Why do so many gunsmiths prefer/use Rem 700 actions versus model 70? I personally like the Mod. 70 safety as a "user." Can an accurized model 70 shoot as well as a 700? Does anyone know of gunsmiths who like/prefer/specialize in accurate, heavy barreled guns based on the mod. 70?

Thanks for the help!

Roger

The model 700 has an round reciever. This makes it easier to chuck in to a lathe and blueprint. It also makes it somewhat easier to glass bed and/or pillar bed. The model 70 is flat on the bottom and it is harder to blueprint and harder to bed. It is harder to pillar bed because of the rear tang being in the location that it is. It can also be double recoil lugged due to the rear tang. Forgot 700 has a removeable recoil lug the 70 is made on the reciever.

Yes. What Ricochet said.

What Ricochet says is true.

I used to buy into the Remington 700's so-called "benchrest accuracy" advantage, the "easy to work on" rhetoric, and assorted other Model 700-related icons for a time. I stayed good and bamboozled by all this "beanfield rifle" mumbo jumbo for several years, and I was absolutely brainwashed into the idea that only a custom rifle that was based on a Model 700 action could shoot with gilt-edged accuracy.

But then eight years ago, I met a riflesmith who was a national award winner in high-power shooting events (including 1000 tournaments). This fellow was building custom rifles on the current controlled-feed Model 70 Classic actions, and (surprise! surprise!) he was creating rifles that produced fabulous groups. I decided to order a rifle from him in .300 Winchester.

That rifle fed and functioned better than any Remington 700 that I ever owned, it produced five-shot groups right at the half-inch mark on a consistent basis, plus it never changed it's point of impact or otherwise failed to function perfectly every time. This rifle was at least as accurate as the most accurate custom Remington 700s that I owned, and it functioned better in all respects. It began to dawn on me that the same accurizing/blueprinting/bedding techniques that the benchrest wizards were employing to build tackdriving custom Model 700s could be applied to the Model 70 and with the same results or better. I've never again had a rifle built on the Remington 700 in the years since.

Quite honestly, I don't give a damn what sort of action is "easy" for a given gunsmith to work on. To me that's a misplaced priority for a rifle customer to get suckered into touting as a virtue. I'm interested in dealing with a riflesmith who's trained, capable, and willing to produce a high-performance rifle on the action of MY choice, and I don't care if it's "easy" for him to work on that action or not.

These days, I have all of my custom hunting rifles built on controlled-feed Model 70 actions by D'Arcy Echols. D'Arcy isn't lazy by any means, and he takes the Model 70 through 82 procedures in order to complete one of his marvelous rifles. They shoot, function, and feed like a dream all the time, and without fail. I've never once heard him say that he'd prefer to build a rifle on a Remington 700 because it was "easier to work on". That's why he gets my business.........

AD

allen day

AMEN!!

rogerinneb

<< Does anyone know of gunsmiths who like/prefer/specialize in accurate, heavy barreled guns based on the mod. 70?>>

To answer your question, David Gentry Belgrade Mt.

The action he *builds* is based on the M/70 and I do believe he would be considered a very compedent Smith if you were to check refrences.

Regards, Augustis ><>

To Be Safe, First Think You Might Not Be.

Allen was that smith 8 years ago who turned you on to the mod 70 Jim Cloward by any chance?

Joe, the gunsmith I hired then was Glen Pierce from Casa Grande, Arizona. I met him at SCI's annual convention. Glen was a USAF competitior for years, and he was trained in riflesmithing & special accurizing techniques in the military. As a civilian, be continued to compete, as well as build rifles full-time and conduct a rifle shooting school. To the best of my knowledge, Glen is no longer in the business. After over 2500 rounds of practice ammo and over three score big game animals in the salt, that rifle is now in retirement, but I'll never sell it.

I've met Wimbleton winner Jim Cloward several times, but I've never had him do any work for me. A couple of my friends, however, hunt with custom Model 70s that Jim built for them almost exclusively, and they've used these rifles extensively and around the world. No complaints!

I've never met anyone who understands the Model 70 as well as Echols does, or who can perform the extensive modifications and precise, careful, perfect work that he does on these actions. Sometimes, I'm convinced that he knows more about the Model 70 action than the people who invented it. He turns them into "lifetime" hunting rifles. I know this: If I ever shoot the barrel out on the .300 Winchester that D'Arcy built for me, I'll have him rebarrel it. I'll never retire that rifle until the day comes that I can no longer hunt.

AD

My target rifles are Remingtons and many of my hunting rifles are M-70's.

While Allen Day did not say so directly the Winchester has more style and CRF so for hunting it's a cool choice.

But for target shooting the Remington is easier to do a good job on. Allen Day does not care about price but availability counts also. I was looking for a smith to rebarrel my old M-70 and I was directed to one near me who was building winning target, bench and cast bullet rifles. So I got him on the phone and he told me he does not have a milling machine to to the extractor slot on M-70's! So I got on the Benchrest Forum and found a smith in NY state but he did not have the credentials of the guy who works on Remingtons and he is far away. For sure I can send the rifle to Hart and wait a year for it but I don't want to do that.

In fact the Remingtons are so easy to do I could do the headspacing myself. It's just that I don't want to bother.

There is no question that the Remingtons are the path of least resistance but for a hunting rifle that is not shot as much as a target rifle noor have anywhere near the accuracy requirement the Winchester is my choice also.

Just so I don't seem one sided. I just bought my first 700, 2 weeks ago. Everything else is a 70. :-)

This is kinda like the old Ford VS Chevy discussion. Bottom line is both are good actions. I prefer the M-70 for it's feeding properties.

------------------
A well placed bullet is worth 1,000 ft/lbs of energy.

As has been stated many smiths use the Rem actions beacause they are perceived to be easier to work with. More importantly they are what many smiths with a BR background are familiar with. Another major reason is the trigger. Now the M70 has a fine trigger but it is not as adjustable as the 700 trigger and again many of the accuracy smiths are more familiar with the Rem trigger and the aftermarket triggers for these.
I have built rifles on all sorts of actions and have had great success with both the 700 and the M70. For a target or varmint rifle each action has it's strengths.
Bedding:
Here the Remington 700 is the easier of the two simply because the bottom of the receiver is uncomplicated. The tang is generous. Techniques have been perfected and refined by hundreds of BR shooters and smiths over the years.
The M70 has the advantage (to some ) of having a flat bedding surface which resists torquing better than the round Rem receiver. The disadvantage is that the M70 bottom is more complex including the tang which is half square half round and of two levels. The Winchester bolt stop makes the removal of a considerable amount of bedding surface necessary. This is one area where the Dakota is an inprovement. They moved the bolt stop.
Barrelling:
There is really no difference in barrelling between the two. If the M70 is a push feed it is the easiest of the works. Otherwise the extractor cut adds about 1/2 hour to the job compared to the 700 with it's counterbore. This counterbore as part of the 700s breeching system is the one item that may offer an advantage to the 700 as far as accuracy potential is concerned. As long as the receiver threads are true and concentric the counterbore is an effective means of aligning the front of the bolt. This is accomplished by either making the counterbore a close fit on the (trued)bolt nose or by using a teflon O-ring in the counterbore and avoiding metal to metal contact.. The rear of the bolt is supported by either sleeving the rear of the bolt or using pieces dovetailed into the bolt body (my version of the Borden bumps).
Triggers:
As I said the Remington trigger is more adjustable but either trigger is OK for a fullbore trigger. For a BR type trigger there are more triggers offered for the Remington and they are cheaper than the M70 offerings. There are alternatives though including the fitting of a 700 style trigger to the M70. Anything's possible. I even put a 700 trigger on a Lee Enfield once. You have to want to do it!
The M70 receiver is a bit stiffer than the 700 but I don't think this is of any real significance.
When it comes to truing the threads and so on there is a bit of difference but not much. the techniques and fixtures required are similar.
So there you have it. The pros and cons as Leeper sees them which probably means little in the end.
I have two target rifles built on M70 actions. One a push feed and the other a pre-war. Neither are BR rifles but are my "F" class rifles. they shoot at the 3/8 to 1/2 MOA level so far which is about what I would expect from any practical rifle in these calibers (6.5x55 and 30/06). I don't think I have handicapped myself by using the M70 but confess that I used them only because I had them on hand. If I would have had a 700 I might have used it instead! Regards, Bill.

Wow. What an education! Sounds like the determining factor is finding a gunsmith who likes and uses M70's if one is to go that route. I really like the looks of the M70 Coyote, and as I mentioned, I'll take that 3 pos. swing safety any day.

Roger

rogerinnb,

I think that the Coyote is a push feed and much like the Remington. Almost anyone could do one.

I am taking about controlled round feed M-70's like the old ones or what I think they call the "Classics" now. I think Allen Day uses that type also.

Rogerinneb, here is a excellent gunsmith for M-70, perhaps the most advance in blue-printing and machine work. The only downside is 6 to 8 month wait.

WWW.GTRTOOLING.COM

------------------

My gunsmith buddy is a hardcore pre-64 fan, and much prefers them. He also, begrudgingly, works on my M700's. He has no problems rebarrelling either one, and gets excellent results with either one.

It's just a matter of finding someone who wants to do the job. If somebody doesn't "want" to do your M70, you will either get sub-standard work because he doesn't know how to do the job, or doesn't care, or you'll pay more, to make it worth his while. Find a good 'smith interested in doing a M70, and you'll end up with a fine rifle.

Amen Allen! Ditto..Ditto..Ditto!

------------------
Doug Humbarger
NRA Life member

Well low and behold I'm up at Guns Unlimited (gotta love that name!) in Omaha Friday and I snag a classic featherweight in 30-06, brand spankin' new for $500! Of course I don't NEED this gun, but it was too good a deal to pass up. Wood is average. I think I'll leave it "factory" for a while, but it might be a future project action!

Roger