A QUESTION OF VALUE..

I've got a line on a Mod 722 in .222, all original.

I have yet to hold it and look it over but it is described as being in excellent condition, with a Weaver fixed power scope. It has no sling swivels.. maybe they didn't have originally.

I'd like to know if this model has problems that I should be aware of. I don't know if the safety has been corrected or even if it should be.

What would be a fair price for such a piece?

Those of you who own and shoot one like it, let me know what you like about this model and maybe compare it to later models.
Thanks, Doug

bear in mind that the stock dimensions make it difficult to add a scope......

If it was something I wanted I'd go $250.....max

Vapodog, Do you mean that since the stock doesn't have a high comb, it;s not as easy to use a scope ? I get along better with a more classic shaped stock, anyway. doug

The comb is very low and made for iron sights that came with the gun. I had one of those new in 1953 and shot over a thousand critters with it including my first deer. I always fought that low comb. Later after the barrel got soft I traded it in on a 700 in the same cartridge and that was a better rifle all around.

Some dealers will ask quite a bit for them. I guess someone likes them. I have sold very few rifles and have no regrets about that one being gone. Another thing that was better about the 700 was the lighter, shorter 24" barrel.

Savage99,
I probably would be better off watching for a Mod 700 or even a CZ, especially since the owner of the 722 I mentioned wants a bloody fortune for the rifle. I still don't know what a book value would be on a mod 722 in .222 that is at least NRA Excellent so that may be very illuminating, if anyone has book of gun values.
Anyhow, thanks for your input. Doug

quote:

Originally posted by grubbydug:
A QUESTION OF VALUE..

I've got a line on a Mod 722 in .222, all original.

I have yet to hold it and look it over but it is described as being in excellent condition, with a Weaver fixed power scope. It has no sling swivels.. maybe they didn't have originally.

I'd like to know if this model has problems that I should be aware of. I don't know if the safety has been corrected or even if it should be.

What would be a fair price for such a piece?

Those of you who own and shoot one like it, let me know what you like about this model and maybe compare it to later models.
Thanks, Doug

I've owned at MANY 722s, and many of my favorite deer/antelope rifles are built on 722 actions. I recently sold a 722 in 222 that was in very good shape and all original save for the rear sight and had perhaps 95% blue. I got close to $500 for it (I don't recall the exact figure). All original and 99+%, I'd expect $600+ would not be unreasonable. I've seen some train wreck 722s in 222 sell for more than $250...

Also, you'll want to look at some pics, the earlier models had very low combs, but the later models (like the mid 50s models) had a re-designed stock that feature a higher comb that fit much better with scopes. I probably have pics of each somewhere around here...

As for the aciton itself. There are some who consider the 722 in 222 to be the most accurate mass productionm factory rifle ever made. My experience with these rifle in this caliber (with 50 grain and lighter bullets) is entirely consistent with this conjecture... truly eye popping in many instances... In fact, the 222 was introduced in the 722...

The 722 is strong and is in general very similar in function to the later model 700. The tang is a bit shorter and thicker, the bolt handle is not swept, the extractor is mildly different is shape (though not in function), the safety is similar to the pre-82 700, the triggers are adjustable and can be tuned quite well (keep then clean and dry), the bottom metal is notably different than the later 700. In general though, very good actions that do shoot very well or can be made to shoot very well with little trouble. I actually prefer 722s over the 700 SA for various reasons...

In my neck of the woods a clean 722 in .222 would sell quickly for $400 and if it was really nice would probably bring over $500.

There seems to be a spike in interest in the old triple deuce.

Weagle

The 722 was a really cheap gun with a fingernail extractor thats no longer available and a stamped tunafish can trigger guard. I really am glad I got rid of mine.

The class act in the old 222's was the Sako. Look for one but expect to pay over $700.

The 722 will always be a tunafish can. Sorry to have to say that.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
The 722 was a really cheap gun with a fingernail extractor thats no longer available and a stamped tunafish can trigger guard.

I've had scores of these rifles, some of which have gone through 3 or 4 barrels and I've never had a problem with the extractor. So what if I ever do have a problem? Hunt up a new one (my local smith has a stash of new ones he bought up way back when), a used one, or cough up $85 for a Sako style - big deal.

As for the floorplate. It may be stamped, but at least it is metal. Far more durable than a wood bottom ADL or a aluminum BDL flooplate.

quote:

I really am glad I got rid of mine.

Sorry I missed it, sounds like you would have sold it cheap...

I have a couple of 722s that have been installed in 700 Mountain Rifle stocks. It isn't too hard to do and makes of a better looking rifle, as least in my opinion. 1 is a 257 Roberts and the other a 25-284 rechambered from 257 Roberts.

Jeff

Doug,
I'd get on that with both feet! I recently bought a 722/.222 at a gun show for $450 in mint condition and thought I got a deal.

As 9.3x62 mentioned, they are EXTREMELY accurate and have an excellent trigger. The comb may be a little low, but so what, a .222 recoils about like a BB gun and as 260remguy mentioned, they'll fit into a 700 stock with minimal work.

That Weaver scope sweetens the deal too, I have one(K8) and consider it to be a decent scope.

Stepchild

quote:

Sorry I missed it, sounds like you would have sold it cheap...

I sold it to Charlie Benton in Vernon, CT for about $65. He had bought up bunch of new ADL's and was selling them for about $110.

The barrel on my old 722 had gone soft. It was never that accurate anyway at maybe a 5/8" to 3/4" grouper at 100 yds. I won a benchrest match with that 700 shooting the same loads as I made for that 722 tunafish can.

I sold the 700 as the 222 didn't have enough power for my hunting and got a High Wall by Butler in .219I. Guessing in advance that you would not appreciate the choice.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Savage99:
The 722 was a really cheap gun with a fingernail extractor thats no longer available and a stamped tunafish can trigger guard. I really am glad I got rid of mine.

I've never handled a 721 or a 722 that didn't have a steel trigger guard.

quote:

I sold the 700 as the 222 didn't have enough power for my hunting and got a High Wall by Butler in .219I. Guessing in advance that you would not appreciate the choice.

Oh, I have plenty of room for admiring most rifles - from the ugly and inexpensive to the fine and costly. Surely you do as well, given your handle...

quote:

It has no sling swivels.. maybe they didn't have originally.

They didn't!!

The 721-722 series was made as cheaply as Remington could figure out how toi cut corners. The stamped, crummy bottom metal, for example! Despite this, the 722 in .222 performs very well, and as stated, is very accurate right out of the box.

I have owned 721's and 722's, and must say I had more problems with the extractors on the 721's in the Mauser case-head size cartridges than with &22's in .222 Rem.

The Remington Model 722 was the first rifle chambered for the .222 Remington. I believe it had a 26" barrel and had open ights as well. I saw one for sale at a local gunshow about three years ago and the Dealer was asking $400 for it + the Lyman 6-power scope. Well I walked around for a while and decided on purchasing it. So I walked back to the nDealer but the Rifle had been sold.