I was gonna ask this in another model 7 topic but didn't want to hijack the thread. Been thinking about a model 7 was looking online and found some with a synthetic stock and a cdl version has anyone bought one with the synthetic stock? Price for the cdl is about $750 the synthetic is about $575. Looking for a light weight mountain gun thought this might work good even considered it in 260. Just wondering how they shoot

If you're looking for a light weight Mtn. gun the factory Model 7 is not it. The new cataloged ones apparently still have a chitty stock as well, listing the rifle at 6 1/2 lbs. Rings/Scope and you've got a 7 1/2 lb un-balanced rifle.

Now throw them into a Brown FS or McMillian and it's a whole different story but neither of those stocks are very common and you'll more than likely pay 400-500 for it and you might as well have bought a Montana or something else.

I have my SS Model 7 in a Brown FS stock and couldn't be happier with it, but in factory form I hadn't touched it in years.

pseshooter300 ,

$546 for a 260 $550 for a 7-08 not a bad price -but i'd shop for a stainless used that you could find for another $100 bill.

The M7's weigh the same as a M700 SS SA....not sure why that's logical to Rem. They both have chitty stocks too.

Go SS for your uses...

Ive got a couple. A FS stocked version in 243, and a KS stocked version in 350 mag. Boths late 80s era rifles I purchased new. Both are great and handy rifles. The 243 has a 18 inch barrel, very slim taper, may be a bit muzzle light for some tastes, but to me it is perfect. The 350 has a 20 inch heavier taper barrel, which is a bit more muzzle heavy.

Both are a joy to carry and hunt with.

One thing, minor but there, in that the synthetic stocks are noisier than a wood stock. If still hunting in brush, a bramble scratching across a synthetic stock make a louder, and decidedly unnatural sound than a wood stock. Same thing sitting in a stand, if you bump a synthetic stock against something, the noise is different than wood. The difference is subtle, but there.

Ive looked at the new model 7s, and I cant say the synthetic stock did anything for me, seemed cheap. The wood CDL version was very nice, but the example I looked at had a rather thick recoil pad that seemed ill fitted for a fairly pricey rifle.

Lastly, I would go with a 7/08 over 260 just to have the flexibility of heavier bullets with very little extra recoil. The 7/08 is more established, and I think is a better bet for not becoming an abandoned caliber in the future than the 260.

A synthetic stock Model 7 is probably one of the worst rifle designs to ever come out of a factory. A mountain rifle it certainly is not.

Well, there's a lot of misinformation on this thread already.

A Seven complete action weighs three ounces less than a comparable 700SA (plus you get whatever ounces a shorter barrel nets you).

The new Sevens have the different-style synthetic that weighs around 27 ounces, which makes the overall weight just under 6 pounds (or right on, depending on the hole in the barrel). Balance is neutral, and about perfect. An aftermarket stock can shave off another 4 ounces or so.

You can lose another 1.5 ounces from an aluminum bolt shroud, and another 1.5 with a Rifle Basix trigger. And another 3 or so by using a flip flop pad. Actually, all of that is a little over-weighted, as the above setup goes just a tad over 5 pounds.

Or, you can just go and buy a Kimber Montana.

It is true that some of the later production 7's had a different stock that wasn't such a club, but it would appear the new ones coming out are once again over weight (stated 6 1/2 lbs).

Obviously I have not seen or handled one, so who knows for sure?

There's going to be a lot of work regardless to get one down to 5 lbs. 5 3/4-6 lbs with the above mods would be a more accurate estimate.

My Brown with an FS and flip flop, Leupold 2-7x32, talley UL and alumina caps goes 6.3. Minus about 1.2 ounces for the alumnias. Do the above mods and I've lost another 6 ounces max.

Well the synthetic model I figured the stock was junk and would need a mcmillan. Or just by the cdl and use it as is. What to do

Dang, I've been shooting a factory stocked M7 for years, in .260 and 7-08 without a problem. Nor have I heard any complaints from the dead deer and antelopes. It is amusing how a person will totally trash a weapon without ever having owned one, or handled one, or even seen one.

Oh I'm not trashing it if you are referring to me but if the model seven synthetic is anything like the sps stocks then they are junk.

I also get a little amused when I hear how the stock Model 7 SS are butt heavy and junk....I guess I should just throw my 1999 .260 away for some of these "perfectly" balanced/non-tupperware modified ones and then shave a couple of ounces - Maybe if I would have made all those changes I would have killed all of those deer deader since 1999

Get what floats your boat, handle it before you buy to make sure you are comfortable with it and then shoot it - a whole bunch and it will work for you......of course just my opinion but I really can't complain about the Model 7 it has served me well.

I am a fan of the M7, but i'll be the first to say the factory stocks I've had suck, with the exception of an old M7 FS in the Brown's stock. it's not just the weight/balance. the bottom metal pushes the mag box forward, and the mag box pushes the action forward binding stuff up. bedding the lug with bottom metal and mag box in place helps, but McMillan puts stuff where it belongs.

I have not, however, handled the new Tupperware or CDL. these may be different.

I just never had those problems, with the two that I have - did have one though that had a bad crown from the factory......that did need corrected - other than that they hit what I aim at and I find them GREAT to carry all day long but I am no gun guru and again that is just me.

Forgot to add I am a fan of wood stocks so what do I know

PennDog

But I think the ones you bought was from late 90 ' s different stock from the synthetic stock now

That is probably true.....

PennDog

I picked up a .260 the year Remington introduced it as a factory round in the stainless/fiberglass offering. Figured it would be the perfect mountain rifle. It would not shoot. I unloaded it (literally). We all know now that you need an 8 twist.

Picked up a Tikker T3 and have a one-holer rifle with an 8 twist.

Now I have a 260 SPS 700 8 twist on order. Not happy with Remington quality of late, but figured If I could get this to shoot and bed it in a McSwirly, I would have what I originally wanted. Maybe I should have waitied for a SS model, but Cerekote will work once the thing starts rusting...

I have worked with four of those early 260s. All have shot very well with 120 Ballistic Tips. One of them, a walnut with nothing done to it at all, would put five shots under an inch "all day long." I would suspect a bad crown before a bad 9 twist.

Remington catalog specs are rarely accurate since they switched publishers about 10 years ago. It does show the picture with the new-style stock, which weigh about 27 ounces.

Your rifle sounds awfully close to mine. Are you using an accurate scale? It seems like it should weigh less.

The new ss is not available in 260 right?

I guess I must have missed the memo about "must have a 8 twist". Or at least the rifle did. It shoots any 140gr c&c bullet (that I've tried) into 5 shot MOA groups +/- .25.