Why is it that, it seems anyway, more custom rifles use the Remington Model 700 and action instead of the Winchester Model 70? Not only in custom hunting rifles, but benchrest rifles as well? Is the Remington more inherently accurate than other factory actions like the Model 70, M98, Savage etc.?

Probably cuase Remington 700's are taught in Gunsmithing 101.

More accurate? yes maybe a tad, neither are real benchrest actions, and I think those ugly Savages wll run with that dog anyday.

If I was to build a custom varmint rifle or a target rifle it'd be on a Remmy action.....

If I was to build a hunting rifle, it's on an FN mauser or a M-70.

I do labor under the idea that slightly more accurate rifles are built on Remington actions that mausers or M-70s

great question, and hopefully this won't turn into a pissin match.

fact of the matter is that a model 700 is easier to get, and with the 270 being the most popular round in america (seriously), there's no point in the CRF vs Pushfeed debate.

The 700 can be had at any wallyworld, and an adl is just plain cheap. Polish it for 20 mins, throw it in the bluing tank, and it looks pretty good.

Remingtons have a rep for being more accurate.. that is arguable, that they have a faster lock time isn't.


jeffe

I'm sure there's a class of Benchrest shooting in which the Rem 700 is competitive but most of the top guns are built on custom actions.

Some one else here said it well when he compared Remingtons/Winchesters to Chevy/Ford small blocks. Both are easy to build up due to a flood of aftermarket parts, donors are everywhere, and not a single top fuel car uses a factory block these days because as good as they are, they have limitations. Same with factory actions.

As far as building on one or the other, cylindrical actions like Remington are easier to sleeve than Winchester and that may be a factor.

Jim,
First off welcome to AR from another WA guy.

If you are talking about custom rifles with all the bells and whistles type of metalwork and wood stocks, then the Model 70 and the 98 Mauser are way ahead of the 700 Remington. If you are talking about a synthetic stock on a rebarrel you might be right. I think the 700 has the edge in accuracy over the other two out of the box and it is an easy action to fit to a stock, whether it be synthetic or wood.

The reason the the Remington normally tends to be more accurate in a custom rifle than a Winchester is simply the smith, not the action.
Those who know how to build quality custom rifles can make either one shoot equally well.

The Remington is almost always more accurate out of the box than the Winchester for two basic reasons; The first being the chambers are more concentric and tight and the headspace is less. This is true for the Savage also.

These two factors won't enter into the equation of a custom rifle project when assembled and machined by a qualified smith on a new custom barrel.

If you are varmint hunting, a Remington tends to lead the way because of the push-feed design, allowing a fella to more easily single-feed a cartridge into the chamber one at a time.
In big game hunting, those who know the difference, will normally prefer the CRF model Winchesters.

Both rifles can be made to be quite reliable and accurate, and more times than not, it's the man behind the trigger who will be at fault, more than rifle when it comes to "inherent" benefits or faults.

I Myself, tend to lean towards the Model 70 for cosmetics, function, and safety over the Model 700, but I own more than a few Remingtons.

My theory is this..........Buy them all and use what feels good that day for that particular purpose. You don't go to Sears and ask for the wrench that fits everything do ya???? Besides, it'll give the spouse something else to complain about when they find out, even though that may be months, if not years later.

Rem 700's for varmint guns and M70's for hunting I think that pretty well sums it up in a comparison for these two actions. Both are great for there intended uses.

I regularly outshoot as many custom actions with my rem700 as the customs outshoot me. The custom actions are NOT the holy grail at all. My gunsmith has seen Nesikas and BATs that were as out of true as factory rem700's. They STILL NEED TO BE squared and tweeked here and there.

That being said, the rem700 costs less and takes less labor to true up by a gunsmith, that is one reason (although it is maybe a $50 difference)

The only factory action that can compete with the 700 is the win70 or savage. The savages saving grace is it's barrel since it is button rifled and very smooth inside.

Go to a match a few times,..there are remington 700's,...and then there are custom actions. The only reason I have lost to customs is beacause I missed a wind shift or wasn't shooting my best. The rem700 when trued and squared will be one of the best actions available for 1/2 the price of the customs. Now ifin you sleeve it, and sleeve the bolt, and add bolt releases etc etc you will be close to the custom price. But,..the gunsmith and I have investigated the bolt sleeving and have determined it to be past the point of diminishing returns. I have yet to lose because of an un-sleeved bolt in my 700 actions.

Until any other factory action can set the number of records the rem700 has, the choice is simple.

quote:

Until any other factory action can set the number of records the rem700 has, the choice is simple.

Simple if you shoot paper of course, but hunting big game or dangerous definitely makes the decision a little more complicated.

Remington will no doubt continue to hold the records for factory actions, simply because the shear number of them in use and the perceived inherent accurate features.....real or imagined.

Like I mentioned earlier......I own both, but you wouldn't be any safer with me shooting at ya with my Winchester at 800 meters in a 308 than you would with my Remington.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.guns/browse_frm/thread/83ab74f0e03f749c/


Bart Bobbit posted:

The following lists the findings of some of the best highpower
competitors in the USA comparing Remington 700 with Winchester 70
actions in match rifles when fired under equal conditions. These are
observations by people who have customized, repaired, shot, tested,
won matches and/or set records with them since the late 1950s.

Barrel quality - Remington's barrels are more accurate than
Winchester's. Winchester's barrels introduced in 1964 were better
than before, but not quite as good as Remington. Remington tends to
put twists a bit too fast for many cartridges compared to Winchester.
Some have put Remington barrels in Winchester receivers and they did
quite well indeed - with heavier bullets.

Barrel fit - Receiver front thread & face and bolt face on the
Remington were a little more square than Winchester. Good ‘smiths
trued these areas perpendicular to the barrel's chamber axis before
barreling them. Factory rifles tend to walk a bit as their barrels
heat up. Squaring the receiver face eliminates this problem.

Bolt operation - Winchester bolts are easier and smoother to operate
rapid fire than Remington; especially the Winchester pre-‘64 classic.
Remington's heavier firing pin spring rating, greater bolt lug cam
angle and surface fit/finish is the main reason. With equal rated
firing pin springs, the Winchester bolt is still easier to open.

Case extraction - Remington extractors broke a lot; Winchesters very
rarely. Many an M16 style extractor has been fitted to Remington
bolts for improved reliability. Winchester extractors did better
extracting stuck cases than Remingtons. Winchester claw-style
extractors made removing fired case before ejecting easier than
Remingtons. No special tools needed to replace Winchester extractors.

Case ejection - Winchester pre-‘64 (classic) ejectors caused the least
case damage. Remington and Winchester plunger ejectors tend to press
cases against the receiver after they come out of the chamber and
cases get scratched and/or dented. Cutting a few turns off the
ejector spring fixes this problem besides piling up the empties much
neater and closer to you.

Magazine - Winchester actions are more reliable in rapid fire feeding
than Remingtons. Remington factory magazines are a little more
reliable when charging them with 5 rounds from a stripper clip in a
clip guide. Filing a Winchester magazine follower rib's 45 degree
angle surface a bit flatter fixes their problem.

Trigger performance - Remington trigger's don't seem to hold their
adjustments as well as Winchesters. And Winchester factory triggers
couldn't be set quite as light as Remingtons. Good aftermarket
triggers in both made them equal in this area.

Lock time - Remington's firing pin springs are stronger than
Winchester's; about 30 pounds vs. 23 pounds. So, lock time in the
factory Remington is faster than a factory Winchester. You can put a
30 pound spring in a Winchester. Titanium firing pins speed ‘em both
up.

Safety operation - Winchester's is more reliable than Remington's.
Dropping a Remington with its safety on would sometimes disengage it
and allow the firing pin to override the sear and fire any live round
in the chamber; Winchester's didn't do this when dropped.

Bolt cleaning - Remington requires special tools to get the firing pin
out of the bolt. Winchester's firing pin can easily be removed with a
pair of pliers.

Firing pin spring replacement - these weaken over time and must be
replaced if factory-new firing pin impact on primers needs to be
maintained for best accuracy; especially at longer ranges. Special
compression and pin punch tools have to be used to change a
Remington's firing pin spring. For the Winchester, only a pair of
pliers is needed.

Recoil lug - More than a few Remington recoil lugs have been bent
forward in rifles with a lot of recoil (.300 mag levels or more).
Typically, this happened on rifles whose recoil lug made contact only
at the bottom-back of its stock recess. Never happened on a
Winchester.

Tang issues - More than a few Remington tangs have been bent by
over-tightening its rear stock screw. Never known this to happen with
a Winchester.

Epoxy bedding - Remington's round receivers tend to twist enough from
torque (.308 Win. and larger cartridges) that they needed rebedded
after a few hundred rounds. Winchester's more rectangular receivers
don't. ‘Smiths tried inch-thick or greater recoil lugs on Remington
receivers; they still shot loose. Epoxying Remington receiver in a
flat-side/bottom sleeve fixed this problem.

Stock screw torque - Remington receivers need about 45 inch-pounds on
front and back, 20 inch-pounds on the middle. Winchester's need about
60 inch-pounds. Determined by firing both in machine rests, then
shooting groups at various torques.


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

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.guns/browse_frm/thre...1be/37aa02aa3dea7ab5
# Maybe in civilian competition - but the fact is that the U.S. military,
# given its choice, rejected the post-64 Model 70 as the basis of its bolt-
# action
# sniper rifles and chose the Remington 700 instead. Remarks by U.S. military
# snipers were that the Pentagon gave up on Model 70s after quality plummeted
# post-64.

I'm totally aware that the above is the popular belief regarding this
issue. But remember it was the politicians and military brass who
decided which company to go with. Having been on active duty when all
the hoopla was going around and knowledgable of the best military
marksmen's (competitive shooters, not snipers) opinions, I'll share
that with you.

The military competition team 'smiths (and civilians, too) tried to
get the Rem. 700/40X actions to consistantly shoot accurate and
reliably for the life of the barrel. But some problems persisted with
the Remingtons that never occured with the Win. 70 action.

The Remington round receiver torqed out of a perfect fit in its epoxy
bedding due to twist imparted by the bullet going down the barrel.
Top civilian marksmen had the same problem. The US Army and Marine
teams tried using a 1-inch long flat-side/bottom recoil lug hoping
this would keep the receiver in good contact with the epoxy bedding;
it lasted somewhat longer eventually worked loose. The 30 caliber
magnums had a shorter bedding life (~200 rounds) than the 7.62mm NATO
(~400 rounds). Only when the Remington receiver was glued inside an
aluminum sleeve with flat bottom and sides did the Remington action do
well. In contrast, the 22 and 24 caliber benchrest cartridges didn't
put enough torque on the receiver to cause a problem but the stool
shooters learned in the '70s that a receiver with flat sides and
bottom shot even smaller groups than the round ones.

Remington 7XX extractors have been notorious for breaking. Especially
in rapid fire when shots are fired every few seconds for a minute or
more. Some 'smith fitted a Sako extractor to the Remington bolt and
the problem went away. This modification has been done to many 7XX
bolts and the results speak for themselves. All this chimes in with
the difficulty in replacing a 7XX factory extractor whereas the Win.
70 extractors are easy to replace just like their firing pins and
their springs.

The Remington's shorter bolt handle and magazine feed issues made it
harder and less reliable to operate rapid fire than the Winchester.

I won't go into the bending problems with Remington's recoil lug and
receiver tang. But they happened. Never did with Winchesters.

There were some quality issues with Winchester. Their factory
broach-cut or hammer-forged barrels were never as accurate as the
Remington button rifled ones. No wonder the Remington's were
favorites of the accuracy buffs. But no Remington action has ever
shot as well as a Winchester with a top-quality 30 caliber barrel
fitted proerly.

The first post-64 actions sometimes were hard to operate rapid fire.
The bolt's had a guide notch put in a lug that fixed the bolt-bind
issue.

Another rapid-fire issue is the follower's thick side angle.
Reloading a Winchester with a stripper clip sometimes caused the
bottom two rounds to stack on the left side. Grinding/filing the
angled edge on the follower a bit to make more room for the bottom
round to go to the right solved this problem. When this happened with
a Remington, there wasn't enough metal in the stamped follower to
remove to fix it.

But the biggest issue was company integrity. Winchester was going
through dire financial straits in the 1960s. Although the competitive
shooters liked the Winchester and well knew its advantages over the
Remington, the militay brass watching everybody's finances and
business outlook - chose Remington. I talked with one of the Navy
guys who went to the Pentagon to discuss all these things and he said
it was a real dog fight among those hammering out the details of the
choice for the next standard issue sniper rifle for the US armed
forces.

The selection of a Redfield 3X9 variable scope as the standard sniper
sight was another joke. I checked three issued ones on a collimator
and they all had errors of a minute or more of hysteresis in zooming
and adjustment repeatability. They wouldn't hold zero from mild
recoil, either.

Excellent information. Thanks

Probably the most informative post I have ever read on any forum -- and confirms me in my pro-pre-64M70 prejudices.

I agree Remingtons can win their share of matches, especially when the wind or mirage is up and it's more the shooter than the equipment. But I will still argue that all else equal, the best custom actions will outshoot the best Remingtons in the aggregate. Just one opinion.

I have only shot a few centerfire matches and even I won once with my Savage 220 Swift. Just my day to shine. I've also beat the pants off a bunch of tricked-up match Anchutz, Winchester and Remington 22s, barrel tuners and all with my home-built 10-22 and a 24 power scope in 22BR matches. That doesn't necessarily mean the 10-22 is a superior match action.

so which is better, blonde, brunette or redhead??

if the shooter had everything to do with it, I would go with whatever action. However, I have won against custom actions shot by far more experienced guys than myself. I am talking names that you will see in the back of Precision Shooting magazine every month. If my rem700 has on many occassions beat their Stolle's and Nesika's, then that coupled with the fact that I am admittedly not as experienced as they are, tells me the rem700 when done by a BR capable gunsmith can hold them all. The noticeable difference is the "feel" of the bolt throw and the guide rails as well as exterior asthetics, going to the customs.

I have 1 model70 (done by the same gunsmith) which will shoot equally as well.

I have heard the stories about the extractors breaking, but never seen one or had one happen at any match I have been to (although we don't shoot fast/tactical matches). I replace mine with sako extractors for match guns just in case a hot chamber sticks a case, then I can yank it out and get all 5 record shots on paper before my time is up.

As for accuracy concerns, paper is the judge. if you want to talk accuracy, you are talking paper targets and micrometers. Anything else is just hunting, and that doesn't require anywhere near the accuracy nor the tools to measure and prep for such.

I stand by my recommendation, if accuracy is your concern, the rem700 is cheaper and easier to get trued and square. If you are hunting dangerous game, then a CRF action would be your best bet,..but lets face it, they aren't exactly small targets either Now for the looks and feel of a classic, then the Mauser, pre-64 win, sako, etc would all make a much finer looking and feeling rifle.

tiggertate, I also placed 3rd in a 100yd match with my rem700 VSSF 220 swift against heavy barreled Sako's and the like as well as varmint class rigs. It was not by chance you placed or won, it is because the custom actions just aren't that much better. My pards 11yr old boy shot a rem 40x in 7mm mag at a 600yd match and shot a group smaller than MOST custom actions on the line that day (and I am talking aggregate group and score). I will build some customs, but for now the only reason I can see is resale value and the "kool" factor.

We're probably not in that much disagreement; individual people and rifles perform differently under different circumstances and on different days just like John Force doesn't win every race. But John Force's car is heads above a lot of the cars that ended up beating him for one reason or another.

And while I really enjoyed some of the posts above, I think High Power shooting is such a different sport that equipment comparisons are meaningless with the benchresting accuracy community, which appeared to be the focus of the original post.

Tiggertate,

quote:

I agree Remingtons can win their share of matches, especially when the wind or mirage is up and it's more the shooter than the equipment.

Okay, I am confused. Why is a Remington going to shine in those situations? Why wouldn't it be the individual rather than the action?

I am not trying to be argumentative as I am not a competitive shooter, the statement just seemed, for lack of a better term, a bit off.

There I go again! I meant it was the shooter, not the action that might have made the grade that day ("its more the shooter than the equipment").

It is difficult to argue with the legendary Bart Bob...

jim

quote:

As for accuracy concerns, paper is the judge. if you want to talk accuracy, you are talking paper targets and micrometers. Anything else is just hunting, and that doesn't require anywhere near the accuracy nor the tools to measure and prep for such.

I stand by my recommendation, if accuracy is your concern, the rem700 is cheaper and easier to get trued and square. If you are hunting dangerous game, then a CRF action would be your best bet,..but lets face it, they aren't exactly small targets either

When I mentioned shooting paper, I didn't mean that the Winchester wouldn't hold up, just that single feeding cartridges into the chamber is undoubtly easier in the Remington.......only reason I own a few....
I have no problem drawing pictures with my Model 70's either, but when I'm on the range, I prefer to single feed cartridges, rather than loading them up through the magazine. The model 70 will do this, but it works the extractor more than necessary, even though it is fitted properly. Snapping the extractor over a case can be done reliably, but it's better not to, unless you have to.

I have tried a couple Model 700s, and I find my Model 70 CRPF to be as smooth as silk where it felt like with the Model 700s I always had to "work" more, if that makes any sense.

Blah, blah, blah...

Both have their weak points, both have their strengths, but affectations aside, both work just fine...

Shooting .222 from a bench, the Rem700s won.
Shooting .308 from prone, the Win 70s won.

I own both, don't think much of either, I like Mausers and Ruger #1s.

700's are used for making accurate hunting rifles because they are cheap to make shoot, lots of accessories available, and most smiths know how to make them shoot. Kinda like why small block chevies are most popular for hot rodding, cheapest way to make hp.

I'd agree with Chic that a definition of custom hunting rifle is required. Many would consider a rem 700 with a new barrel, blueprint and bedded into a plastic stock in a different class than an action that has a complete refining of the metalwork including barrel, slow rust blue finish, and a fine piece of walnut that is expertly turned into a stock, in that catagory Rem 700's are almost never used, and you'll find Win M 70's and Mauser 98's.

quote:

and I think those ugly Savages wll run with that dog anyday.

Call 'em ugly, call 'em anything you want, but call 'em out of the box shooters for the most part.

A good gunsmith with the ability to build target rifles can make a model 70 shoot right along with the best of them...and they will be far more accurate than most human beings are capable of holding.

There are still a few people shooting model 70’s in competition and they seem to do just fine with them.

quote:

so which is better, blonde, brunette or redhead??

Ya just gotta love Blondes..

I've owned a great many Remington 700s as well as Model 70s over the years. They're both good actions, but I've pretty much gone to all Model 70s over the last twelve years, and I don't think I've taken any big game with a Model 700 since 1993.

From a custom hunting rifle standpoint -- and I mean a rifle that's built for accuracy with a totally blueprinted action, first-rate custom barrel, pillar-bedded stock, etc. -- the accuracy difference between these two actions is far smaller than a lot of people think. With today's components, and with today's understanding of how to build into a rifle the utmost accuracy, you can expect half-inch groups or even smaller at 100 yds. out of a rifle built on either action. And if that's not enough to satisfy, you're living in a dream.....

There's a great deal of talk about how much easier it is for a riflesmith to build on a Model 700 action, and that notion is fundamentally true. But as a customer, I really don't care about how "easy" I can make the job for the gunsmith via action selection, I care about the finished product. And the truth is, you have to know a lot more in order to get the most out of the Model 70 action, and the the number of riflesmiths who are capable of reworking a Model 70 the right way in order to achieve maximum results are a lot more scarce. But the functional benefits of empoying that action over the M700 is, to me, worth whatever trouble or investment it takes.

AD

quote:

Originally posted by 9.3x62:
Blah, blah, blah...

Both have their weak points, both have their strengths, but affectations aside, both work just fine...

I'm old, so I like mine with silver hair.
My choice would be a tricked out mauser for the same reason.

Simple if the 700 was not the best platform to make an accurate rifle from then it would not be so popular. My competion rifles use custom actions but all of my 700 hunting guns have a Sako extractors on them or will shortly. Problem solved.

Don't take my word for it call Speedy who knows a thing or two about accuracy.

To Alan...I would disagree with your statement that accurizing a 700 is “easier†than doing so with a model 70.

I prefer 700’s, but I do not believe that they are inherently “better†in the accuracy department or in the ease of making them accurate, than a model 70 is.

Anyone capable of making a tack driver out of one can do the same with the other using the exact same care and procedures...and either rifle will be far more accurate than any human being can take advantage of. Same is true of Sako’s and Savages, in my opinion.

They sure cleanup nice!


Red

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
great question, and hopefully this won't turn into a pissin match.

fact of the matter is that a model 700 is easier to get, and with the 270 being the most popular round in america (seriously), there's no point in the CRF vs Pushfeed debate.

The 700 can be had at any wallyworld, and an adl is just plain cheap. Polish it for 20 mins, throw it in the bluing tank, and it looks pretty good.

Remingtons have a rep for being more accurate.. that is arguable, that they have a faster lock time isn't.


jeffe

Jeff why do you think the 270 is the most popular rifle round in America? Where did you read that?

I like the M700, then Mausers, then M70s.

I think it's easier to make a M700 shoot than it is a Mauser or a M70. The most accurate rifle I have ever shot is a 25-06 Sendaro M700 it was used when I bought it and the scope mounts needed shimmed. I shimmed and put a B&L 6-18 on it and it's a .25 inch rifle with good loads. With factory Remington PSP it's a .75 inch rifle. It has 3 deer, and about 6 pronghorns to it's name and about 1000 prairie dogs and picketpens.

quote:

Originally posted by joecool:

quote:

so which is better, blonde, brunette or redhead??

Ya just gotta love Blondes..

A 5'5 redhead with full lips, a round butt and 32DDs!

A 25 year old Maureen O'Hara look alike would be fine!

Rick, have you ever had a first-rate riflesmith rework a Model 70?

AD

quote:

Originally posted by allen day:
Rick, have you ever had a first-rate riflesmith rework a Model 70?

AD

Have I had one done, no...do I know people that have had them done, yes.

I am not sure whether this is a out of the box or a custom disagement on the 70 vrs the 700.

On a custom I think the dollar amount involved is less on a 700. Not because of any design issues, its all about aftermarket parts, there is simply a better selection of 700 parts availble, and these tend to be just a tad cheaper, mostly due to quantity breaks for the manufactures.

Both actions can be built to all I need in a hunting rifle accuracy, its a mute point. If I am going to build a benchrest rifle I am not going to start with either of these, I would opt for a Hall or BAT.

Allen: I agree with you on selection of custom rifles, when I am paying I get what I want, if a smith can't deliver I find somebody else. My motto is I pay I get what I want, no excuses and compromise isn't a option generally. I don't ask my smiths to do unsafe or unethical projects, nor do I get into risky technical problems for the smiths. If I do I listen why my silly idea is wrong, and correct my request.

I have good luck in general with the smiths I use, I don't look for or expect bargins and understand quality work costs money. I can pick up the phone today and talk to three excellent smiths that can build either a 70 or a 700, no issue. Me I opt for the Winchesters, its a personal preference, and I like CRF on my hunting rifles. Personal choice there though, again I pay I get what I want.