Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion > Which Factory Rifle Action is "Best"?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-05-2010, 01:58 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 459
Liked 9 Times on 5 Posts

Default

DILLENGER you sure do know how to stir the pot. To tell people that dont want to know, some of the shortcomings of their favorite guns is either real brave or real ??? I am a student of firearm design as well, and like any real student knows the "IN DEPTH" problems with the 700 design. A few point to add, the trigger group is a terrible design for hunting. It is an enclosed design that can trap moisture or debris. I have had one freeze up twice and a friend once. All freeze up cost us game. As to the 700's bottom metal being aliminum I dont think so. I believe it to be potmetal. I have seen more than one that has broken when dropped. Aliminum bents it doesnt break. The older Winchesters had milled steel bottom metal though the newer ones have varying materials in them. I agree that the "washer" type recoil lug is the cheapest solution they could come up with. Why the round bottomed washer lugged 700 shoots so well is a puzzle to me. I would rather have a model 70 or 98 mauser that is only capable of 2" accuracy to a rifle capable of 1/2" groups built of plastic, stamped tin and potmetal castings. As far as the military choosing the 700 for a sniper rifle should read the actual findings. In Vietnam when the military determined they needed a sniper rifle they went to Winchester to built one. Winchester refussed, Remington offered. The military refused Remington and again asked Winchester who again turned the down. So with no other options the Remington was grudgingly accepted. After 2 years over half of the 700's were inoperable. You need to remember that the sniper fires very few rounds. Anyhow these are just a few points that should draw some fire away from you.

__________________
30-30remchester is offline  
big shrek Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 09:16 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 202
Liked 23 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

Hmmm. A very interesting discussion. My take away from all the information posted is this:

From a qualified gunsmiths perspective, I can understand how differing designs can be judged "inferior to" or "superior than"........

From an engineering perspective, I can also understand the differences in radial geometry vs. planar (round vs. flat) and how each concept deals with dynamic and static stress on a physical basis. Thus, leading to opinions as to which concept is superior or inferior in a rifle action.

From a commercial perspective, I can draw a conclusion. The Remington action is far superior to any other on the planet.

Best design? - no
Most durable? - no
Best dimensional integrity? - no
Best material chemistry? - no

BUT.......

The 700 hits the efficiency of manufacture/profitability target (pardon the pun) and satisfies 99% of the customer base expectations and needs.

The simple fact is, that in hunting and tactical applications, and I mean user applications, Remington is the most popular and mass produced rifle. Why?, The 700 hits the price point and satisfies 99% of the customer expectations and needs. Savage is chasing thier tail, moving up fast, and more power to them.

Dillinger isn't wrong. He clearly is making an overt attempt to be data driven and not product biased. He is adept and articulates his technical points with data. However, the premise his information has been/is misunderstood. Remington is better, not because they are technically superior, but because the 700 design meets the needs of the masses. The anal retentive obsessive compulsive disorder burdened buyers (no offense benchrest shooters!) are too few to make the technically superior designs as successful.

In an analogy from the automotive world - Hyundai currently understands this concept. Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda and Datsun used to understand it. In the old days, Chevy, Ford and Dodge understood it.

Savage is starting to understand it. The barrel nut is a stroke of genius IMHO.
Just my take guys

Peace,

Steve

__________________

Last edited by crockett007; 09-16-2010 at 09:19 PM.
crockett007 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2010, 12:49 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 118
Liked 19 Times on 12 Posts

Default

The Remington 700 became successful for a number of reasons, all starting with it's predecessors, the 721, 722, and 725. First, they were indeed less expensive than the only other really popular rifle of the time, the Winchester Model 70. Second, they worked remarkably well and proved to be very accurate. Third, they offered the first fully adjustable trigger design on an American sporting rifle (the Winchester trigger, while adjustable, wasn't fully so). Fourth, the designer, Mike Walker, was active in competition shooting (mostly BR) and did a lot to promote the Remington action as being superior for that purpose than it's major competition. That it really was better was just icing on the cake. Later on, Jim Stekl continued in this vein and was active, as well as successful, in Benchrest competition.
In spite of the success of the Remington 722, 721, and 725 (the deluxe model), when it came to big game hunting, many might hunt with a Remington but they wanted a Winchester! At least until 1964.
Today, Remington is still getting by on their past glory to a large extent but they are doing so because they are still a good design. This is evidenced by the fact that so many of the custom actions are essentially Remingtons with better quality control.
The flat vs round debate will continue forever. While the round receiver is indeed held against torque by friction and adequately so, the flat receiver is positively located by it's shape rather than by the torque of the screws. Nonetheless, the round receiver seems easier to bed correctly.
The separate recoil lug is offensive to some but it flat works. The trigger design was flawed but it was still the nicest trigger to pull that was available.
Winchester abdicated their spot in the marketplace in 1964 and tried to take a piece of Remington's share instead. It didn't work for them. The model 70 of 1964 mostly proved that it's hard to go backward and be successful. Not that the 1964 Model 70 was a complete trukey but it was perceived to be so and didn't miss the mark by much!
Ruger's first bolt action, the 77, was, and is, a very good design. The stock design was somewhat reminiscent of the Model 70 but was much nicer. There were aspects of the design which were very well thought out and unique in the marketplace. The trigger was just short of being very good and the tang safety was an appreciated feature. The spring loaded bolt stop was another clever piece of design work. The boltstop made no attemp to be unobtrusive. Instead, it stood right out there like that on a Mauser. On top of that, the spring cushion prevented battering of the left locking lug in rapidfire use. The angled guard screw was another truly unique feature which differentiated the Ruger from everyone else and, on top of that, it really worked.
Contrary to what many may think, the Savage has been around for a long time having been introduced in 1958. The extractor was changed in the seventies but, apart from that, it is essentially the same rifle. The Savage is a very safe and strong design and was designed from the outset to be inexpensive to manufacture. They were the first of the major companies to offer a true left handed action. Savage has sat in third place, fourth place with the advent of the Ruger 77, since it's inception and is now making great progress by stepping into the niche left open by Remington when they ceased to be interested in the competition shooting scene. Savage has benefitted by the increased interest in long range precision shooting. The Savage rifle have always shot well and people just started to realize it.
I have always felt that if you wanted a rugged action for a pure hunting rifle, you wanted a Mauser.
If you wanted a hunting and target rifle with class, you wanted a Model 70 (preferably a pre-64).
If you wanted a pure accuracy rifle for varmints or target use, you wanted a Remington.
If you wanted a modern, rugged, no-frills hunter, you wanted a Ruger.
If you just aren't particular, you want a Savage!
Among my long range target rifles, I have Winchesters (4), a Remington, a Savage, a Ruger an Enfield, and a Springfield. For short range BR I have a Remington and a custom (Hall). For hunting, I have Mausers, Winchesters, and Enfields. I've been building these things for over 30 years and shooting them for a lot longer than that. If pinned down and asked which factory action was absolutely the "best", I would still be unable to answer except with the qualifiers noted above. GD

__________________
greydog is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 05:06 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: pueblo,colorado
Posts: 5
Default rem700

Quote:
Originally Posted by greydog View Post
The Remington 700 became successful for a number of reasons, all starting with it's predecessors, the 721, 722, and 725. First, they were indeed less expensive than the only other really popular rifle of the time, the Winchester Model 70. Second, they worked remarkably well and proved to be very accurate. Third, they offered the first fully adjustable trigger design on an American sporting rifle (the Winchester trigger, while adjustable, wasn't fully so). Fourth, the designer, Mike Walker, was active in competition shooting (mostly BR) and did a lot to promote the Remington action as being superior for that purpose than it's major competition. That it really was better was just icing on the cake. Later on, Jim Stekl continued in this vein and was active, as well as successful, in Benchrest competition.
In spite of the success of the Remington 722, 721, and 725 (the deluxe model), when it came to big game hunting, many might hunt with a Remington but they wanted a Winchester! At least until 1964.
Today, Remington is still getting by on their past glory to a large extent but they are doing so because they are still a good design. This is evidenced by the fact that so many of the custom actions are essentially Remingtons with better quality control.
The flat vs round debate will continue forever. While the round receiver is indeed held against torque by friction and adequately so, the flat receiver is positively located by it's shape rather than by the torque of the screws. Nonetheless, the round receiver seems easier to bed correctly.
The separate recoil lug is offensive to some but it flat works. The trigger design was flawed but it was still the nicest trigger to pull that was available.
Winchester abdicated their spot in the marketplace in 1964 and tried to take a piece of Remington's share instead. It didn't work for them. The model 70 of 1964 mostly proved that it's hard to go backward and be successful. Not that the 1964 Model 70 was a complete trukey but it was perceived to be so and didn't miss the mark by much!
Ruger's first bolt action, the 77, was, and is, a very good design. The stock design was somewhat reminiscent of the Model 70 but was much nicer. There were aspects of the design which were very well thought out and unique in the marketplace. The trigger was just short of being very good and the tang safety was an appreciated feature. The spring loaded bolt stop was another clever piece of design work. The boltstop made no attemp to be unobtrusive. Instead, it stood right out there like that on a Mauser. On top of that, the spring cushion prevented battering of the left locking lug in rapidfire use. The angled guard screw was another truly unique feature which differentiated the Ruger from everyone else and, on top of that, it really worked.
Contrary to what many may think, the Savage has been around for a long time having been introduced in 1958. The extractor was changed in the seventies but, apart from that, it is essentially the same rifle. The Savage is a very safe and strong design and was designed from the outset to be inexpensive to manufacture. They were the first of the major companies to offer a true left handed action. Savage has sat in third place, fourth place with the advent of the Ruger 77, since it's inception and is now making great progress by stepping into the niche left open by Remington when they ceased to be interested in the competition shooting scene. Savage has benefitted by the increased interest in long range precision shooting. The Savage rifle have always shot well and people just started to realize it.
I have always felt that if you wanted a rugged action for a pure hunting rifle, you wanted a Mauser.
If you wanted a hunting and target rifle with class, you wanted a Model 70 (preferably a pre-64).
If you wanted a pure accuracy rifle for varmints or target use, you wanted a Remington.
If you wanted a modern, rugged, no-frills hunter, you wanted a Ruger.
If you just aren't particular, you want a Savage!
Among my long range target rifles, I have Winchesters (4), a Remington, a Savage, a Ruger an Enfield, and a Springfield. For short range BR I have a Remington and a custom (Hall). For hunting, I have Mausers, Winchesters, and Enfields. I've been building these things for over 30 years and shooting them for a lot longer than that. If pinned down and asked which factory action was absolutely the "best", I would still be unable to answer except with the qualifiers noted above. GD
Everyone has to remember that the remington 700 was designed to be the least expensive and easiest to mass produce. It was never designed to be the most accurate of the remington designs it just happened. If any of you have ever done any machining on a lathe you know that it is easier to machine a cylinder than a half round half flat design. Chuck it up, center it and spin it. Like all rifles with a little patience and some experience "most" any rifle can be accurate. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion. The most important thing is to be safe and have fun.
__________________
smithy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 01:51 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 459
Liked 9 Times on 5 Posts

Default

SMITTY, you have stated a fact very few people have stumbled upon. All the 700 series were and are designed to be the least expensive to produce with the least skilled labor. During WWII Remington sent questionaries to soldiers asking them what they would like in their new guns when returning home from the service. The 2 factors that stood out was they wanted cheaper and lighter. Anytime you offer anything for less money you get less quality. Also Remington and others realised we were becoming a "throwaway" society. No longer did you buy a product to last multiple lifetimes. Simply built it cheaper and when it breaks throw it away and buy another. It was often said, but I cant prove it, that there was more machining operations in the making of a Krag rear sight than there is in the manufacture of most new guns. Pre war Remingtons are of excellent quality, however after the war you start witnessing alot of plastic, stamped tin parts, potmetal castings for the trigger housings and designs that allowed minamal hands on construction. But dont just blame Remington. Winchester lasted till 1963, but they actually started cheapening up their guns by 1952. Smith & Wesson has followed this lead starting a few years ago. Just about every manufacter has since went to such cost cutting and labor saving efforts. Sad to say the days of hand machined guns made from billets of steel and walnut stocks are a thing only high dollar custom makes are providing. If anyone doubts these statement then you can post a pic of the bent tin magazine box of any 700 action and I will post a pic of the magazine box of my pre war Remington 30 Express. Then all doubts will be erased. All this is kind of illrelevent as very few people actually USE their guns much anymore. Gone are the days of a gun being used everyday, in every weather condition, with little care. The oldtime outdoors men of the old west and of late the far north are the few that knew that any failure meant death. The modern guns are good enough for the 3 times a year user that goes to the range in padded cases and then sat in a tree stand.

__________________
30-30remchester is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010, 08:25 PM   #26
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 5,704
Liked 1660 Times on 905 Posts
Likes Given: 529

Default

I have owned Remingtons, Winchesters, Rugers, Mausers, a custom Eddystone, a NM 03A3 and others. All would hold 1" groups or better. My CZ in 223 will hold 1/2" groups with 45 gr factory. It soes not like 55 gr and spreads to 1" (1 in 12 twist). My wifes Winchester 670 heavy bbl carbine in 243 would punch 1 hole groups with handloads and under 1" with factory. My current rifle is a Savage 10 Precision Carbine in 308 with Accutrigger, Accustock and a 20" heavy bbl. I have not shot it enough to find its absolute accuracy point but it will definately shoot 1/2" with target loads.
Savage has come up with some very interesting inovations and is putting out some very accurate rifles. The Accustock beds the action and bbl in an aluminum frame. They came up with this by taking slow motion pictures of the stock under recoil. Amazing results.
You can talk about all the custom gun enhancements but in my experience, a short heavy bbl does most of the job. Tuning the ammo for the short bbl and a good stock does the rest. Then it is up to the shooter.

__________________
JTJ is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010, 10:09 PM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jpattersonnh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South central,NH
Posts: 4,899
Liked 665 Times on 456 Posts
Likes Given: 671

Default

There are a few Howa fans here. I'm one. I have an M&P heavy barrel .308. I've had it for many years. I pure shooter! I bet it would take your eye out at 300 yards.

A Savage is ok, but carries like a 2x4.

__________________

Freedom is not free. The best of us always leave too soon.

jpattersonnh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2010, 09:23 AM   #28
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TXnorton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Katy,Texas
Posts: 1,376
Default

I vote for the old school Mauser bolt action.

__________________

TXnorton

TXnorton is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2010, 03:58 AM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 459
Liked 9 Times on 5 Posts

Default

TXNORTON, you speak volumes with your few words. Intense and indepth study of rifle design leaves no doubt that the 98 mauser is the finest military design and that the pre -64 Winchesters lead the pack in civilian action designs.

__________________
30-30remchester is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2010, 07:42 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6
Default

"The 700 hits the efficiency of manufacture/profitability target (pardon the pun) and satisfies 99% of the customer base expectations and needs"

Great point.

Poeple like familiar, they are like cattle. Probably same reason why the 30/06 and tract homes are so poular. I however like variety, wby, win, rem, and a couple of custom mauser's.

__________________
lonniew09 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
"Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?" cnorman18 The Club House 26 04-17-2012 09:57 PM
Smith & Wesson Rifle--Model "C" in 308 Win. cyclemedic General Rifle Discussion 1 11-08-2011 12:10 AM
Galil "Golani" 5.56X45 rifle ARnoob AR-15 Discussion 8 05-16-2010 08:31 PM
Rem 870 "factory" folding stock AKCoastie89 General Shotgun Discussion 3 03-21-2009 02:52 AM
Witloe Remington 1858 New Model Army "Lee" & "Grant" bprevolver Blackpowder & Musket 0 09-25-2008 11:11 PM



Newest Threads