Aside from good maintenance practices and being familiar with the equipment what would make a gun unquestionably reliable?

I’m currently working on a “go to” gun. Something that can take temperature change, weather, water, drops, feeds reliable, safety is reliable, and the trigger is reliable.

This is what I’m thinking :
-Winchester 70 classic stainless (moderate budget, no Dakota 76 here)
-Mcmillan/manners/HS stock
-Broughton tube
-Williams bottom metal and extractor
-Tuned factory trigger
-Coated
-Beltless case
-sights?


Please don’t answer double barrel, single shot, or AK-47. That’s not what I’m looking for.
I didn’t already see this exact topic, but if this has been discussed in detail, please post a link.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks,

Impossible to beat a military rifle for utter and absolute reliability under all conditions. IMO a large-ring Mauser would be MUCH better than an M70 of any type & vintage. JMO.
Regards, Joe

parts are parts -- get a GREAT gunsmith to put it together.

To me, a "go to" gun is a completely different animal than what your list entails. My idea of a "go to" gun would have to be something battle proven, something current, something you can readily get spare parts and ammo for, anytime, day or night. Particularly when stores and shops are closed. What is it's intended purpose?

I don't see anything I would disagree with. For no fail optics, I'd look at something with the gold ring on the end of it.

I guess the other big question is what all do you plan to hunt with this rig?

Based on the criteria you gave it sounds like a good ole Winchester M-70 CRF of '90s vintage on up to but excluding the pre-MOA trigger (South Carolina manufacture) with Weaver bases and detachable rings and a fixed power Leupold scope would fit the bill all of the way. The stock and caliber, of course, would be what ever you prefer.

303 Lee Enfield No4 Mark 1 with Mark 1 sight. And despite the mocking cries of "fix bayonets" quite adequate with the standard bullet under most normal conditions for any medium game. Four OR two legged!

I'd say get a mod 70 stainless in 308Win. Have the trigger done and the action worked over. Get your sights installed and put it in an Echols legend stock. You can get 308Win ammo EVERYWHERE--even in bulk. That way you can hunt most stuff w/ it AND if the libs have their way, you can use it to stay alive when the wheels totally come off. Get a springfield M1A to go w/ it and you might stand a chance.

Mauser military. Made w/generous tolerances to allow it to work in all temperatures, weather and levels of dirty. No stamped or sheet steel parts to screw up. Integral feed lips that won't get out of alignment. Bullet proof trigger can be tuned by those that know how. Add a FN style left swing safety. Duracoat and put in a synthetic stock.

quote:

Originally posted by elkregulator:
unquestionably reliable?

It's hard for me to think of any hunting bolt rifle any more "unquestionably reliable" than a well vetted and properly constructed 98 Mauser. The basic 98 Mauser consists of approximately 30 stout and simple parts giving the utmost in field reliablility in harsh conditions. Many different makes and models of rifles can be worked over to help ensure they go bang when the trigger is pulled. But all else equal, I think the basic 98 Mauser action will always have an edge when it comes to truly needing a rifle to go bang when the trigger is pulled.

If it were me, I'd choose a cartridge to fit the standard box such as the 7mm Rem Mag or the .30-06 Springfield. For a worst conditions wilderness type rifle, I doubt I'd even use a scope. I'd probably choose a partridge front post and a receiver ghost ring sight along the lines of the Brockman. I may even use the tritium insert. I'd also probably stick with the two stage trigger and flag safety being it is without a scope. That would be hell for stout.

Best

One of the superb 1930's Mausers, such as the '35 Brazilian, re-fitted with a Lilja sts. tube in .30-06, Recknagel irons, Talley rings and bases, two Leupy 4x HD scopes in a Micky std. fill stock with a standard Pachy pad. Have this put together by a good smith, use the side FN scope safety and modded issue trigger and that will do it all, no bullshit.

I would have a complete set of spare parts, pre-fitted and a spare bolt with FN safety as well. There are several good iron sight options and an over-all weight of 7.5-8 lbs. is good to go, with a 22-23" tube.

Another vote for a military Mauser.

Remington Model 700 in 308 and yes I am serious.

There is a reason that the 700 platform has been the basis of for the USMC sniper rifle and US Army for 40 years.

It is the most battle proven modern bolt action rifle in existence.

I am not sure...but I am not aware of a single current production military sniper rifle based on a mauser design or even a crf design. I don't buy the accuracy issue as a mauser/crf can certainly be made accurate.

A while back FN and Parker Hale, both made Military Sniper Rifles on Mauser type actions.

I think Elkregulator is looking for a veryrugged reliable hunting bolt action.

A stainless CRF Mod 70 in a good "plastic" stock, built right would work.

However, If I was to pick a highly rugged reliable bolt rifle for ME, it would be a Blaser R 93.

I have owned or shot most of the different bolt rifles over the years, and for a hunting bolt rifle I like the R 93 best of all.

And I have used it under some really bad, rough weather conditions.

Actually, hunting conditions in Zimbabwe, have been much easier on the guns, than hunting in Montana, Idaho, Canada, and Alaska, by a WIDE margin...

I have been on weekend hunts in Texas, that were harder on the guns than a month hunt in Zimbabwe.

D'arcy Echols has been building such guns for decades.

Ruger MKII syt stock stainless given a good once over to make sure things are working properly and a good trigger. In the caliber of your choice.

It comes as a package with many contributions-the shooter,wood people,action maker,gunsmith,barrelmaker,trigger maker,sight maker, and wildcatters etc...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Remington Model 700 in 308 and yes I am serious.

There is a reason that the 700 platform has been the basis of for the USMC sniper rifle and US Army for 40 years.

It is the most battle proven modern bolt action rifle in existence.

Having my share of trigger time while dragging around an M40, I'm of the opinion this is a completely different animal than a sporting rifle used for extreme hunting. Two completely different topics with a sporting rifle making a poor choice for military sniper applications, and a M40 making a very poor choice as a sporting rifle for extreme hunting applications. In addition, with well over 100 million produced, the Mauser and Mauser variants probably have more collective battlefield use in both numbers and in man hours than the 700 platforms to date. An M40 is one heck of a good rifle, but even then, a 98 Mauser would more than likely be more durable and more reliable under extreme usage just on the fact of having fewer and more robust parts. Then again, I've met quite a number of persons who were capable of breaking hardened steel ball bearings in a rubber lined room

Best

GaryVA,

I don't folow your logic at all. The Rem 700 is the action used in the M40 and no modifications to the action are made.

I am not suggesting the M40 itself.

What I am stating is that the Rem 700 action is an incredibly reliable action based on the evdinece that is battle proven via the M40. The only difference between an M40 and standard Rem 700 is the stock and the barrel.

I am also asking...if the Mauser/CRF action is supposed to be so incredibly reliable why is that no current production sniper rifle is based on it.

The answer is not accuracy because a mauser/crf can certainly be mad accurate.

The answer is also not cost as the difference in the action is only $150 and any military sniper rifle ends up being a couple thousand dollars delivered.

There is likely a reason the US military switched from the Winchester Model 70 to the Rem 700 in hte late 60s...perhaps reliability under adverse field conditions?

Probably because of production costs and the "politics" involved in procuring weaponry by both armed forces and LEO groups.

I used to shoot with a lot of RCMP officers and they shot what "the force" decided they would have, NOT, what they would choose for themselves. The Canadian Armed Forces are exactly the same and so is every police force I have seen here in Canada.

The reliability factor between Mauser 98s and Remmy 700s is very much in favour of the Mauser, in my experience here in western and northern Canada for 45+ years. I have yet to see a rifle as troublefree and easy to maintain as my original Oberndorf sporter, Type B. The chambering is 9.3x62, it shoots sub-moa with warmish 286NPs and Hornady SPs and I cannot imagine a better tool for my uses.

If, someone prefers a 700, hey, why not, it is their choice and they know best what works for them!

Dewey,

Your description of Canadian procurment practices is not how the USMC procured the M40.

The USMC is actually quite fastidious about its selection process. The USMC M40 was not a "here is a set of specs" and pick the lowest bidder.

It was a what is the best set of components as evaluated by a team of USMC personell. That is how the USMC M40 differs from the US Army M24. The M24 was completely built buy remington as far as I understand it.

The USMC selected the best action (rem 700), the best barrels originally from Atkinson and later from Hart and Schneider, and McMillian stocks and then they were assembled by USMC armorers.

Therefore, the USMC could have picked any action it wanted but the team of armorers, instructors, and snipers selected the Rem 700 action for its reliability and inherent accuracy.

700 is FAR more accurate, period, end of story, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt back in the '50s at the first Benchrest matches.

700 is also MUCH cheaper to produce in this country.

700 IMO is also slightly easier for the average military armorer to assemble, accurize and service than the Mauser.

700 is also MUCH LESS reliable under extreme conditions, again no question, it's beyond even the shadow of a doubt. The Remington trigger is an especially problem-prone area and I've seen one 700 bolt handle torn off the bolt body by human hands.

Sniping, although fairly dirty and uncomfortable when done correctly, is not what I'd call extreme conditions. When (not IF, but WHEN) the M40 fails, the sniper always has his spotter to back him up. Not true when in the shining mountains of BC amongst a herd of bears. I've gotta go with Dewey on this one, his 9.3x62 Mauser sounds like the ideal choice to me. Except I'd choose 30-06 from the availability standpoint.

And the USMC buys and uses what they're told, just like almost all armed forces driven by budgets. In this case they're buying a good medium-range accuracy platform but not one I'd trust MY life to.

For some mighty interesting reading, consult the Death From Afar book series written by the Chandler brothers. It tells most of the story of Marine Corps sniping from the Chandlers' relatively narrow viewpoint and has some good data on the M40's development and capabilities. There are 5 books in the series, and you can actually see the increase in actual sniping knowledge shown by the authors as the series progresses and they learn more & more about real sniping.

As already said, sniping isn't a good comparison.
Regards, Joe

Really sniping is not a good comparison...adverse field conditions, 100% reliability, cold bore accuracy...

Hmmm...trying to find the lack of comparison here...

Oh I am sure the USMC said well the Rem 700 is ok if the conditions are only mildly adverse...but if the conditions get really adverse, we will just tell the scout/sniper teams to come home.

The mauser is 100% more reliable...based on what data?

Do you really think the military and every LE agency would still use the 700 if it wasn't reliable...

And excuse me but your comments about the USMC buying what it was told in the M40 procurement is just incorrect.

Mike,

Do you really think the USMC would have been allowed to pick a "true" Mauser action if they wanted one? They could have contracted with GMA, Satterlee, or another. I don't know, but I bet such a contract would have been cost prohibitive, even for the Corps.

the m40 is NOT cheap to produce

the model 700 is amazingly robust ..
and its not a CRF ..

big deal!


most 50 sporting rifles are also push feeds .. even if single shots...

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
Mike,

Do you really think the USMC would have been allowed to pick a "true" Mauser action if they wanted one? Do you think they could have contracted with GMA or Satterlee? I don't know, but I bet such a contract would have been cost prohibitive, even for the Corps.

yes-- they could pick anything they wanted .. remember, US troops had berettas

Craigster,

Not sure what you mean buy a "true mauser". But "true mauser" is not the question here in my mind.

The question is very reliable "go to gun"

I think they could have selected any action they wanted mauser, winchester, rem 700 or whatever. So yes. Mostly because were are not talking a hi volume here. It is not as if they are buying 200,000 700s. They are buying what maybe a 1000 if that.

Question in reply...

If the Rem 700 was unreliable...do you think they would still be using it today.

I don't see the 700 as being unreliable. I do however see the 98 being less "breakable". I spent a few years in the Corps and know a bit about Marines being able to break ball bearings in a rubber room.

If you think the Corps had a choice you should read the Chandler books, they'll show a different story as told by some of the personnel who actually had a hand in the development. Once the original mid-'60s 700s were purchased along with their Redfield rangefinding scopes, the die was cast and the precedent (ALWAYS paramount in The Military Mind) was set.

700s aren't unreliable but they're CERTAINLY not as trouble-free as the Mauser, not even close. I seriously doubt that you can find any professional civilian smith with any serious experience who will claim differently.

There's a reason why most of the aftermarket 700 clones are sold to accuracy shooters/'snipers' and most of the aftermarket Mauser clones are sold to hunters. Two different games, two different needs.
Regards, Joe

I would choose a cartridge based off the x57 case. The guns that I have that feed the x57, such as the 257 Roberts, feed the best. I like the 308 or 30-06 cartridges, but the x57 is really the best feeder in my opinion.

I am not talking about "just accuracy shooters" I am talking about hunting and sniping and reliability...

Joe this seems like a simialr discussion where you don't read what is written and you don't follow the logic...so I will just cease replying

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
I don't folow your logic at all. The Rem 700 is the action used in the M40 and no modifications to the action are made. The only difference between an M40 and standard Rem 700 is the stock and the barrel.

If you take that standard 700 action and have a 2112 perform the following:

Modify the bolt, square and true up the bolt face and action, modify the base mounting to 8x40 and clip slot the receiver to lock into a heavy duty mount that unitizes and strengthen the entire unit, replace everything on the bottom end with heavy duty custom bottom metal w/ T-30 bolts, modify the follower and weld the mag box to the receiver, modify the recoil lug, rebuild the trigger, and a few other odds and ends. Do this and you’ll have a good head start to the basics of an accurate heavy rifle for long range precision shooting along the lines of an M40. It’s a far cry more from a factory 700 than just a stock and barrel. Without the modifications, a standard 700 action would never be reliable enough to make the grade for the military application. With all the mods, it would make a great heavy precision rifle, but it may not make the best wilderness sporting weight rifle for hunting game animals.

Using the military choice for a long range precision rifle, such as the M40, as an equivalent in comparison to a hard core unquestionably reliable sporting rifle is apples and oranges. Bottom line, the M40 is a precision rifle and it is handled as such, even when in harsh conditions. The trigger will still freeze up if you allow it to trap moisture. The added weight of all the modifications can make it a bear to handle and it is not a design meant to be easily broken down into its many small parts by the operator when in the field. It would be a poor choice for arming an entire battalion for use in combat as you'll end up with many problems being it is a precision rifle. It is not designed for combat in the trenches.

The 98 Mauser on the other hand makes for a better candidate for a hard core unquestionably reliable sporting rifle. It is simple and robust, and indeed is the type of weapon you can use to arm an entire battalion for use in combat as you'll likely have far fewer problems. The design is such that the operator can easily break down the rifle into its small parts as they are stout and few. The trigger is such that it is near impossible to trap moisture and freeze. It will not be the equal of a long range precision rifle in the league of an M40, but it does make for an unquestionably reliable sporting weight rifle for use in extreme wilderness hunting. It is indeed designed for combat in the trenches and requires very little modifications to the existing parts for use as a wilderness rifle. That is my reasoning as to why I do not consider a standard 700 or even a modified 700 to be the same level of ruggedness as a basic 98 Mauser. I cannot see how anyone could keep a straight face and say the basic 700 action is more rugged than the basic 98 Mauser action.

But, this is just my opinion based on the facts of the parts used that make up the different rifles, the track record of these rifles in the actual trenches of heated combat, and my own personal experiences. Based on this, what makes a good stationary long range precision rifle, does not necessarily make a good dynamic close range sporting rifle for use in extreme hunting. And of those that make good sporting rifles for hunting, when it comes to the most durable, the vetted rifle with the fewest and most robust parts will always have an edge over the vetted rifle with the greater number of less robust parts.

Best

Gary,

I was referring to the reliability of the basic action. I would hardly call changing out bottom metal a design change or any of the other modifications you described. I am not implying the M40 is a hunting rifle. Those modifications are for the very specific purpose of the sniping rifle. That doesn't change the fact that the M40 is the model remington 700 without any basic design changes.

Interestingly enough...they don't change out the extractor which is everyone's "complaint".

By the way, all the things you just described are similarly done if not to a greater extent to a Mauser to make it 100% reliable and accurate...change out bottom metal, fiddle with the follower, truing the receiver, re-shape the extractor claw, cut a half moon in the back of the action, replace the trigger.

Just basing my opinion on the facts...

Mike, I was actually going to recommmend the 700 as well as the 98. does the 98 have any edge in say warm weather with a stuck case situation, does the claw extractor give more force in pulling out the case?

Anyways, military rifles, by fact that they are designed for rough conditions I think will be more reliable, out of the box. even the model 70, the post 64 in particular without the anti-bind hump on the bolt (I think it was a female hunter that got hit by a buff due to the newer mod 70's possibililty of the bolt being lifted enough in batter to cause the safety to hang up?) has potential for more problems and require some work.

If you grabbed a military bolt action and didn't change anything major on it you'd be pretty well set. a 98 converted to 30-06, springfield 1903, 1917 enfield (not PATTERN 17 for that one f*&hole that always freaks when he reads P17 ) would all be sufficient for the job. I say 06 because of it probably being the easiest to find ammo in the whole world. hell, I've known guys that didn't even own one that had ammo for it.

The 700 would be out of the box less work than a military to turn into a sporter.

If I had a pic I'd show you my 308 Norma (which was an 06 when I found it....) which has about the minimum done to it to make it a great sporter. I wouldn't worry about it anywhere I could go. ammo though....

Red

Mike, it's quite obvious that you have no conception of the extensive mods done to the 700 to make it into an M40. I strongly suggest that you read the accounts written by the people responsible for the rifle instead of pontificating from such a shaky platform based upon ignorance.

You've made one erroneous statement after another and are only digging yourself deeper with every protest. Go talk to several professional smiths to see if ANY of them will agree that the 700 is more reliable, I don't think you'll find any.

BTW if you knew anything about Remingtons, you'd already know that the extractor doesn't NEED to be changed for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. The extractor problem occurs with the PPC cartridges under overload conditions and not with other more-normal cartridges.

I suggest you go do the necessary research and then come back to argue from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance.
Regards, Joe

JD,

As previously stated, in other posts...it is quite obvious you have no concept of what is commonly referred to as reading comprehension. I suggest you take the necessary courses before attempting to read and then comment on another person's writings because you clearly have not comprehended what I have written.

For example, you did not even comprehend the simple comment I made about the extractor.

Where in my post do I even imply that I think the extractor needs to be changed out for the 7.62 NATO case. My comment is quite the opposite.

My comment was that everyone "complains" about the extractor but the USMC (and every other security agency) see no need to change it. This being just one of the points supporting my position that the basic 700 action is extremely reliable.

We often think of africa as being harsh conditions (I wouldnt know as i haven't been there), but from what i have seen, cold and rain are usually worse on gun function than heat and dust unless there is a sand storm. I have experience that in the Corps, and sand can certainly be hard on guns, especially semi's (which we aren't discussing). In either case, there is no question that the 98 Mauser will make and excellent choice. Certainly other guns can do the job, and if you want a gun that was originally built as a sporter you might choose a win or Ruger and have them accurized etc. I have built a few sporters on millitary mausers and it is certainly a lot of work if you want something both nice looking and functional, but they are EXTREMELY robust and function well. They were designed to be used by barely trained peasants in winter with gloves, sitting in trenches for weeks on end etc. They just flat work and are hard to break. If you are very meticulous and care well for your guns, then another style could be used, the ultimate reliable would probably be the 98 though.

Mike
You are correct in that all the M40 sniper systems are built by USMC armors for their teams. It is the standard by which all other sniper systems should be measured.
The M24 is a Remington product available to the general public by special order if you wanted one. That can't be said for the M40.

I am of the opinion that there is no rifle more accurate then another when broken down to it's components. Meaning with the correct parts and time a M70, Rem 700, M98, M77 MKII could be built to shot sub MOA groups.
One rifle may be slightly more accurate then another but that is a mater of the tolerances of the sum of the parts and the load being shot being compatible to those parts.
Out of the box accuracy is another story and Remington holds that position if not they are a close second to Sako

the Beretta comment was just just a cheep shot. The joint chiefs decided the military needed a pistol that was not an orphaned cartridge but instead of lobbing NATO to get the 45 ACP NATO status they just rolled over an issued a new weapons contract that a lot of firearms manufactures were not allowed to participate in.
And FYI the Marines and Seals still carrie the 45 ACP Seals use it as a special purpose weapon were as the USMC still issue the 1911 even though the M9 is widely issued.

If those tests were run again today there are more then a few pistols that could easily take the place of the M9. The HK USP 45 would be my first choice followed by the Sig

As for the upmost in reliability I may have missed it but a break action single shot is damn reliable. as is a good lever action.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
By the way, all the things you just described are similarly done if not to a greater extent to a Mauser to make it 100% reliable and accurate...change out bottom metal, fiddle with the follower, truing the receiver, re-shape the extractor claw, cut a half moon in the back of the action, replace the trigger.

Just basing my opinion on the facts...

Change out bottom metal - strictly cosmetic in the case of the Mauser but considered necessary for the Remington

Fiddle with the follower - not necessary for the Mauser with any conservative cartridge sized for the action

True the receiver - ALWAYS done when rebarreling, regardless of the action

Reshape the extractor claw - not necessary for the Mauser if not a belted magnum case

Cut a half moon in the back of the action - where did THAT come from?

Replace the trigger - one of the WORST things to do to a 'totally reliable' rifle, completely unnecessary and actually very counterproductive. The trigger is the Remington's weakest point and has always caused problems while the Mauser's military 2-stage trigger is light-years safer & more reliable when compared to the Remington with its history of hangups and ADs.

I gotta go with GaryVA on this one, I don't see how anyone can keep a straight face when claiming the Remington is more reliable.
Regards, Joe