Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only 375 H&H in a Remington 700?

In my experience the most reliable is

1) Vertical stack push feed.

2) Push feed like the SMLE where the magazine completely controls everything.

CRF is very sensitive to case rim condition and case rim and extractor groove dimensions.

The most severe conditions I have been in for a test is chasing roos and pigs across paddocks and ditto for spotlighting. Have still never seen a bolt action that could match the 303 SMLE. I have used M98 and M17 under same conditions and no contest, SMLE in a cake walk.

Back in the late 1960s in Australia lots of M17 30/06s were rebarreled to 270. Whatuse to stuff them was the different 270 ammo, Euro such as Hirtenberg and Winchester. Either the extractor was too tight for one and too loose for the other which resulted in a waste of time.

I doubt if a CRF would work to well as an auto or semi auto because the bolt closes too quickly and a CRF has to get the case rim to slide at an angle under the extractor.

There is no doubt that a CRF action is much more case-sensitive.

After a friend told me about his experiments a few years ago, I once put a .257 Roberts round, a .30-40 Krag, and a .300 RUM round in the magazine of a Remington 700 that was chambered for the .30-06. All fed perfectly. (They also fed perfectly with the action held upside-down.)

On the other hand, I once bought a Mexican 98 Mauser rifle chambered for the 7x57--and it would not feed 7x57's. (Of course it did perfectly after I did some work on it, but still....)

Off the top of my head I can't think of any that aren't, but I would take even M16 extraction and ejection over Remington.

Some things in my post were positive. The military is gravitating quickly away from the 700. The MSR is not a 700, some units use AI AWMs, etc. Mostly I am critical of the mindset by which someone says that a 700 is reliable enough for war but not buffalo shooting. It's reliable enough for both, or neither, at least to my mind.

Let's see the military is migrating away from the 700s quickly, it's only been in service 40 years ... Snipers crawl through mud, sewers, sand. Their rifles have to work.

Chuck

I think marines are taught to clean the chambers.
Hunters not so much.
whelennut

Yeah, I know two basic kinds of hunters: Those who over-clean their rifles, and those who think running a patch of Hoppe's #9 through the bore after each hunting season is "cleaning."

However, I have known both types to ignore the chamber, and many never lube the locking lugs.

Oregon,

Geez...every time someone posts about a M700 in an "African" cartridge, the M700/Push Feed/Dangerous Game handwringing begins! Did the OP even mention what he was going to hunt with it? After shooting various M700's for 30 years, and a round count well into 5 digits, I've had exactly one "failure". That being an extractor that finally wore out on a M721 that's had who knows how many rounds through it. I think most M700 "failures" can be attributed to inattentive owners.

Back to the OP. Yes, I've owned a M700 .375 H&H. A Safari KS. It was a fine rifle. Accurate and reliable. It was my attempt to go stainless/synthetic, but I just can't warm up to them, and sold it. I'd have hunted anything with it.

What do you plan to hunt for?

Jeff

Remington has had far greater success than Winchester at selling bolt actions high power rifles.

Almost all gunwriters worship at the Model 70 alter.

Wonder how all these "extractor failure" stories got started?

When are we gonna start hearing about Savage extractor failures as their sales are also killing the so called current model 70?

Do you really think Remington would be stupid enough to make 700s in 375 H&H and 416 Remington if the extractors were failing in the field and PHs got to watch their clients stomped, gored, bitten and otherwise damaged?

How do I say BS in a nice way? You bring on anything you want. I'll whack em' with my 700 400 H&H with 400 Woodleighs, my hoard of 400 Barnes Xs or Barnes banded solids.

JB,

I was under the impression that a chamber should never be lubed with more than is left after putting a little CLP or other suitable product on a chamber brush and then trying to wipe it all back out with dry patch on a mop. If you are going to shoot it soon that is, and not just store it. I was told excessive lube was worse than too little in the chamber because it could interfer with the brass case making a good gas seal. After having the negative experience of a fine mist of oil spray all over my face with the first shot of my issue M16-A1 after a drill sargeant poured a big dollop of CLP on all the pulled bolts of my platoon's rifles at basic markmanship training at FT Sill I have kept my rifles pretty dry. Maybe too dry. What do you use, product wise and how do you apply it to your bolt action chambers up there in MT?

Scott

Methinks the slow M70 sales are mostly due to the 'new' MOA trigger than anything else..

True M70 fans (and I'm one) do not like it..

I think the M70's are selling slow because few people want to spend $800 on a wood stocked rifle when the wood has no figure and the bluing looks like a Browning A-bolt.

Thanks for all the replies guys; as for why I am interested in this rifle, well, its about $600 cheaper than what it would cost to put together a weather resistant 375 H&H on any other platform.

Truth be told, I like the 9.3x62 better, and my 375, when I get one, will get treated like my 30-06's: buy them, shoot them, put them away sighted in for factory ammo that way when I have a hunt that pops up unexpectedly I can just dust off the rifle and head out the door. No loading, no fiddling.

As for the the PF/CRF debate, it's always fun to read these threads and the responses were in line with any of the hundreds of threads on the subject that came up in the search I ran before posting this question here.

Personally, my favorite PF actions are Howa/Weatherby Vanguards; but I do need to own a Remington 700, the only Remington rifle I have now is a Model 30

Phasmid,

Luckily in Montana we don't have much of a problem with rust. Normally I just wipe out the chamber with a cotton patch or two around a .410 or 28-gauge bore brushm, right after I clean the bore. Then I oil the chamber with a light, non-Teflon oil, then wipe the oil out again with a cotton patch. (At the same time I wipe out the bolt face with a Q-Tip, to get out any gunk and brass particles--which may be why I have never had the extractor break on a 700 action.)

But I also hunt some other places where moisture is a problem, including now and then some place near an ocean. Then I dry, clean and oil/wipe the chamber more often, how often depending on the weather. This also applies to the outside of the bolt and the inside of the action.

Oregon45,
No matter what type you end up with, if you plan on hunting out of state or dangerous game it would be prudent to shoot about 100 rds. out of it to make sure it feeds, extracts, ejects, etc.
Even CRF rifles can have problems with extractor tension, rough feed ramps, bolt face rough, etc. Nothing made by man is perfect 100% of the time. (The reason for new car warranty.)
whelennut

I agree, and I usually do take a day and shoot 100-150 full power rounds through a new rifle just to make sure. Although I'll admit that I truncated that test to a mere 35 rounds the day I bought my 7lb 458 Win Mag!

Can't say as I blame you!

700s are neither junk or unreliable, if they were, they wouldn't sell as well as they have, but I don't think one can dispute they are cheaper to build than a 98 type action. If they were as reliable as 98 AND cheaper to boot, they would be the overwhelming choice of Professional Hunters. You'd be hard pressed to find many doing DG duty in Africa.

Brazed bolt handles, flimsy extractors and fail on fire safeties that don't even lock the bolt, all issues I find unacceptable in any rifle, let alone one used for dangerous game. Regarding the military use of PFs I find nothing in common with wartime applications and dangerous game hunting. I hunt mostly with PFs anyway, jut not Remingtons. Stiff actions, lock times are I suppose great attributes for target shooting but have little do with with hunting. My Model 70s, Weatherbys and Browning Safaris are accurate enough and in my view much better weapons for my use anyway. jorge

A fair statement relative to the M98, and in fact I bought a CZ 500 for a DGR rifle. I do have to say, and I'm sure it's a function of CZ's quality control, it took more work to make it feed than my M700 which all fed flawlessly out of the box. As far as the safety's, I've slid down 30 or 40 feet of slope in the black timber chasing elk more than once with a round in the chamber and the safety on, always maintaining muzzle control and never had an issue, doesn't mean there isn't one. My newest M700 is 25 years old, so I'm not sure if they had brazed rather than welded on bolt handles, but if so that's kind of appalling considering the minimal difference in cost on an assembly line. I shoot 150g Noslers at even 3000 fps out of my 22" M700 BDL, no signs of pressure (I have shot loads that have showed signs), using Rem cases, Norma MRP and Rem 9 1/2 M primers. It's been my standard deer, elk and bear load since the Mid 70s. Even hot loads (when I was younger doing load development and wasn't quite as careful) always extracted, but would show extraction marks on the case head.

Anyway highly respect your opinions, differences make the world interesting,

Regards,

Chuck

Their $660 here ... only $100 more than a hawkeye ... not too shabby.

Why? Just curious .. the few I've handled seem to be nice rifles ... Just b/c it different? Or is there a significant worry in regards to safety and/or operation?