Remington 700 Mountain Rifle SS 280 Remington

tecumseh

Handloader
Oct 20, 2010
837
1
Finally decided to upgrade from my Encore Prohunter in 280 Rem to a Remington Mountain Rifle SS same caliber, and have seen reviews about the barrel being pencil thin compared to standard barrels. Anyone know roughly how much thinner it is compared to a standard barrel? I know was thinned down some to shave off some weight.

I'm checking a couple shops getting prices for it right now.
 
I don't own one, but I looked at a 30-06 Mountain Rifle, and it almost looked too thin. After seeing nothing but a standard contour, it was a surprise. Obviously they have done the engineering to make sure it will pass proof load testing.

Are you concerned with the thin barrel or do you just want to make sure it is as light as you can get?
 
I don't know the measurement, but yes, it's much thinner, lighter than a standard Rem 700 barrel.

Buddy of mine has one in .270, and it's a good, lightweight hunting rifle. For me, it's too muzzle light, and I don't shoot it well. He's taken some nice bucks with it though.

It's a rifle I'd recommend you actually handle, before buying. Just enough different from a more traditional hunting rifle, that it might be something you really like, or not...

Guy
 
Guy Miner":1k9wpd4w said:
I don't know the measurement, but yes, it's much thinner, lighter than a standard Rem 700 barrel.

Buddy of mine has one in .270, and it's a good, lightweight hunting rifle. For me, it's too muzzle light, and I don't shoot it well. He's taken some nice bucks with it though.

It's a rifle I'd recommend you actually handle, before buying. Just enough different from a more traditional hunting rifle, that it might be something you really like, or not...

Guy

I was a littlevworried what the muzzle jump might be like given how light it is. Non of the shops around here have one in stock to look at, I looked at a 700 SPS camo with a matte finish in 7mm Mag, I may go that route instead. I'd hate to drop good money on a rifle unseen only to find out I'm not gonna be happy with it!
 
They are thinner than standard barrels- advertised as a "lightweight contour", but that's no reason to be scared of it.

I've got a couple of rifles with barrels that seem impossibly thin... and they shoot lights out if you take your time and don't let the barrel heat up. I've shot a couple Mountain Rifles and they both performed really well with the factory loads I had available.

In the lightweight game, the mountain rifle is still pretty heavy compared to newer stuff like a Kimber Ascent but I think they're pretty dang nice.
 
I've had several of the blued models...280, 270, 30-06. Almost always they "preferred" one bullet weight over any other, which is very common for thin barrels. Yes, they can be hard to hold still for very long shots, but those kind of shots were what the "Prone" position was designed for, ha. I like to Still Hunt, so they worked for me, never shot past 250yds. I'm tall, and 22" feels pretty short to me, but they are sweet rifles. I found that the Mod 700 Classic fit me better and handled better than any Remington made...but I am crowding 64 now and have a lot of opportunities to play with different models through the years.
How do you see yourself hunting with this rifle? if longer shots are common, or out on the windy prairies, or sitting in a box stand over beanfields, a heavier, sporter Weight ( like the CDL) will be more useful. If you walk around a lot or climb a lot, the Mountain Rifle is worth it. Just my take...
 
A long time ago I owned a 280 Mountain Rifle in the wood stock. I looked high and low, finally finding one at a gun show and bought it thinking it was going to be exactly what I had been wanting. The thin barrel warmed up VERY fast and the accuracy, while acceptable, wasn't what I would call tack driving if that is important to you. Overall the rifle's balance didn't grow on me as I hoped it would and I ended up trading it away. I have always thought much of the balance deficit was related to the light barrel.

For my money, if I were looking for a lightweight rifle, I would buy a Tikka. I realize it doesn't come in 280 but in my hands the Tikka's are a much better "fit".

Ron
 
I owned the wood/blued version of this same rifle and had the same experience as rjm158 above. With its preferred load , it was a MOA rifle, but after 3 quick shots, rounds 4 and 5 would open up the groups.

The light barrel did make it's muzzle jump a little more and was more difficult to hold steady off hand, but I normally use or find a rest for shots over 100 yards, so not a huge deal. For me, it is a great rifle to pack in steep terrain as it was intended for, but the right handed bolt let me part with it.

Overall, I do prefer the heavier barrel on my hunting rifles, so I put together a 280 on a left handed 700 XCR action with a #3 fluted so 24" barrel from the limited stainless fluted model, in the XCR stock. I also picked up a LSS stock, and have both pillar and glass bedded to this barrelled action with no change in poi when changing between stocks dependent upon weather conditions I'll be hunting in. It's a 1/2 MOA rifle with 140 gr AB factory loads and has accounted for a young bull elk so far.
 
I looked at a 700 mountain rifle similar to the one i was interested in and felt it was way too light for my liking and wasn't crazy about the thin barrel too. I think I'll stick with my encore for now, I know what I have in it, plus it's a tack driver with Nosler and Barnes bullets.

I did look at a 700 SPS stainless steel in 7mm-08 that looked pretty nice. May go that route instead.
 
My dad had one before he passed away and used it primarily on deer. It was great to carry, made well and shot well. I gifted it to my SIL when dad passed and it has since killed a couple of elk and a few deer. He has not had any complaints that I am aware of.
 
I had a wood stocked 700 MTN rifle in .280 Remington for a long time. It shot really well, but you need to shoot slowly so the barrel does not warm up. I was getting solid 3/4" groups with 140 gr. Partitions in mine. Used it to take my largest 6x6 bull with at 250 yards. As expected because of the light weight it kicks a bit more than a standard rifle with a bit heavier barrel, but it wasn't bad. I ended up selling it because at the time I could use a few $$$, and I wanted to get another .280 Remington, only this time I wanted to get one with a 24" barrel and I was thinking Ruger or Winchester so I would get the good old Mauser action with controlled round feed. I ended up having a Winchester Model 70 custom built to chamber the 280 AI!

I don't think you will be disappointed in the rifle. Maybe they would let you take it out and shoot it a couple times. \
David
 
tecumseh":23j9ozjc said:
I looked at a 700 mountain rifle similar to the one i was interested in and felt it was way too light for my liking and wasn't crazy about the thin barrel too. I think I'll stick with my encore for now, I know what I have in it, plus it's a tack driver with Nosler and Barnes bullets.

I did look at a 700 SPS stainless steel in 7mm-08 that looked pretty nice. May go that route instead.

If you want a small compact package, see if you can find an SS Model 7. I have one in 223 and it is nicely balanced, but very light.
 
5shot":1ulbe8ky said:
tecumseh":1ulbe8ky said:
I looked at a 700 mountain rifle similar to the one i was interested in and felt it was way too light for my liking and wasn't crazy about the thin barrel too. I think I'll stick with my encore for now, I know what I have in it, plus it's a tack driver with Nosler and Barnes bullets.

I did look at a 700 SPS stainless steel in 7mm-08 that looked pretty nice. May go that route instead.

If you want a small compact package, see if you can find an SS Model 7. I have one in 223 and it is nicely balanced, but very light.

I wasn't really looking for something compact or light, I was looking to upgrade in that caliber in a bolt action, I was looking at this model given to limited choices in this caliber.
 
Maybe a M70 if something like that would suit you. There's new ones and some Classics.
 
Back
Top