 rifles. This means that, with neck-only resizing, chambering becomes very difficult after a couple of firings, and, with full-length resizing, a total of maybe 3-4 reloads before case head separation occurs.

Here is Otteson’s summary of the Golden Eagle M7000:

“…as a useful firearm, it was less outstanding. It seems better suited to a display case, where short bolt lift, weak cams, rear-lug stretch, and small bolt stop latches are not serious drawbacks, than to a rifle range or in the field under adverse conditions, providing reliable and certain performance over many years and many thousands of rounds.”

quote:

“…as a useful firearm, it was less outstanding. It seems better suited to a display case, where short bolt lift, weak cams, rear-lug stretch, and small bolt stop latches are not serious drawbacks, than to a rifle range or in the field under adverse conditions, providing reliable and certain performance over many years and many thousands of rounds.”

Just because something is old doesn't mean that it is good.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

“…as a useful firearm, it was less outstanding. It seems better suited to a display case, where short bolt lift, weak cams, rear-lug stretch, and small bolt stop latches are not serious drawbacks, than to a rifle range or in the field under adverse conditions, providing reliable and certain performance over many years and many thousands of rounds.”

Just because something is old doesn't mean that it is good.

... and sometimes things only get old because they aren't all that good. The owners throw a sheet over them and get something else that works better.

Had one:

Heavy
Pretty
shot ok but I never reloaded for it.

The Nikko Golden Eagle has something of a following. It is a very pretty gun, assuming you like gloss (which I do). As mentioned, it is VERY heavy for a sporter, particularly if in a standard caliber. As a modern design with tight tolerances, I doubt that the rear locking feature results in any measurable case stretching, and it does allow easier access to the chamber for things like single-loading.

But I wouldn't be interested due to its weight unless in a very heavy caliber.

Stuart Otteson's books, The Bolt Action: A Design Analysis (Vols. I and II), are marvelously detailed and a must read for anyone interested in bolt action rifles.

I only wish he had written more about more actions, but the work involved was incredibly time-consuming and sadly did not repay the effort.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
The Nikko Golden Eagle has something of a following. It is a very pretty gun, assuming you like gloss (which I do). As mentioned, it is VERY heavy for a sporter, particularly if in a standard caliber. As a modern design with tight tolerances, I doubt that the rear locking feature results in any measurable case stretching,, and it does allow easier access to the chamber for things like single-loading.

But I wouldn't be interested due to its weight unless in a very heavy caliber.

The rear locking design will definitely result in measurable case stretching. Regardless of build quality, this is endemic to all rear-locking actions. I’ve never owned a Golden Eagle M7000, but have owned a number of the rear-locking Schultz & Larsen and Colt-Sauer rifles all of which I reloaded for. For precise fitting, finishing, and tight tolerances, I doubt that any rifle exceeds the Schultz & Larsen, but case stretching did occur—particularly with stouter loads--and the chambering and case-head separation phenomena I detailed in my earlier post occurred. If anything, I’d expect these to occur to perhaps a greater extent with the M7000 as, based on Stuart Otteson's analysis, it's highly unlikely that it was built to the same standards as the Schultz & Larsen.

In connection with this, here again is Otteson on this topic:

“…a simple test was run on my sample rifle [Golden Eagle Model 7000] comparing it with a front-locked Ruger Model 77 chambered for the same cartridge (.270 Winchester). The following tabulates results when a single cartridge in each rifle was repeatedly fired, then reloaded by neck sizing only. The results more or less speak for themselves. While the 7000 closed easily enough on an empty chamber, it didn’t do as well when even a fresh factory cartridge was introduced. Once that cartridge was fired and reloaded a couple of times, things really started to go downhill. In contrast, there was little practical change with the front-locking action, regardless of how many times a cartridge was reloaded and fired.



Just to finish, here are Otteson's comments in this regard in connection with the Schultz & Larsen M68DL (of which I've owned several):

"The Schultz & Larsen Model 68DL is clearly one of the strongest and best finished bolt actions ever produced. ...Everything is precision-machined steel. ...Being a rear-locked action, however, it stretches during firing, allowing the brass of the cartridge case to 'work' more than would be otherwise necessary, and thus making it, for handloaders at least, a far less than ideal rifle."

Kennedy, you shouldn't need to fork over a pile of cash....they don't resale very high. Unless perhaps for a 458 or 375 caliber, most sell in the $700-$1,000 range.

I have a Golden Eagle in 458 win mag
It is on the heavy side , but that’s a plus for this caliber . I’ve only shot it a few times to sight it in . My intention was to possibly take it moose hunting one time .

I’ll shoot factory rounds only and a limited amount at that . I personally like the nice wood with that gloss finish and the nice high polished blueing

I don’t recall what I paid for mine , but probably in the $1,200 - $ 1,500 range used

I always enjoyed that weatherby style flare
But each too his own

Good luck with your purchase

Same rifle as the Winchester Model 777, which was made by Nikko under contract for Winchester International sales. About 1000 Win. M777s were made in 1979-80 for the European and Australian markets. Pics I've seen of them show a slightly fancier rifle than the GE7000 with some engraving on the receiver.

Kennedy, if you decide to purchase this rifle and are a handloader, let us know. I can share some tips with you about mitigating to some extent the reloading issues connected with rear-locking actions.

I have nothing against a heavier weight rifle, within reason.

But the rear locking bolt is just silly.

If the rear-locking bolt is reliable and shorter than usual, Michael, it could save someone from suffering African short stroke - perhaps another reason to use one in 458WM.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
If the rear-locking bolt is reliable and shorter than usual, Michael, it could save someone from suffering African short stroke - perhaps another reason to use one in 458WM.

Is that right, whateveryournameis?

Short stroke is a disease of the preternaturally infirm using a non-CRF rifle.

It is readily cured by other means than a rear-locking bolt.

There is no excuse for a rear-locking bolt.

Thanks fellas, I have made a decision ya the prettiness sure did attracted me. Also heard that they mite have made few Weatherby mark V. Also got my interest. But not any more. What made that decision is i reload and it doesn't sound very reloada.ble

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
If the rear-locking bolt is reliable and shorter than usual, Michael, it could save someone from suffering African short stroke - perhaps another reason to use one in 458WM.

Is that right, whateveryournameis?

Short stroke is a disease of the preternaturally infirm using a non-CRF rifle.

It is readily cured by other means than a rear-locking bolt.

There is no excuse for a rear-locking bolt.

That’s putting it far too strongly. The effects of rear-locking are completely irrelevant (i.e., pose absolutely no disadvantages) to shooters who use factory ammunition, and, since fewer than 10% (probably fewer than 5%; estimates vary) of rifle owners reload, the one disadvantage of rear-locking is really minimal in the larger scheme of things.

And they do provide some advantages. I can’t speak about all rear-lockers, but my Schultz & Larsen rifles have been the smoothest operating bolt actions of the many brands I’ve owned over the years (not to mention that they have been the finest factory rifles I’ve owned with respect to precision of manufacture, fit and finish, etc.). With no cutaways in the receiver needed to accommodate the locking lugs, the bolt slides with almost nonexistent side-to-side play or wobble (like a piston in a closely-fitting cylinder). I imagine that the many thousands of owners of Schultz & Larsen, Colt-Sauer, Steyr-Mannlicher, and Rem. M788 rifles are very happy with their rear-lockers.

It's an inferior design.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
If the rear-locking bolt is reliable and shorter than usual, Michael, it could save someone from suffering African short stroke - perhaps another reason to use one in 458WM.

Is that right, whateveryournameis?

Short stroke is a disease of the preternaturally infirm using a non-CRF rifle.

It is readily cured by other means than a rear-locking bolt.

There is no excuse for a rear-locking bolt.

Thanks Michael, but I'm afraid you've posed more questions than you answered.

You did point to why some governments want to ban children from social media, however.

Yours (forum-typically)
- Anon

Whatever you say, whateveryournameis.

There's nothing wrong with rear lug actions. The Schult & Larsen's are rear lug and there are few finer, stiffer and more accurate. The remington 788 is rear locking and is one of the stiffest, and also most inherently accurate actions available. The Steyr Mannlicher actions are also and every one of those i've owned has been more accurate than i can hold. i can't help but wonder just how many rear lug actioned rifles the detractors have even fired, much less owned. Savage 99's and all conventional lever actions that come to mind immediately are rear locking and have been working well for 1.5 centuries.

As to the Nikko's, i always thought they were attractive, very well finished. The action is massive and stiff. They usually came with far better looking wood than is common especially on American made rifles. However, the only one i ever owned was a 25-06 and accuracy was only mediocre with 87, 100 or 120 grain bullets (in any load i tried).

Roger

Well, no one ever complained about the accuracy of the Steyr SSG 69 and that is a rear locking action.

I reload for mine, and have little issues.

Yes, the rifle needs to be using full length sized brass if rear locking otherwise you will see what south pender comments on. Neck sizing is not your friend in a rear locking action.

While some of us use brass for 10+ reloads, if you are using it for hunting, I would really recommend not doing that as strange things can happen. If its a situation where you just get it out of the rifle and carry on, like informal practice, its not a big deal although using small base dies will solve the size issue at the base and careful attention to incipient head separation issues is necessary, especially if you have trimmed the brass a lot.

Personally, after 5-6 firings in my SSG I just trash that brass by using it in one of my semiautos at a 3 gun match and loose that brass if the primer pockets aren't getting a little dodgy by then.

From what you are saying, the golden eagle is a bit on the heavy side, but for target purposes that's a nonissue. Heck the M1917 weighs about 9-9.5# in its service guise.

I wouldn't make the rear locking bolt a bigger issue than its a bit reducing of your brass life. Weight of the rifle is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but yes, its heavier than what "I" consider ideal, but that wouldn't make me decide against buying the rifle.

Well i went ahead and got it. The most gorgeous rifle I ever owned. It is all mine. None of my boys are getting this one from me.

Congratulations kennedy! I have to warn you that back-lockers make michaelrobinsons pop their primers, though.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Congratulations kennedy! I have to warn you that back-lockers make michaelrobinsons pop their primers, though.

Ah, but there you are mistaken, whateveryournameis.

I merely do my best to ascertain and state the facts.

What people do with them is not my concern.

Many inferior designs of many products have sold very well over the years.

But to the best of my judgment, not to me.

Tell me, Michael, do you detest all members who do not reveal their identities in their user names? Some may have distinctive appelations that might be easier to triangulate and thus bring more ID grief ... than something 'popular' like Michael Robinson.

The 788's I have dont realize they are junk!
I dont love the triggers, but they shoot very well. The 30-30 mostly shoots cast and the 222 is never loaded hot, so the brass in those never seems to wear out. The 22-250 and .308 I toss after 6-8 like I do most any case reloaded that many.

Remington Model 788s are by all accounts quite accurate rifles.

But make no mistake, they are junk.

Made from sintered metal to rimfire standards, lock, stock and barrel.

And further to that point, with rear locking bolts.

Back when I was poor and ignorant, I almost bought one.

That is not an insult to anyone who owns one, and absolutely no offense is meant.

It is simply recognition that Remingtons do have a certain appeal to one and all, especially those with thin wallets.

That is a huge market and Remington has always fed it.

Except for a certain 1943 vintage and Remington-made Model 1903-A3, I have so far managed to maintain my immunity to that appeal.

Even way back in olden days when I was poor and ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Remington Model 788s are by all accounts quite accurate rifles.

But make no mistake, they are junk.

Made from sintered metal to rimfire standards, lock, stock and barrel.

And further to that point, with rear locking bolts.

Back when I was poor and ignorant, I almost bought one.

That is not an insult to anyone who owns one, and absolutely no offense is meant.

It is simply recognition that Remingtons do have a certain appeal to one and all, especially those with thin wallets.

That is a huge market and Remington has always fed it.

Except for a certain 1943 vintage and Remington-made Model 1903-A3, I have so far managed to maintain my immunity to that appeal.

Even way back in olden days when I was poor and ignorant.

Michael, for someone who does his “best to ascertain and state the facts”, I’d recommend that you familiarize yourself with some key facts about the Remington M788. A good source would be Stuart Otteson’s chapter on the M788 in his excellent book The Bolt Action, Volume I. A reading of this chapter would make it clear that the M788 IS NOT JUNK.

First let's consider your assertion that the rifle was made from sintered metal. Although it’s true that a few parts were made this way (since one of Remington’s divisions specialized in this technology), the key major components were not. The receiver and bolt were machined from chrome-moly barstock. The barrels were made the same way as those of the M700.

Second, your assertion that the M788 is made “to rimfire standards” is generally false. It is true that Remington’s "family of guns" concept was followed with the manufacture of the M788 centerfire and M580 rimfire series, but few parts are actually interchangeable between the two series. Use of some common tooling allowed the M788 to be produced and sold at an entry-level price. Your claim that the M788 is “made from sintered metal to rimfire standards, lock, stock and barrel” is clearly a major exaggeration of the facts.

Otteson’s overall summary of the M788 noted that this rifle “lacked the slick lines and smooth and positive functioning of a traditional Mauser-style two-lug action.” However, he goes on to say that it followed

“Remington’s policy of machining major strength parts from solid steel, and sell at a very low price, [and is] a remarkably effective firearm. It compensates for some lack of refinement by features making it one of the most accurate of production rifles.”

"A remarkably effective firearm"--sure doesn't sound as though Stuart Otteson considered the M788 "junk."

Man, whateveryournameis.2, you can certainly cherry pick Stuart Otteson's comments!

His comments on the Rem. 788, taken as a whole, basically damn it with extremely faint praise.

Bottom line, it is a cheap and cheaply made (i.e., junky) rifle.

And once again, where can I find where Mr. Otteson lauded the great benefits of rear-locking actions in general?

Oh, but wait, did I also miss the many fine custom rifles that have used the Rem. 788 action as their foundation?

The Rem. 788 is junk.

It is accurate and cheap junk, but it's still junk.

I'm beginning to wonder if you British subjects in the Commonwealth nations are so ass-sore from being stripped of your gun rights that it has affected your brains.

It got a lot of bad press from some good gun scribes such as Finn Aagard. I had one I got in a trade and I promptly dumped it for various reasons.

I have a 788 in 308.

When I have shot it not often. I throw the brass in the 308 bucket.

It will hold under 3 inches at 300 yards.

It has killed bear deer, and a couple of varmints.

But then like a lot of my rifles. They don't get shot a lot but I shoot a lot.

But spreading thousands of rounds over 30 or 40 rifles. Means one rifle doesn't have to see many.

Or in my case my varmint rifles' have seen many thousands of rounds each. Where my big game rifles not so much.

My 22rfs 10's of thousands of rounds.

Right now I could take my 788 out verify that it is still sighted in and then go kill something with my handloads