Home Forums Hunting & Shooting The Lefty Forum Lefty 243 CDL

Mine's a dandy, but I didn't pay this much for it. Still, I highly recommend this rifle if anyone has money burnin' a hole in their pocket.

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Remington-Model-700-CDL-243-Left-Hand.cfm?gun_id=100349996

New one at the local Walmart for sell right now 849.00 or close to that price

I don't mean this to sound mean, but IMHO they just aren't worth the asking price anymore.

Remington Model 700's are still nice rifles but if anyone recalls part of their design criteria - round receiver and so forth - was to make them cheaply.

When they went over $800 Remington lost me for probably forever and Ruger gained a loyal follower. I've bought four LH Ruger Model 77's in the last year alone for right at or under $600 and will stack them against my Remingtons for accuracy all day long (can't believe I just used that phrase! ).

Seriously, new Winchesters that I see on rack are in the $700 range - I know they aren't left handed but just as a comparison; LH Rugers retail for somewhere in the $600's with occasional deals on gunbroker down in the $550-$575 region. Plus Ruger caters to a good spectrum of "what'cha need in a left hander" - .204, .223 (with a fast twist), .22-250, .243, .25-06, .270, 7mm-08, .308, .30-06, 7mm Mag, .300 Mag, .375 Ruger and their two little orphan RCM children as well. And add stainless steel offerings as gravy.

Remington just dropped their .223 and .243 from the CDL line and are back to the old tired foursome - .270, .30-06, 7mm and .300 Mag - and the latter is in their overpowered blaster .300 RUM.

If a good deal on a used LH M700 comes along, particularly a short action, I'd certainly look hard since they are still very good shooters, but no way will I pay top dollar for something from Remington when comparable or better quality and accuracy can be had elsewhere for less.


Sorry, this started out as a short comment but I got rolling. Remington used to be top of the line in my mind and first in my pocketbook but they have shot themselves in the foot. Hello, Ruger.

You make some valid points, but keep in mind that there are reasons Ruger undercuts Remington, Winchester, etc. in price: Ruger triggers are not readily adjustable; Ruger barrels have not always been consistently good; the receivers are investment-cast, not machined out of bar stock or forged; you're tied into the Ruger scope mount system, which doesn't suit every application.

The 77 stock and FP/TG assembly is far better than anything Remington uses, but the action isn't as slick (the SS bolt doesn't help), nor is the safety, IMO (although the design is better).

The two LH 77's I had 15 years ago didn't shoot until I replaced the factory barrels with Shilens. I also had to have the 7 pound triggers worked on by a 'smith. OTOH, the three 700's I've bought new since then have all shot superbly right out of the box, and I could adjust triggers myself in about five minutes. Does all this mean the Remingtons are worth $150-200 more than the Ruger? Depends.

I like my CDL, but I got mine used and after it had been worked on for the action, trigger, and bedding. It's slicker than any of my Mark V's. My 3 Ruger Hawkeye rifles are all ss/lam, and the smoothness of the bolt throw is inconsistent between each. I don't consider them any less well made, and @ 550-700 they are a helluva lot better value than the CDL for sale that I linked and waaaaay better value than a $1600 Weatherby. Still, I take my CDL 243 before any of the others each year, and the Weatherby's....well,I just can't control myself.

Non-issue. And then there's Remington's X-Mark trigger. That's been a winner.

I'm calling bullshit right there. This business about "bad" Ruger barrels has officially crossed into the realm of internet HORSESHIT. The information that keeps getting passed around is either anecdotal or based on a sample size of one -- neither of which prove [bleep]. Your sample size is two: that doesn't prove [bleep]. And, of course, this also ignores the fact that if these "bad" barrels exist Ruger replaces them for free. I have an article from the Cast Bullet Journal from about 15 years ago detailing the author's problems with the throat in a factory 700V. Point being: Ruger "bad" barrels are a HORSESHIT non-issue.

So. F*cking. What.

It's your story.

Nope. No "depends" about it. The Model 700 is a damned good rifle, but it ain't no damned good for almost $1K. I'd buy a Montana ASR or something else for that kind of jack.

I was wondering if/when you'd weigh in on this.

Clearly, it's just my opinion (and we know what THAT means). I will add that I haven't had much luck with ANY Ruger rifle I've owned (except for the 10-22), either right or left handed, and that includes a couple of your beloved No.1's. The "sample size" is much larger than two - more like 7 or 8.

It's no secret that Ruger barrels have had a long and checkered history for accuracy. It's not just "Internet horseshit". Jim Carmichael (among others) wrote about it years ago. They purchased their barrels from the lowest bidder (usually Wilson). I imagine they're better, now, since they're making their own. A new 77 in 25-06 that I shot a couple of years ago was actually pretty darn good. But that "rep" is hard to shake.

And what constitutes a "bad" barrel, anyway? None of the Ruger rifles I referred to above would shoot inside of 2". Do you think Ruger would replace a barrel like that? (I doubt it)

The point I was trying to make on the trigger is this: it's probably more cost-effective to slap together a non-adjustable trigger than it is to make an adjustable one. Fewer liability problems, too (which means you don't have to keep a gaggle of attorneys on retainer).

I suspect the investment-casting process for the bolt and the receiver is another cost move. There are probably fewer machining operations. And casting-in the scope bases means you don't have to D&T four holes. A few more dollars saved.

I agree that nearly $1k for a CDL is overpriced. The last one I purchased (a .223) was a little over $700.

So, instead of honoring us with your usual entertaining invective, perhaps you'd like to offer your own opinion as to how Ruger can undercut Remington or Winchester in price, since that seems to be the main point of the thread.

Still an insignificant sample size and impossible to independently verify.

It is internet HORSESHIT and Jim Carmichael was/is a loudmouth assh*le with a print forum. That didn't qualify anything he thought as anything but his special brand of horseshit peddled through the ad-driven pages of Outdoor Life. (I recall him touting the Remington 700 Classic as the "most shootable rifle produced." Though he neglected to disclose he had a hand in designing the stock. Because he was an objective kind of guy.)

AND AGAIN, RUGER WARRANTIES THESE. YOU CANNOT ACHIEVE ANY RESOLUTION TO A WARRANTY CLAIM BY BITCHING ABOUT IT ON AN INTERNET FORUM OR VIA A SUCKASS CONDUIT LIKE JIM CARMICHAEL.

Yep. Produce a repair order stating otherwise if you disagree.

Yeah, because a Model 700 is so finely machined. What with all of the stampings and pressings. Sounds like bullshit. Looks like bullshit. Smells like bullshit. Good thing I ain't stepping in it.

And $700 is still about $100 too damned high for a plain vanilla 700 BDL or 700 CDL.

Reverse psychology/big lie/hard sell. Start repeating a line of bullshit long enough and loud enough and soon the lie becomes the truth. "Remington says their rifle is the best! They want $900 it MUST be good!"

So you're position is that just because Remington SAYS their rifles are better, that justifies them charging more? Well, I suppose. But I suspect there's more to it than that.

Got proof otherwise? Anything "better" about a Model 700 going for $850+ today than the identical model selling for $600 five years ago? Are they putting vitamins in them? Viagra samples? Rogaine trials? Anything?

You seem to believe that the now-exorbitant price qualifies itself because Remington must've, MUST'VE done something really "special." Because who ever heard of a company breaking it off in anyone's ass.

I believe nothing of the sort. The newer 700's aren't quite as well-finished as the older ones I own. There's certainly nothing "special" about them. I'm just skeptical that Remington would jack their prices up out of pure avarice. Perhaps that's na�ve. Maybe the difference in price cannot be fully attributed to production costs, from a time-and-materials standpoint. Could be other reasons. Is Remington's overhead getting too high? Are their employees unionized? Healthcare costs? Do they have litigation issues? After all, didn't Winchester fold it up (for a while) for similar reasons? Or maybe Ruger just runs their operation better than Remington does.

OTOH, Bricktop, you're not offering any tangible reasons, either. Just cynicism. Does that trump any of the possible scenarios I've given?

Yes, your reasoning is quite naive. Beaucoup important questions that you're avoiding. What has Remington done -- SPECIFICALLY -- to justify an $850+ price on a 700 CDL when the same gun was selling for around $600 just a few years ago?

I gave $604.12 for my 77 Hawkeye .223 including tax, shipping, and transfer fee. I paid another $300 for a scope and gave Mark Penrod $80 to tune the trigger down to 2-1/2 pounds -- that's $984.12 if you need assistance with your math. Wal-Fart's low price of $849 plus tax ultimately costs me $917 with tax. And for $917 I'm getting what exactly?

What makes a $917 700 that much better than a $684 77? Probably nothing. There might be a few reasons, but ultimately it's a matter of personal preference, and how deep your pockets are, I suppose.

In this particular instance, there's no reason why the Remington deserves a premium price over the Ruger. They were both priced similarly less than ten years ago, at which point it would've been a personal preference. At this point you have the choice of spending $850+ for a standard production rifle (with a [bleep] recoil pad) that allows you the broad choice of four calibers versus Ruger's standard model Hawkeye with eleven calibers and a mediocre trigger for a little over $600. A Ruger with a good scope and a trip to a gunsmith for trigger work is still within $100 of its Remington competitor.

For the kind of jack Remington now demands, I could get into a Montana ASR or very nearly a Forbes 24B with a hell of a lot more choice. For a standard new production rifle, there's not any justification for Remington's price.

BT, you're correct in that the rifles were comparably priced 10-12 years ago, but is the Hawkeye the same as the MKII? I think they've cut costs on it; specifically, the metal finish and level of polishing doesn't seem as good as the MKII's I owned, and they've changed the trigger. Regardless, it's a nice rifle, and it's beyond me how Ruger can sell it at that price.

Is the 700 CDL worth $850? No, but I still think it's a more expensive rifle to build than the Ruger. You might not care for the recoil pad (neither do I), but it costs more than the thin piece of rubber Ruger uses. The stock is fancier, with more checkering coverage, and it has a black forend tip. The bolt is jeweled. Those aren't big differences, of course, but they do add up (not $250 difference, though).

Why Remington has scaled back on the LH caliber selections, I cannot say. They do that periodically.

Perhaps Remington IS charging a premium based on their reputation and what they think the market will bear, but I'm not convinced that's the only reason for the increase in price. Their pricing is now up in Browning territory - maybe that's who they're really targeting, not Ruger.

You're WAYYYYYYYYY behind the curve. Ruger intitially started producing the Hawkeyes with matte finishes, but has switched back to the polished blue of the Model 77 MKII within the past eighteen months. Another NON-issue. Take a look at the difference in the Mark II versus Hawkeye triggers. The change is insignificant. Also a NON-issue.

Don't make me laugh. That's straight-up subjective BULLSHIT. At best. The 700 uses a substantial amount of stampings and aluminum for assembly. That was supposed to be its appeal, in that it -- the Model 700/721/722/725 design -- could use modern manufacturing methods to produce a rifle at a "reasonable" price.

And I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why Remington has tagged their AVERAGE PRODUCTION RIFLE with a premium price other than, "It's more expensive, so it must be better" bullshit.

Any time a company increases their prices is because they think people will pay it . Most price increases is to make up for the cost of the upcoming Obama Care and increases in employee Health Care prices and other benefits

I've given you enough reasons. You didn't like any of them. Any further discussion would be pointless.

Enjoy your .223 Ruger. I'll do the same with my .223 CDL.

What "reasons?" Are you f*cking kidding me? Your only rationale has been "they must have improved it because it's more expensive," yet you either dodge the question or offer some lame-ass excuse that's easily refuted. Jesus Christ, you don't even know enough about Ruger's product line to offer anywhere near an objective criticism, let alone any relevant discussion regarding them. You were hung up on their matte finish (and I seem to remember Remington going from polished blue on the BDL to matte blue on the CDL, but that MUST'VE been an improvement, so let's exclude that) and didn't know enough about Ruger shifting back to the previous polished blue.

And hell's bells, friggin' Remington still offers their .223-chambered Model 700s with a 1-in-12" twist. That right there sure as [bleep] disqualifies an $850+ asking price.

It's a good thing you two gents stopped your pissing match, otherwise, Texasshitpuppy would be crying foul. Evidently, speaking about prices gets him upset, even when it isn't his cash being spent.