Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Rem 788 in .223

I have heared some really good reports over the years as to the accuracy of the 788 in .22 calibers. So...I picked up one in 223.

It appears that the twist is somewhere around 1 in 14".
Does that sound right???
I guess I will try some 55 grainers first, but the lighter side of that is what I am thinking will group the best.

I have experience with 6mm and 308 in the 788 and was happy with them after some bedding. I will shoot this first after clean up before doing any bedding.

The barrel is relatively heavy and the stock is a little oversized and heavy for my taste, so I will whittle some off the wood when do bed job.

Any comments from those who have or had one of these???

Thanks
Tim

Bought one in the early 80�s for a little over a hundred bucks and put a Bushnell Banner scope on it. It was the first rifle I ever shot an honest �� 5 shot group with. This was right out of the box, I didn't start bedding and fussing with my rifles until much later. Shot a bunch of ground squirrels with it but someone talked me out of it in the late 90�s.

Couldn�t tell you the twist from actual measurement but I�d be surprised if it wasn�t 1 in 12, that�s been standard for the .223 ever since the Army shortened it when they first adopted the M-16. I only used 50 and 55 grain bullets in mine, usually the Speer or Sierra spitzers, but it was outstandingly accurate with about everything I put through it.

Great accuracy, stiff receiver, so-so trigger, heavy but not unbearably so. They�re great rifles.

The trigger on this one seems to have had some tweaking done to it as it feels pretty good to me.
There will need to be some work done to at least clean up all the contact points between the metal and the after market wood stock.
I will shoot it before doing anything more than cleaning. I will shim the barrel up to shoot floated also before bedding.
My Ruger#3 in 223 is slow twisted and it likes little BTs best.
Thanks for comments
Tim

I have had 788's in .222, .223, .22-250, .243, and .308

All were shooters.

The 1-14 sounds like mine, But, mine was punched from .222 sometime in the past. The .222 and .223 that I had preferred lighter bullets, from 45 to 50 grains.

Best of luck.

Dave

I had one for about ten years. It was, and still is, the most accurate .223 I have ever owned. It would shoot better than I could hold. 1/2" groups were routine. A great coyote gun. I liked the detachable magazine. They are great utility guns and belong in the rack of every ranch truck. I replaced it with a mini-14 which I like but it was dumb of me to let the 788 go.

My barrel is stamped 223, but on the bottom of the action is stamped 222. Any special significance in this?????
Tim

I have one in 223 as well. I free floated the barrel and put a ramline stock on it and that thing SHOOTS. Since it's a rear locking bolt action (lugs are at the back of the bolt) I've heard that you don't want to put super hot loads through it because that bolt has more length from the chamber to the lock up surface to flex and it can cause some problems. I know the local law enforcement had 2 of them and both rifles had the bolt stop break. You can replace the trigger but they aren't too bad to start with. If it was priced right you got a good rifle there.

They are excellent shooters. They have a stiff action, a fast lock time but very plain looking. They were Remingtons starter version for the bolt actioned rifles under the 700 models but they outshot the 700's due to the above attributes. Mine have been in .308 left hand with a right ejection port similar to benchrest actions. In the 70's and 80's they were regularly customized and used on the benchrest circuit. Canjar made triggers for them. Mine has a Timney. If you look at the best .22LR rifle and prettiest that Remington ever produced is the Model 541S. Compare the action to a 788 and tell me there is a difference. I was told years ago Remington sold the rights to the 788 to Steyr thats why it is not produced. Look at the Steyr I believe Model M you will see the similarities. Granted Steyr did a much better job in the finish department.
The gun's forte is to take it as is or do minimal work on it then shoot it and enjoy it for what it is. I spent a lot of money on mine. I would never do that again. It is easier with the quality of actions being produced today to buy a used quality built rifle at half the cost and run with it.

I have owned several 788's, and still have one. While they have all been quite accurate, and the triggers can be fixed or replaced, eventually the PITA of not being able to just stick another round or three into the magazine has made me less than fond of them for general hunting use.

The accuracy ain't magic. I've had numerous 700's (or rifles of other makes) that shoot just as well.

John,

Like you, I have had several 788s. The only one I kept was a 222. More because my wife bought it as an anniversary gift years ago. It is stock. I have resisted swapping out the trigger, despite Timney belatedly producing one for this model. My thin barreled 222 Tikka T3 shoots consistently tighter groups than the 788 ever could.

Of the other 788s that I've owned - a 243, 308 and a 223 - none lived up to its mythical reputation for accuracy that this action has garnered over the years. This might anger some people, but my Stevens 200s shoot as well or better.

The 788 works, but it's reputation far exceeds its capabilities. My two cents.

Had an early one in 22-250 with the walnut stock and it was the most accurate out of the box rifle I've ever owned. Stupidly sold it to a friend because I thought it was to plain looking. Was not one of my smarter decisions.

The 788s I've owned and shot did seem quite accurate, but there seems to be many "issues" with them. The 30-30 I owned had lost its bolt handle at one time and been brazed back on by a Bubba. Headspace was excessive as well. My thought is that said Bubba shot hot loads in it, stuck the bolt, then broke the handle trying to pound it open. That would tend to explain the headspace issue too.

My BIL's 308 is wonderfully accurate but empties bump the scope turret on the way out and fall back into the action (backwards) tying up the whole works. IIRC the trigger is poopy too.

Then there's the magazine that sticks out the bottom right where the hand wants to carry the rifle. Ever tried replacing a lost 788 magazine? If you do find the right one it will set you back a c-note.

Then there's the "hardwood" stock. Granted, the stock on my first-year 30-30 was walnut, but that's the only walnut-stocked 788 I ever saw.

Then there's this, and that, and, and...

I've had two in .223 and two in .308. The .223s are ostensibly identical, but one of them likes bullets up to 50 grains and the other wants bullets 55 to 63. Go figure.

I had a one-piece Weaver base on one of them that bounced every empty back into the action until I ground away part of the base. Scope turrets can cause the same thing if they are located in just the wrong spot and height.

Got a 788 in .222 the first week they were on the market in 1967. It had a walnut stock. It was a shooter. I put a cheap (Tasco) 6X on it on a mount machined from something else (none on the market for the 788 at the time.) Still have the rifle (with better optics now.) My brother got one in .243 in the early 70's and by then walnut had turned to "hardwood." It was still a shooter. The bolt handle came off his one day in the late seventies. Following Monday morning he took it in the front door at Remington in Ilion and they replaced the bolt while he waited in the lobby. He's still got it.

If I had to guess it would be a story related to me when I was looking for one years ago. After Rem quit building the 788, the word was out that the 223 was a tack driver and in high demand. An old gun dealer told me some folks that couldn't find a 223 took a 222 and had it rechambered. I know I saw several 222's before I found a 223 so it's plausible. My guess would be that your's started out as a 222 and was rechambered for that very reason.

Mine is stamped 222 on the bottom as you describe. You can see where the last 2 on the barrel was overstamped 3.

It could be like mine or maybe it was slated to be a 222 and they ran out of 222 barrels that day and installed a 223 barrel.

I have mags that are marked 222 and 223 and use them interchangeably.

I had two. Both in .243 and thay both shot under .5 MOA.

I didn't catch on the Mule Deers comment on not being able to stuff bullets down in. I now noticed that the ejection port is pretty small and it would be tough to load top down. My other experience with 6mm and 308 in 788s was no problem feeding one in at a time at the bench, but I never tried to stuff one all the way down into the mag.
This one came with two mags.

Mine is stamped very crisp and clearly with no sign of restamp. The barrel 223 Rem and the bottom of the action 222.
So go figger????

Tim

Bought my first new M788 in the late 70s, for about $132 or thereabouts, in 22-250. First rifle I ever owned that'd put three in one ragged hole at 100 yards. It gets nothing but 55gr Btips over IMR 4064. Was my primary woodchuck rifle for over 20 years.

Bought another one for my son when he was 12 ('86), a 222 slightly used, for around $160. Could've bought a new one back then in 223 for a few dollars more, kinda regret that I didn't opt for the 223. No matter, his 222 is a tack driver with 50gr bullets.

Now have another one in 22-250 and one in 243 (24" tube). All are very accurate with a load that suits 'em. The 243 will put three 100gr WW loads in an inch, slightly better with my 55gr Btip loads.

I bought my 222 rem 788 in 1970, I hand loaded for it with a lee pound the shell in with a wooden block die set. I had a 6X weaver on it, forget the mounts, it was a heavy rifle but accurate.