If a guy was going to buy a 300 WSM and was looking at the model 700 and the model 7 why go one way or the other? They are both short action, so please educate me on the difference between the two or which is the better choice. I have a few 700's, but have never owned a model 7. Thanks

The model 7 is shorter than the model 700 short action, for the WSM's I like the 700 long action myself so you can seat the bullets out a bit.

I have a couple Model 7's and I find them to be a little handier than the short action 700's. Really like them and they both shoot very well. One of them is the older model with the 18 1/2" tube which I find to be a little short, prefer the 20" barrel.

The 700 BDL short action weighs 2 lb. 4 oz. The model 7 weighs 2 lb. 2 oz. I prefer the 700 longer magazine box over the 2 oz. weight savings of a model 7. Also, there is a plethora of after market parts for the 700 action.

depends on what your using it for....long range gun the 700, normal hunting either is fine though i kinda like the 7, my wife has one in 7-08 and its a neat lil action even if the weight savings arent substantial....if i didnt have the Kimber Montana i would prolly have looked at building a 7 in 260....

I'm a little confused here. Doesn't the model 7 and the model 700 short action both have the same box length? The model 7 bolt opening is a little longer, which I like. I think Steelhead posted a picture one time of them side by each. miles

There is no difference in mag box on a 7 vs 700. Not a bit [edit - now that I think about it, I think you can go with a Wyatt's box on the 700, but not the 7 - but I am out of my realm on that one]

The rear bridge of the 7 is a tad shorter. Tons more after market parts for the 700, though I have 3 different 7s and haven't found myself wishing it was a 700 due to some aftermarket part availability. I love the 7s

Some will criticize the smaller rear action screw on the 7 as well but I have never seen or credibly heard of any problems with them.

I've got a 20" Stainless/synthetic 7mm-08, that in all honestly has treated me very well over the years.

It is very whippy feeling though, I've read the same comments from others on here and a simple albeit expensive solution is to stick it in an edge stock.

It was my go to White tail rifle for numerous years, but than along game a Mountain Guide 7mm-08 and it's lighter and I prefer the 22" barrel.

I have a few of both and think that building on a 700 SA can be less expensive than building on a 7 because of all the new and used after-market and OEM parts that are available for it. For example, we regularly see 700 SA McM stocks for sale here on 24-HCF, but seldom see them for the 7, probably on a ratio of better than 20 to 1.

The 700 SA and 7 use the same magazine box, follower, and follower spring, so if OAL of the cartridge is a factor in your decision, there is no advantage either way you go.

FWIW, I have 7mm SAUMs with both 22" (Rem 7) and 24" (Rem 700 SA) barrels and prefer the 24" barrel. The longer heavier contour barrel balances this rifle, with a 700 CDL laminated stock, better. If I was building a mountain rifle that I would be carrying in steep/rugged terrain, I'd probably go for the shorter lighter contour barrel, but otherwise the 24" would be my personal choice.

Jeff

Thanks to all who took the time to answer. This purchase is not for sure, but always looking and wondering which rifle next.

I've got SS Model Sevens in 260 Rem and 308 Win. Both nice rifles and a joy to carry.

if I'm not mistake I believe my Mdl 7 in 300 WSM has a 22" barrel

a lot of round for a very compact rifle but not as bad as my 350 mag in a old KS mdl 7..


it shoots very well BTW.

Please avoid the advice of those who say the 700 box is somehow longer than the Seven--they obviously do not know what they are talking about. They use identical boxes.


Why do people bother posting about things to which they don't know the real answers????????

I own over 20 rifles and the recoil from my Model 7 CDL in 300WSM is the sharpest and most uncomfortable of all my rifles. I would venture to say, this rifle has cut me at least every other time it has gone to the range with me. And I aint no sissy.
George

Put a Brown KS stock on it, and it will change the dynamics in a hurry. The factory Seven stock is not that pleasant for recoil.

Hey Guys -

I don't own a 7 but I've handled quite a few at gun shows, pawn shops, dealers etc.

For whatever reason it doesn't fit me. Seems awkard & short. Maybe it's just personal ergonomics but the 700s fit me like a glove, and esp. w/proper scope fit.

No reason to pick a M7 over a M700.

I'm inclined to agree...Ive got them both, and prefer the 700...cant really say why, but I do. The M7 stocks don't do much for me, just replaced one with a B&C Alaskan and that was a definite improvement...

Here's a side-by-side to show the working difference as far as access goes. I prefer the more generous opening of the 7 for cold weather and general arthritic thumb access.

I'd have to agree that the Remington factory specs stocks for the Model Seven have often been inferior to those on the 700s. The synthetic stocks have been heavy and most of the wood stocks, birch/laminated/walnut, have had that ugly XXXL schnabel that looks a little like Jimmy Durante's nose hung on the end of the forearm. However, if you put a Model Seven action into a McM Compact or Mountain Rifle style stock, most folks would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

The point being that, more than anything else, the Model Seven's Achilles Heel is the poor (and limited) factory stock options.

Jeff

Remington - banking on pressure for consistancy but sacrificing all with sloppy tupperware.

I swapped out the tupperware on my M7 7mmSAUM for a CDL take-off with tge Supercell pad and found it to improve things quite a bit. It fits me so much better, much like a Mountain Rifle handle on a 700. A bit thicker comb, a cheekpiece, and a soft pad help me out a bunch.

The Seven tupperware stock (especially, the original walnut is somewhat better) is at odds with the design intent. The CDL stock is better, but still butt heavy with too low of a comb for true scope work.

Put into a Mickey Compact, or better yet a Brown KS, and the design is delightful. Once again, 'form must follow function,' and Remington rarely gets that correct.

All 3 of my 7's wear McMillans...

My son has a Model 7 S/S, .308 and the factory stock was a bit floppy so I put it in an HS Precision stock with the aluminum bedding block and now the thing is a real tack driver. I don't know if the current production models are the same but on my son's rifle there is only one hole drilled and tapped in the rear receiver ring so it requires a one piece bridge-type scope mount where the 700 doesn't.

Remington started to d&t 2 holes in the rear receiver bridge of the Model Seven some time ago to facilitate the use of 2-piece bases, but I'm not sure what year that happened. The 2 holes on the rear receiver bridge on the Model Seven are much closer together than those on the rear receiver bridge of a Model 700, so a rear base that is specific to the Model Seven is required.

Jeff

.............Scope whacked with cuts every other time? Maybe you should consider a scope with a little more eye relief. 300 WSM shorties are a bunch of fun.

Looks almost like you could open up the receiver of a short 700 and be close to the Model 7 in weight with better functioning.

There would still be enough rear bridge for two piece scope mounting bases.

Action cut plus light weight basis you could be very close to the same weight.

I seldom if ever see Remington Model Sevens for sale, new or
used. I see more Remington 600s than I do Model Sevens.

I'd like to find aluminum bottom metal for my Seven SS 260. The pot metal just don't do anything for me and it adds too much unnecessary weight compared to aluminum.
Anyone heard of someone making the bottom in aluminum?

Agreed.

I've had three Model Sevens. When introduced, they sounded perfect. But after spending some time with them, they just had a "feel" that was hard to describe, but just not quite there, for me at least.

I went so far as to buy a Brown Precision for one, but after losing interest in the rifle, it never got put on. Recently decided that since I no longer have any of the Sevens, it was time to sell the stock. Ya think I can find it? Nope. I somehow lost a danged Brown Precision stock. Found a few factory tupperwares while searching though. I'd much rather have lost all of them, in exchange for finding the one kevlar stock....

I just happen to have my M7 broken down in preparation to sending it to Redneck for a barrel install. (Sorry, Lee. Work isn't giving me much time for getting it in the mail-soon though)

When taking the scope, rings and stock off I weighed things as I went. Partly so that I could compare the before and after weights and partly just out of curiosity. The weight of a M7 vs. a M700 action was mentioned earlier. Here's what my 20" barreled M7 7-08 weighs-

No ammo, no sling-just scoped rifle-

Barreled action only-

What better functioning are you looking for? The Seven functions as fine as any Remington bolt, as is. It already has enough room for a two-piece base. The current models for the last few years have been drilled with four holes instead of three already.

The only drawback to the Seven are the poor factory stocks.

As a small side note--the followers actually are slightly different between the 700 and Seven, though either will swap with the other. The Seven has a little tab that holds the empty follower down below the level of the receiver rails, which makes the bolt slide very slickly when empty since it does not drag on the follower. The old Sportsman 78 had this same type of lowered follower.