Remington rifles: What is your opinion of 700 and Mod 7

[YoteSmoker]

Big Squeeze- I wanted to use my 308 M7 for combined deer and elk season two seasons ago. I tried two different bullets in load development using the 165 AccuBond and the no longer made xlc blue coated barnes bullets. Neither would shoot much over 2400 FPS over the chrony with a max load of 48 grains of Varget. (Nosler 5th Ed. maximum).

My 25 5/8" barrelled sporterized mauser spits a 168 matchking out around 2650 FPS with IMR 4064 or a 155 Palma with 44.6 grains of varget (mid range load) around 2750 FPS.

Half my decisision to part with my M7 was I already had a 308 and a 30-06.

I believe velocity/muzzle blast issues is the reason remington's newer versions come in 20" standard short action calibers and 22" short magnums.

 

[Big Squeeze]

Big Squeeze- I wanted to use my 308 M7 for combined deer and elk season two seasons ago. I tried two different bullets in load development using the 165 AccuBond and the no longer made xlc blue coated barnes bullets. Neither would shoot much over 2400 FPS over the chrony with a max load of 48 grains of Varget. (Nosler 5th Ed. maximum).

My 25 5/8" barrelled sporterized mauser spits a 168 matchking out around 2650 FPS with IMR 4064 or a 155 Palma with 44.6 grains of varget (mid range load) around 2750 FPS.

Half my decisision to part with my M7 was I already had a 308 and a 30-06.

I believe velocity/muzzle blast issues is the reason remington's newer versions come in 20" standard short action calibers and 22" short magnums.

........................................................Sorry to read of your disappointing velocity readings from your old .308! But since you already had another .308 & a 30-06 that probably made your decision easier to deal with!..............I must be the odd ball because I`m not concerned with muzzle blast from my Ruger Frontier shorty! I`m more concerned with reloading for accuracy and velocity and in that process bring them together for great hunting loads!......I must be very lucky to have a faster barrel than usual in my 16.5" barreled 300 WSM Frontier!......Chrono`d so far are a 150gr. @ 3155 fps........ a 180gr @ 2994 fps..........and a 200gr. A/B @ 2828 fps., which is roughly only a 4% loss when compared with the max. loads for the 24" 300 WSM`s. The above loads were carefully worked up to maximums. That is why I was little surprised at the story behind your .308 and was somewhat curious...........

 

[YoteSmoker]

Big Squeeze, I am very surprised at the speeds you are getting. Your 180 grain load is going around the speed of a 150 in my 30-06 with 22" barrel. Quite impressive!

 

[Big Squeeze]

Yote....................There is an article at "shootingtimes.com" under "long guns" entitled "Short Answer about Scout Rifles" in which Dick Metcalf discusses the velocity loss for the 16.5" barrel when comparing that to the 24" barrel....................Using factory ammo in his 7mm/08 test Frontier, he found a chronographed difference of 4.5% between the 16.5" barrel vs. the 24" tube. So! Why not experiment with some reloads?..................The following loads I took right from the reloaders nest website under the "rifles" and "300 WSM" section!.......................For the 150 gr., see load ID #8804. That load shows a velocity of 3352 fps. using 67 gr. IMR 4350 with a Sierra SPBT. 3352 fps. less 4.5% is 3201 fps. I achieved an average of 3155 fps. duplicating that load or about a 6% loss......................For the 180 gr., see load ID# 11350. The velocity shows 3205 fps. using 65.5 gr. of IMR 4350 with the Hornady SST. 3205 less 4.5% is 3060 fps. My results averaged 2994 fps. or about a 6.5% loss. I have a little more room to play with pressure on this one! 3000 fps. will not be a problem!............................For the 200 gr., see load ID #10476. The velocity there shows 2930 fps. using 68 gr. of Rel#19 with the AccuBond. 2930 fps. less 4.5% is 2798 fps. The max. in my rifle is 69 gr. which I chrono`d at an average 2828 fps. I chrono`d the 68 gr. load, which averaged 2796 fps., which is right at the 4.5% loss from the 2930 fps.........................................My results fall right in line with a velocity loss of 15 to 30 fps. for every inch of shorter barrel length. Not the 50 fps. or better that many others think! That article is why I bought the Ruger Frontier! My results for the most part, are in-line with Metcalf`s findings..........................
The above loads all achieved the accuracy of 1.20" or less at 100 yards for 3 shot groups.......................I wanted a compact, light weight, easy to handle and more manuverable powerhouse that will play right along with the longer barreled big boys. I have it!......... When I remove my conventional scope and mount my scout scope, the Frontier with its shorter LOP and 35.5" in OAL, then becomes quite possibly, the fastest to target acquisition bolt action rifle out there and suitable for any N/A big game as well...........Too bad Ruger no longer chambers the 300 WSM in their Frontiers!

 

[GilaJorge]

The CDL is the only gun worth anything...but even then much prefer the Ruger for strength and accuracy right out of the box followed by Kimber and Wichester when they get back in business....can't beat a mauser and longer barrels...looked at a CDL in 264 WinMag recently but went with a Ruger Hawkeye 7mmRemMag and rebarrel it to 264 via PacNor...best of all worlds...certainly better than a darn Remington with indiffernt quality.

 

[Jeff Olsen]

I really like them. My Model 7 is my main blacktail rifle, and I own 3 Model 700's.

They need to be careful on price, though. As they are getting so much more expensive, it causes the eye to wander! I bought a Kimber Montana that is a really great rifle...

-jeff

 

[Guest]

I agree on the price issue. I think Remington is trying to move themselves up to the next level of the gun world in terms of prestige and pricing, and I think they're going to find it is a bad choice. Remington makes a great rifle. So does Browning, but their market share is lower due to cost. Remington will lose share to Ruger, Savage, Weatherby's Vanguard, and Howa as they make this move. It wouldn't be so bad except that those three companies are making significant improvements in quality and features, while Remington is not making similar strides. Consider that a nice Ruger is sitting at about $600 or so, where an SPS from Remington is sitting at $500. A Vanguard synthetic ($399 at a local gunshop) is as accurate, and better finished, right out of the box, and costs $100 less than the SPS. If you want to spend $600 on a rifle, the Ruger Hawkeye and Vanguard Sporter offer nice wood and good bluing (though Ruger's matte finish is a little too matte for me), and you can get a stainless Sub-MOA from Weatherby for around $800, where a similar rifle from Remington would be $1000, and have no accuracy guarantee. Remington is riding the name a bit (as I think Leupold has been for a few years, but that's another story), and I'm afraid it's going to be a problem in the future.

 

[SakoSteve270wsm]

Remington 700's remind me of Jeeps,nothing fancy tough reliable and they get the job done.Plus everyone and their dog make parts for them.The only thing I have against them is the finish they put on the entry level rifles is BAD.

 

[bullet]

Remington has in some ways started to listen. They have slowed down their production process to have better control over quality and this is beginning to show up in some models such as the 700 CDL's and Mod 7 CDL's which are a little better on fit and finish than just a few years ago. Remington can not afford to price themselves out of the market that they fit in and I hope they will see the light because we need our gun manufactures to stay relevant so many new and would be shooters and hunters can get on board and can afford to do so.