For those interested, here is a list of the Rem Arms Model 700 changes that I heard while listening to Hunter Cummings of Rem Arms on their YouTube Channel:
- 5R rifling in all Model 700s
- a slightly better, more common grade of steel (their updated current grade and previous grades were not specifically discussed)
-“…holding tighter tolerances than ever.” Some of his examples were:
*the recoil lug is now made parallel to .0002” *the chamber is now 100% CNC machined
- allowing employees greater latitude in stopping the assembly line if they notice an issue etc.
I personally bought a new Rem Arms 700 ADL in 6.5 Creedmoor. I can verify the following:
- It does have 5R rifling - It has bolt jeweling (although it is crude compared to what typically jeweling looks like, as some of the black oxide is still on the bolt); my older synthetic ADL bolts are just black oxide
I have not shot it yet, but it feeds extremely well. The Creedmoor can feed a little persnickety in my experience with some rifles (Kimbers, Savage 110s, Axis, etc.). At first glance, the black oxide type finish seems just slightly better done than previous synthetic ADL’s. My plan is to mount new Burris steel bases, standard Zee rings, and a 3-9X40 Fullfield II.
Obviously there has been pricing changes, too. The ones I’ve seen do not come with the cheap rings and scope. As many of you know, those were often had at Wal-Mart for like 380-400ish. Now it’s sold without the scope set-up for about 580-600ish, but that’s not an apples to apples comparison as we all know there has been quite a bit of inflation since the pre-bankruptcy models were sold. The new BDL synthetic models seem to go for 680-700ish, so about 100 dollars more than the ADL. In the past, you had to pay more than 100 above an ADL to get the BDL version.
A LGS here has had a few of them for about 4 months now and they have not moved. Seems all they come in now are .308, .30-06, and 6.5 CM. I’m a Remington fan, but so far nothing catches my interest.
Hudge: Yes, from what I’ve seen they had those out first, along with some CDL’s in 30-06. More recently, I’ve seen synthetics also in 270 and 300Win. Personally, I hope they do well and then continue to release more over time. I’d be interested in a new 700 Mountain rifle.
I do not at this time own any of the new production 700's. I did buy one when they first hit the shelves, but traded it off soon thereafter, without ever firing it. It was an ADL, and seemed as good, if not slightly better, than the "old" 700's. My main interest in the Remington 700's was not the run-of-the-mill ones, but the Model 700 and 7 special runs, and the stainless rifles. I have no idea if the new Rem Arms is going to be making those rifles or not, but I cannot see myself buying a new Rem Arms made rifle until they do. Having said that, I own a bunch of 700's and 7's and prefer Remington bolt action rifles over all others, and I really hope that someday the new production 700' and 7's will be made in as many variations as the old ones were. Until then, I don't have much interest in owning any of the new ones.
I will try to support them once I start seeing more of the new models. Likely buy one just to say I did. Lets all hope they succeed. We have to support the industry whenever we can.
Several on GB @ $469($10 ship & no CC fees). Not bad. If I were a true looney I think I'd have to order one & give it a test drive. Doubt I'd be disappointed.
Several on GB @ $469($10 ship & no CC fees). Not bad. If I were a true looney I think I'd have to order one & give it a test drive. Doubt I'd be disappointed.
I thought this was a pretty cool series by Cortina.
The final results after some tweaking to the factory gun with some bedding and pillars was about what I'd expected. It's cool to see how they worked the gun up from a couple fellas that know their way around a long gun.
Back in the compressed walnut stock days, Illion tested all 700’s for accuracy and function before they left the factory. I have enough 30-06’s and 270’s now. I’m not interested in the 6.5. I sincerely hope they do well. But I’d like more chambering options, also I’d like to see them tested for accuracy again. I’d be interested in a XP-100 with appropriate deer cartridge chambers too, such as the 250 Savage. What do the new 700 triggers look like? I don’t get into the city much and when I do I’m out of there as fast as I can. The local dealers sell mostly the cheapest rifles available, therefore I’ve not seen any on the racks.
Hudge: Yes, from what I’ve seen they had those out first, along with some CDL’s in 30-06. More recently, I’ve seen synthetics also in 270 and 300Win. Personally, I hope they do well and then continue to release more over time. I’d be interested in a new 700 Mountain rifle.
I’d be interested in a CDL possibly if I could find one. Outside of that, until I see a stainless 700 again, I doubt I buy another one. I dang sure would not buy it in a round like a WSM after the issues with mine. Truth be known, I even had issues with my .300 WM ADL/SPS SS. Remington sent me a new internal magazine and after deciding to decrease mag capacity by one from what they stated, I never had another issue.
I tried some 60 grain bullets in my 10 year old ADL with the 1/12 twist. No bueno. I would like to see the 700 in .223 with a 1/8 twist. Mine will probably get traded for a Ruger Predator at some point.
I like them having 5R barrels. I’ve never owned one with a 5R barrel but it seems like a can’t miss selling point. I’ve never had a problem with a Remington 700 extractor but given the industry that has grown around “upgrading to a Sako style extractor” that would seem to make sense too.
IMO Remingtons biggest mistake was transitioning from rifles and shotguns that most people perceived as solid affordable nicer guns to marketing to the cheapest price point. They still shoot but became a budget gun that was tone deaf to the market besides the economy line. Building a brand around economy guns was never Remingtons niche. They were better off with mid level guns. As far as 700’s. They should look back to the Classic, Mt. Rifle, and KS Custom lines to see where they really got it right.
They could take a note from Kimber on stock profiles. Remington being controlled round feed is a minus to some but they should focus on what they have. A light and accurate action. Offer the upgrades that people want and focus on lighter weight good shooting rifles with quality components.
So Bugger you think a 1 in 14" twist is a good idea in 22-250 chambering?
I'm personally ok with it. I like the idea of light bullets going fast when varmint hunting.
I can only speak for myself but if I wanted to shoot 70g+ bullets I'd just bump up to a 6mm of some flavor. But I can see where a shooter in todays world might find the 1:14 twist to be .....limiting.
I tend to agree somewhat about the ROT as far as some of the Remington rifles go. But you have to remember this, cartridges like the 223 and 22-250 were designed around the lighter weight bullets, and the original ROT's were perfectly fine. Personally, they don't hinder me in the least. I have 3 Remington bolt rifles in 223, one is a 1-12, the other 2 are 1-9. I like 50 and 55 grain bullets in them, so they work. My 22-250 is 1-14, and I shoot 40's, and sometimes 50's and 52's, so the ROT in it is okay as well. If I was a fan of the heavier weight 22 bullets, I'd certainly want the faster twist rates, especially in the 22-250.
So Bugger you think a 1 in 14" twist is a good idea in 22-250 chambering?
I'm personally ok with it. I like the idea of light bullets going fast when varmint hunting.
I can only speak for myself but if I wanted to shoot 70g+ bullets I'd just bump up to a 6mm of some flavor. But I can see where a shooter in todays world might find the 1:14 twist to be .....limiting.
I mostly agree. There isn’t much downside to a faster twist but the overly heavy for caliber bullets has gotten a bit out of hand IMO for hunting rifles. At typical hunting ranges a faster bullet shoots flatter and hits harder. Most of us aren’t shooting past 500 yards or even close to that far.
So Bugger you think a 1 in 14" twist is a good idea in 22-250 chambering?
Sorry, never had a complaint on Remington twist. I don’t see the need to spin bullets faster than they need to be. Too fast a twist on varmint bullets cause then to explode before they hit the target. Evidently some people like that. I don’t.
So Bugger you think a 1 in 14" twist is a good idea in 22-250 chambering?
I'm personally ok with it. I like the idea of light bullets going fast when varmint hunting.
I can only speak for myself but if I wanted to shoot 70g+ bullets I'd just bump up to a 6mm of some flavor. But I can see where a shooter in todays world might find the 1:14 twist to be .....limiting.
This.....I guess. If you need heavier get a bigger gas tank.
A 14 twist will run most poly tipped 55 grain bullets fine. That's about as heavy as needs ran in the little cartridge.
They weren't intended to run heavy bullets. Light and fast to 400 or so.
Take a 22-250 with a 50 grain bullet at 3800+ and it can catch a running coyote rather easily.
My primary concern is; Did they fix the bolt extraction timing issue? If not, it's a no-go for me.
Do they offer a faster twist in the .22's and the .243? Given the popularity of heavier bullets and monos where lead is verboten, for those I think it would be wise to go to a faster twist.
I could see a 1:9" twist for a .22-250, allowing the 50gr family as well as up to the 80's to be functional.
My Ruger Predator in .243 shoots 55's through the 107's just fine with its 1:8" twist.
"*the chamber is now 100% CNC machined" I doubt this, chambers are going to be reamed not shaped with a boring bar. *the recoil lug is now made parallel to .0002” I also doubt this, be tough to measure.
Remington (RemArms) needs to focus on things people want out of a 700. If I were in charge, here is what I would do:
-Ensure and verify ever bolt is timed properly before it leaves the factory.
-Ensure every recoil lug is parallel and start pinning them to the receiver to ensure proper alignment.
-Improve timing of factory threads and ensure machining would allow pre-fit barrels.
-Begin making premium finishes, perhaps nitride, were standard.
-Work out a deal to ensure every 700 comes with a Trigger Tech trigger out of the box.
-Improve all twist rates and throats to ensure modern, premium bullets were optimized. For example, twist .243 Winchesters to 1:8" and throat them for something more like a 103 gr ELD-X rather than an 80 gr Core-Lokt.
-Incorporate quality stocks on base models that won't flex and will free-float the barrel, even under a load.
-Offer semi-custom rifles; optional carbon fiber stocks, carbon fiber barrels, cerakote, bolt fluting, etc. for a premium.
When people want cheap rifles, they buy Axis, American, TCs, etc. When people want good quality rifles, they spend more. If the quality of a Tikka T3x, Browning X-Bolt, or Bergara can't be met for a similar price, the 700 is doomed.
Remington (RemArms) needs to focus on things people want out of a 700. If I were in charge, here is what I would do:
-Ensure and verify ever bolt is timed properly before it leaves the factory.
-Ensure every recoil lug is parallel and start pinning them to the receiver to ensure proper alignment.
-Improve timing of factory threads and ensure machining would allow pre-fit barrels.
-Begin making premium finishes, perhaps nitride, were standard.
-Work out a deal to ensure every 700 comes with a Trigger Tech trigger out of the box.
-Improve all twist rates and throats to ensure modern, premium bullets were optimized. For example, twist .243 Winchesters to 1:8" and throat them for something more like a 103 gr ELD-X rather than an 80 gr Core-Lokt.
-Incorporate quality stocks on base models that won't flex and will free-float the barrel, even under a load.
-Offer semi-custom rifles; optional carbon fiber stocks, carbon fiber barrels, cerakote, bolt fluting, etc. for a premium.
When people want cheap rifles, they buy Axis, American, TCs, etc. When people want good quality rifles, they spend more. If the quality of a Tikka T3x, Browning X-Bolt, or Bergara can't be met for a similar price, the 700 is doomed.
Plenty of custom rifles out there for what it would cost to build one of these.
Tikka, Browning or Bergara don't have what most would consider a quality stock that won't "flex". Have owned em.
As far as twist goes 90% of the crowd that doesn't follow the trend on the net is perfectly happy with original twists that most chamberings came with.
Throat something in a 243 for a 103 and it may not be worth a ph.uuuck for a 55-70 grain bullet.
I like the two 700s I have, but they were both built in the late 60s and the only thing remington on either is the action bolt body and recoil lug.......
You do realize that for a fixed overall cartridge length that VLD bullet designs may actually want a shorter throat than lighter conventional designs, right?
Every fuqking rifle on the planet must have the fastest twist barrel available so that it may stabilize the highest BC bullets know to man kind. Makes no difference if 95%of the owners can use it or desire it.
Every fuqking rifle on the planet must have the fastest twist barrel available so that it may stabilize the highest BC bullets know to man kind. Makes no difference if 95%of the owners can use it or desire it.
"*the chamber is now 100% CNC machined" I doubt this, chambers are going to be reamed not shaped with a boring bar. *the recoil lug is now made parallel to .0002” I also doubt this, be tough to measure.
Hi, rickt300. No worries.
As Mathman mentioned, machining in this case refers to machine tools to cut shapes/sizes.
Regarding measurement of the recoil lug. There are other ways to measure besides perhaps a cheap plunge type dial indicator or vernier tools you may or may not have used in a high school shop class or work. Just to name a few: Indicator graduations can range from .001 to .00005. Gage blocks for part inspection can have tolerances to .000001. Micrometers can read to .0001. I’m not saying a basic square would be the right tool, but even some 6” solid squares are perpendicular to within .0001.
This looks surprisingly nice and well thought out. I didn't see a cost. The challenge with cost is that they are now competing with the likes of Bighorn Origins in the action space. If costs are held to a considerate level, this could be a hit.
Why would anyone buy a 700 when Tikkas are so far superior in every way ?
Because they aren't. I have both, and while the Tikka is a nice rifle, accurate to boot, it has a bunch of plastic that the 700's do not have, is not nearly as popular, and given a choice between the two, I'll take a 700 every time.
Why would anyone buy a 700 when Tikkas are so far superior in every way ?
Because they aren't. I have both, and while the Tikka is a nice rifle, accurate to boot, it has a bunch of plastic that the 700's do not have, is not nearly as popular, and given a choice between the two, I'll take a 700 every time.
+1 . The tikka shoots straight because it is machined very well, I will take the 700 design over it any day of the week if it is machined and manufactured to specs.. IE tight tolerances. There are thousands of aftermarket accessories made for the 700 and what custom action is is a copy of a Tikka?
I have owned/own Tikkas. They only advantage it has is precise workmanship, good barrel and trigger.
Remington (RemArms) needs to focus on things people want out of a 700. If I were in charge, here is what I would do:
-Ensure and verify ever bolt is timed properly before it leaves the factory.
-Ensure every recoil lug is parallel and start pinning them to the receiver to ensure proper alignment.
-Improve timing of factory threads and ensure machining would allow pre-fit barrels.
-Begin making premium finishes, perhaps nitride, were standard.
-Work out a deal to ensure every 700 comes with a Trigger Tech trigger out of the box.
-Improve all twist rates and throats to ensure modern, premium bullets were optimized. For example, twist .243 Winchesters to 1:8" and throat them for something more like a 103 gr ELD-X rather than an 80 gr Core-Lokt.
-Incorporate quality stocks on base models that won't flex and will free-float the barrel, even under a load.
-Offer semi-custom rifles; optional carbon fiber stocks, carbon fiber barrels, cerakote, bolt fluting, etc. for a premium.
When people want cheap rifles, they buy Axis, American, TCs, etc. When people want good quality rifles, they spend more. If the quality of a Tikka T3x, Browning X-Bolt, or Bergara can't be met for a similar price, the 700 is doomed.
Plenty of custom rifles out there for what it would cost to build one of these.
Tikka, Browning or Bergara don't have what most would consider a quality stock that won't "flex". Have owned em.
As far as twist goes 90% of the crowd that doesn't follow the trend on the net is perfectly happy with original twists that most chamberings came with.
Throat something in a 243 for a 103 and it may not be worth a ph.uuuck for a 55-70 grain bullet.
.
It wouldn't cost anything to do things like properly timing, changing chambers and twists, etc. And yes, a .243 that shoots 103s can and will shoot 55-70s fine. Its extremely rare to create a twist that will over-spin lighter bullets except in rare circumstances. Meanwhile, other companies are doing this...despite your notion people are happy with old-school.
Look at a Browning stock, their cheap synthetics, it doesn't flex into the barrel under load. Remington USED to sell a lot of rifles with H-S and B&C stocks.
Things like timing don't cost anymore, and hell, they used to come that way.
Their other option is to just fade into oblivion because the budget 700s can't keep the 700 afloat and nobody seems to want them.
I also left off a lot of things I would want to see; 8-40 base screws, side bolt release, Sako-style extractors, one-piece bolt, more secure attachment of the bolt handle, etc.
My primary concern is; Did they fix the bolt extraction timing issue? If not, it's a no-go for me.
Do they offer a faster twist in the .22's and the .243? Given the popularity of heavier bullets and monos where lead is verboten, for those I think it would be wise to go to a faster twist.
I could see a 1:9" twist for a .22-250, allowing the 50gr family as well as up to the 80's to be functional.
My Ruger Predator in .243 shoots 55's through the 107's just fine with its 1:8" twist.
Just my $0.02
Ed
Ed is correct, the primary extraction is non existant on the new RR receivers. The 5R is a marketing thing. Frank Green, Bartlein, has stated such on the net. If people want it, you make it.
Why would anyone buy a 700 when Tikkas are so far superior in every way ?
Because they aren't. I have both, and while the Tikka is a nice rifle, accurate to boot, it has a bunch of plastic that the 700's do not have, is not nearly as popular, and given a choice between the two, I'll take a 700 every time.
+1 . The tikka shoots straight because it is machined very well, I will take the 700 design over it any day of the week if it is machined and manufactured to specs.. IE tight tolerances. There are thousands of aftermarket accessories made for the 700 and what custom action is is a copy of a Tikka?
I have owned/own Tikkas. They only advantage it has is precise workmanship, good barrel and trigger.
The Tikka bolt is far smoother, and I do prefer the shorter throw to keep my hand clear of the scope ocular, but prefer Remingtons overall.
I've only owned 2 Tikkas, a 223 compact, and a 308 that I currently have. I'd have probably kept the 223, but a great-nephew borrowed it to deer hunt with, and didn't want to give it back, so now he owns it, and has killed several deer with it. The 308 is a very accurate rifle, is stainless, which I really like, and is one I'll probably keep for the foreseeable future. But, they just don't have the appeal to me that a 700 does.
Having said that, I really don't care what brand of a rifle a person likes, or for that matter, dislikes. It's their business what they spend their money on, and no one else's. What I don't like is when I people saying that a certain brand is junk.........when they've never owned that brand. I've owned a slew of 700's and Model 7's. I had the bolt handle come of of one, and had a trigger become faulty on another one. Needless to say, I wasn't very pleased with that. But......I've never owned a 700 that was not a good shooting rifle, shooting as good if not better than any other brand I've owned. It was a sad thing that the company that owned Remington let the quality slip so bad the last years that they owned them, and it turned a lot of people off from buying their product. Hopefully the new company will have the quality control as their number one goal, and turn out a firearm as good and reliable as was once the case.
I started out with a Remington 700 as a young teenager. Years later, I find that no other rifle has that feel in my hands like a 700. Others have a smoother feeding bolt, better trigger, etc. However, the 700 just feels right. The one 700 I have work done to, it is a smoother or smoother than some of the custom actions out there. A lot of that is based on fixing the primary extraction and truing up receiver face, raceway, lugs, etc.
That first 700 in .30-06 is also my most inaccurate bolt gun. It hovers in the 1.5MOA range. I believe this due to the front of the bolt lug making contact with counter-bore area of the barrel. I can't bring myself to have it worked on.
Why would anyone buy a product from a company that has been in bankruptcy TWICE. They will have to build a rifle that will compete with a half dozen other companies in every respect and for less money. To me that means BANKRUPTCY 3 TIMES.
The ONLY things you Texhens "shoot" are your mouths and fhuqking Imaginations...you "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?
Were you to "amass" "all" the spent primers you've "shot" in your "Life",they'd not cover a postage stamp. You Crying CLUELESS Kchunts are a hoot! Hint.
Sounds like a grand combo of "Admin speak; moreover politician speak"; as contouring the commentary; phrasing as propagandized message!
I love... "- a slightly better, more common grade of steel." The "better" in the eye of the beholder. Likely respective of better profit margins! The "more common grade" as a large signal of such as lower tech alloys; "cheaper materials" the Barnum-speak message! Perhaps components reverting to nothing more than early twentieth century "carbon steel". Such does make for beautiful blue! The same quick cash "acquisition" folks in the wings! Seeking "one born every minute" consumers! Save your new warranty cards for the next TP shortage!
No way gentlemen! Sorry, I haven't read the many Posts of this Thread. My frank apologies. But with the referenced lead in materials, Climate change here manifest as: "snow job in summer!" It's a pity conjuring the Remington of yore! A century plus of firearms. It's material patriotic ventures in both World Wars!
Remington! Become the Firm of definite missteps. Compounded by landmines as falling into the clutches of Twenty First Century Venture Capitalists. Making 'their profits, as discarding the 'shell'. Bankruptcy 'can be' opportunity revived'. But not in a "play it again Sam" context of inferior products at superior prices!
All business & industry reflecting the inherent strains of double digit inflation. Remington, now as nifty 'double speak' terms and slights of hand, playing hard on name recognition and reputation 'of old'. That 'old world is gone for all of us. Forever more. The positive 'new vistas' and challenges! "We can do it. But such involves a frank and stark recognition of what works and what doesn't!
The former mighty Remington Arms, no matter its past eminence and quality products, entitled to respecting the "Do Not Revive" toe tag and a decent. respectful wake. Here's to the great firm that 'was'! RIP!
Why would anyone buy a product from a company that has been in bankruptcy TWICE. They will have to build a rifle that will compete with a half dozen other companies in every respect and for less money. To me that means BANKRUPTCY 3 TIMES.
Sigh.....
Remington went bankrupt because their two previous owners borrowed over a billion dollars against Remington, pocketed the money and gave Remington the debt. Little of it was invested back into Remington. It had nothing to do with Remington's firearms or sales.
The fact that Remington labored almost a decade with that debt is a testament to how well their business was doing.
Anyway, I wonder how much the new Alpha 1 will cost? $2000? $2500?
A middle of the road, decent quality rifle, sort of like--you know--what Remington was manufacturing in the 70's-90's and what is missing from the rifle world currently.
Like some others, I'm waiting for the SS M700's to appear.
Enough already with the matte/synthetic M700's. Yes, the RemArms matte/synthetic ADL's are a definite improvement, the matte finish on the metal is smoother, the metal to stock fit is good, the bolt cycles smooth, and the 308 my friend has is quite accurate, but still........
Some decent components on that alpha. It will be interested to see the market price. If the street price is in the range where the Nosler model 21 was initially, it might gain some traction.
I will try to support them once I start seeing more of the new models. Likely buy one just to say I did. Lets all hope they succeed. We have to support the industry whenever we can.
Yep, I agree completely. I’ve never been a Remington guy, but I will support them with a purchase.
Remington went bankrupt because their two previous owners borrowed over a billion dollars against Remington, pocketed the money and gave Remington the debt. Little of it was invested back into Remington. It had nothing to do with Remington's firearms or sales.
The fact that Remington labored almost a decade with that debt is a testament to how well their business was doing.
I'm glad you posted this. The Remington haters, and the uninformed "experts" all like to make light of Remington's financial woes, and then try and connect it with the products they made. Nothing could be further from the truth. The holding companies that bought Remington did so because it was a lucrative business, making plenty of money and with a lot of assets. They literally raped Remington and left the company dying in the dust.
Now, to be fair, there was a period of time when Remington's QC slipped, and some crappy stuff got out of their factory, either intentionally, or on purpose. But, who's fault was that...........it was the fault of the people who owned the place, who in their greed for money, didn't care what went out the door, only caring about what went in their bank account. Even in those bad times, Remington was still turning out firearms that were some of the best shooting ones they'd ever produced. I know, because I own some of them.
Some decent components on that alpha. It will be interested to see the market price. If the street price is in the range where the Nosler model 21 was initially, it might gain some traction.
I'll bet it is 1500 or less. They have a higher production capacity then NOsler and apparently they have finally invested in more CNC centers.
THier "RR" prefix guns were well made but came from the factory missing primary extraction.
Why would anyone buy a product from a company that has been in bankruptcy TWICE. They will have to build a rifle that will compete with a half dozen other companies in every respect and for less money. To me that means BANKRUPTCY 3 TIMES.
I’m glad to see that most of you want to see and realize that Remington doing well is good for firearms.
As many of you realize, it does NOT make sense to equate Cerberus held Remington with current Remington BECAUSE Cerberus was making different decisions than current Remington.
It’s NOT puffery as the changes they are making are real. The examples we are seeing are well built, well functioning, and accurate rifles. Real life experience matters with the actual new rifles, rather than guesses and emotions from a rocking chair.
For example, my new ADL has the bolt timed such that there is a gap of .009-to-.010 between the front of bolt and rear of action. You can clearly see that it is making proper engagement with cammimg surfaces. The irony here is that my 30-06 BDL Custom Deluxe from 1992 is way out of spec compared to it. And don’t get me wrong, I appreciate nice bluing and own other rifles with it. They did make some new CDL 30-06 that are available. I would imagine more configurations/cartridges will be on the way as they’ve been slowing trickling out.
Sounds like a grand combo of "Admin speak; moreover politician speak"; as contouring the commentary; phrasing as propagandized message!
I love... "- a slightly better, more common grade of steel." The "better" in the eye of the beholder. Likely respective of better profit margins! The "more common grade" as a large signal of such as lower tech alloys; "cheaper materials" the Barnum-speak message! Perhaps components reverting to nothing more than early twentieth century "carbon steel". Such does make for beautiful blue! The same quick cash "acquisition" folks in the wings! Seeking "one born every minute" consumers! Save your new warranty cards for the next TP shortage!
Actually sounds like the opposite to me. From the article posted about the Alpha 1:
Quote
The barrel steel has been changed to the correct properties that a barrel should have. In the past, Remington was more concerned with how fast they could make a barrel and how long the tooling would last.
Sounds like a pretty frank admission to me...and like it is an improvement. Reading the article, I really like the way the new ownership is forthcoming about how in the past the quality pooch has been screwed.
hinesf4i and anyone else who has one of the new rifles, would you gents mind posting some pictures?
I've owned three RR 700s and must have had the only three that didn't have any issues with primary extraction. I've heard about it but never seen or experienced the issue. I thought the RR guns were well made and timed the way they ought to be. No issues with mine except one: my 700 BDL in .270 would leave a nasty scratch on the spent cases. I bought a flex-hone and oil and solved that issue easily.
Why would anyone buy a product from a company that has been in bankruptcy TWICE. They will have to build a rifle that will compete with a half dozen other companies in every respect and for less money. To me that means BANKRUPTCY 3 TIMES.
Sigh.....
Remington went bankrupt because their two previous owners borrowed over a billion dollars against Remington, pocketed the money and gave Remington the debt. Little of it was invested back into Remington. It had nothing to do with Remington's firearms or sales.
The fact that Remington labored almost a decade with that debt is a testament to how well their business was doing.
1.Bolt handle still brazed on? check 2.Same fail on fire trigger/safety?: check 3.Safety (fail on fire) does not lock bolt? check 4. Extractor sill the same, sheet metal? check
1.Bolt handle still brazed on? check 2.Same fail on fire trigger/safety?: check 3.Safety (fail on fire) does not lock bolt? check 4. Extractor sill the same, sheet metal? check
If the bolt does not lock down when the safety is engaged, the Alpha 1 will be nothing more than an another expensive box-stand “hunting” rifle.
I alter the safeties on the old 700's, 721's, & 722's so the safety doesn't lock down the bolt. I do this because I like the safety on and having the bolt operatational.
Exception, I have a couple first & second year 700's that I've not changed as they are usually just in a safe.
Why would anyone buy a product from a company that has been in bankruptcy TWICE. They will have to build a rifle that will compete with a half dozen other companies in every respect and for less money. To me that means BANKRUPTCY 3 TIMES.
They went bankrupt due to liberal attorney general and states attorneys.
Why would anyone buy a 700 when Tikkas are so far superior in every way ?
I have a couple Tikkas they are inferior in every way to early 700's!
If the Remington 700 of any year is well made and to specs it is far superior to a Tikka. Not even a fair comparison.
Very true 👍.....Unless your just a rabid Tikka fanboy this is obvious...Hb
I have had my share of bad Remingtons and never a bad Tikka but if done right the 700 offers more customization then the Tikka can ever dream of. The fact that no custom action is a copied version of the Tikka action is all one needs to know.
I have had dozens of Remington 700's and over a dozen Tikka's, I did have one Tikka dud but I can only remember one Model 700 that Would not shoot out of the 40 or so Remington 700 rifles I have owned over the last 35 years......Hb
I have had dozens of Remington 700's and over a dozen Tikka's, I did have one Tikka dud but I can only remember one Model 700 that Would not shoot out of the 40 or so Remington 700 rifles I have owned over the last 35 years......Hb
For the guys who say the 700 is superior to a Tikka, what are you basing that on? Besides the fact that one has spawned many more copycat custom actions, which I am not all that sure is because it's better at all. But either way, if someone doesn't want or need to customize a rifle, or build a custom, kind of not applicable. I'll give the 700 receiver the fact that its cylindrical and easy to machine on? lol.
Just curious. I have no dog in this fight and like both rifles. Just simply wouldn't know what makes a 700 better in any way. I'm no Tikka fanboy, and it is not obvious. I've greatly enjoyed older Remingtons like the 700 Classic in 6.5x55 but I am not sure about "better" vs "just as good". Would appreciate some objective reasoning.
My 2008 700 in 308 is a mirror image of my 77 model 700 in 308. They both shoot very well also.
My memory of 70s 700s is much different than a 2008. Slimmer/trimmer, safety locking the bolt, don't think they had recoil pads in the 70s. Just a plate.
The one size fits all action for the Tikka is a minus. There not a budget rifle anymore. The other being that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I hate ugly guns. Unless it’s strictly for utility or a cheap truck gun who wants to hunt with a fuggly rifle even if it works? Savage’s and Tikka’s IMO are ugly as sin.
The bolt head is brazed on, too. Lot of people don't realize that. But most DIY-home gunsmiths don't work on that end of the bolt. They try to tacticalize their bolt handle by cutting on it or heating it up without using heat sinks and heat paste and damage the brazing, then when it breaks off they say "look, my handle came off, damn that Remington." No doubt a few have come off due to a bad brazing. But most of the ones I've seen that failed were worked on by someone who didn't know what they were doing.
Tikka started out as a budget rifle. Popularity has driven prices higher. It retains a a lot of ease-of-manufacturing shortcuts. One-size-fits-all receiver length, tubular reciever, inability to top of the magazinbe without removing it. And all that's fine if it works well. But the one thing I simply can't stand is that weird recoil lug design - where the is a loose aluminum recoil lug wedge that is pressed into the stock and engages a notch in the bottom of the receiver. Since that design was introduced, the net has been replete with comments on that fact that those wedges get deformed over time, that they inadequately engage the receiver, that they get lost - so much so to the point that some users shoot them without the lug. The recoil lug needs to be integral with the receiver like on Mausers, Win M70s and Ruger M77s, or between the barrel like on Rem 700s and Browning X-Bolts. The recoil lug should not be a little loose piece that can be lost, or has to be glued into the stock, or has to be replaced with an after-market steel lug due deformation of the stock aluminum lug. To me, of all the things in a Tikka, that recoil lug screams "cheap." Otherwise, they apparently work fine, and to me look nice.
Tikka started out as a budget rifle. Popularity has driven prices higher. It retains a a lot of ease-of-manufacturing shortcuts. One-size-fits-all receiver length, tubular reciever, inability to top of the magazinbe without removing it. And all that's fine if it works well. But the one thing I simply can't stand is that weird recoil lug design - where the is a loose aluminum recoil lug wedge that is pressed into the stock and engages a notch in the bottom of the receiver. Since that design was introduced, the net has been replete with comments on that fact that those wedges get deformed over time, that they inadequately engage the receiver, that they get lost - so much so to the point that some users shoot them without the lug. The recoil lug needs to be integral with the receiver like on Mausers, Win M70s and Ruger M77s, or between the barrel like on Rem 700s and Browning X-Bolts. The recoil lug should not be a little loose piece that can be lost, or has to be glued into the stock, or has to be replaced with an after-market steel lug due deformation of the stock aluminum lug. To me, of all the things in a Tikka, that recoil lug screams "cheap." Otherwise, they apparently work fine, and to me look nice.
Since the T3x came on the scene it has a steel lug. The shroud is also steel. The Lug is certainly a PITA at times but is effective, a lot of rifles have done away with the conventional recoil lug whether it is sandwiched between the barrel and receiver or a piece of the action.
The one size fits all action for the Tikka is a minus. There not a budget rifle anymore. The other being that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I hate ugly guns. Unless it’s strictly for utility or a cheap truck gun who wants to hunt with a fuggly rifle even if it works? Savage’s and Tikka’s IMO are ugly as sin.
I know some guys that like to brag about the accuracy of their Savage rifles. Now, I've owned a couple that I traded for, and then traded away, without ever shooting them. I've handled them, and quite honestly consider them to be among the homeliest looking guns ever made, no matter ho good they may shoot. Same way with the Tikka's, only I can attest that they shoot very well, or at least that's been my experience. But, they are not as pleasing to my eye as a 700 is.
Tikka started out as a budget rifle. Popularity has driven prices higher. It retains a a lot of ease-of-manufacturing shortcuts. One-size-fits-all receiver length, tubular reciever, inability to top of the magazinbe without removing it. And all that's fine if it works well. But the one thing I simply can't stand is that weird recoil lug design - where the is a loose aluminum recoil lug wedge that is pressed into the stock and engages a notch in the bottom of the receiver. Since that design was introduced, the net has been replete with comments on that fact that those wedges get deformed over time, that they inadequately engage the receiver, that they get lost - so much so to the point that some users shoot them without the lug. The recoil lug needs to be integral with the receiver like on Mausers, Win M70s and Ruger M77s, or between the barrel like on Rem 700s and Browning X-Bolts. The recoil lug should not be a little loose piece that can be lost, or has to be glued into the stock, or has to be replaced with an after-market steel lug due deformation of the stock aluminum lug. To me, of all the things in a Tikka, that recoil lug screams "cheap." Otherwise, they apparently work fine, and to me look nice.
Since the T3x came on the scene it has a steel lug. The shroud is also steel. The Lug is certainly a PITA at times but is effective, a lot of rifles have done away with the conventional recoil lug whether it is sandwiched between the barrel and receiver or a piece of the action.
You beat me to it. The T3x has made the aluminum lug a thing of the past.
As for the "one size fits all" receiver I don't see how its actually a problem, rather than an issue of preference. Same with asthetics. Some may like it, some may not, but they seem far from being an objective problem.
I dunno, still not seeing any way a 700 is actually demonstrably better. More like people just prefer one over the other for their own reasons.
Tikka started out as a budget rifle. Popularity has driven prices higher. It retains a a lot of ease-of-manufacturing shortcuts. One-size-fits-all receiver length, tubular reciever, inability to top of the magazinbe without removing it. And all that's fine if it works well. But the one thing I simply can't stand is that weird recoil lug design - where the is a loose aluminum recoil lug wedge that is pressed into the stock and engages a notch in the bottom of the receiver. Since that design was introduced, the net has been replete with comments on that fact that those wedges get deformed over time, that they inadequately engage the receiver, that they get lost - so much so to the point that some users shoot them without the lug. The recoil lug needs to be integral with the receiver like on Mausers, Win M70s and Ruger M77s, or between the barrel like on Rem 700s and Browning X-Bolts. The recoil lug should not be a little loose piece that can be lost, or has to be glued into the stock, or has to be replaced with an after-market steel lug due deformation of the stock aluminum lug. To me, of all the things in a Tikka, that recoil lug screams "cheap." Otherwise, they apparently work fine, and to me look nice.
Since the T3x came on the scene it has a steel lug. The shroud is also steel. The Lug is certainly a PITA at times but is effective, a lot of rifles have done away with the conventional recoil lug whether it is sandwiched between the barrel and receiver or a piece of the action.
You beat me to it. The T3x has made the aluminum lug a thing of the past.
As for the "one size fits all" receiver I don't see how its actually a problem, rather than an issue of preference. Same with asthetics. Some may like it, some may not, but they seem far from being an objective problem.
I dunno, still not seeing any way a 700 is actually demonstrably better. More like people just prefer one over the other for their own reasons.
Magazine, BDL floorplate and ADL are available from the factory and tons of aftermarket offerings as well. 2 action lengths allows longer COAL Better gas handling in the case of a pierced primer. Right lug raceway is wide open on a Tikka Triigertech,Timney,Geiselle ,Shilen and Jewell triggers. Every stockmaker out there has a 700 pattern . Scope mounting options More Gunsmiths that know how to work on them Receiver can be lightened on a 700 not on a Tikka.
So Bugger you think a 1 in 14" twist is a good idea in 22-250 chambering?
I'm personally ok with it. I like the idea of light bullets going fast when varmint hunting.
I can only speak for myself but if I wanted to shoot 70g+ bullets I'd just bump up to a 6mm of some flavor. But I can see where a shooter in todays world might find the 1:14 twist to be .....limiting.
I agree. I’ve killed a truckload of coyotes with that twist rate in my 22-250 and 50 grain ballistic tips. It’s extremely accurate and deadly. I shoot 70 grain ballistic tips in my 240 weatherby. It’s also quite effective but not a “pelt” gun, but they’re close to worthless anyway.
The rampant Fhuqktardation of The CLUELESS,never disappoints in it's magnificent grandeur...you "lucky" kchunts. Hint. Congratulations?!?
I've shot a bajillion of BT's and Max's through 22-250's ranging from 7-14" RPM. The increased RPM simply increases the Terminal Effects of same,while opening windows to VASTLY superior projectiles,less any "concession". Pass the .545 BC and hold The Fluff ladies. Read that again. Now one more time. Hint.
Drooling CLUELESS Fhuqks trying to "talk" such mechanics,is never not HILARIOUS. I reckon you gals have a herd of "Custom" 06's too,wearing 1-14",as it's long been Fast Twisted.Read that again. Now one more time. Hint.
For those "daring" enough to try,I shoot a few .243" bore chamberings too. You Drooling Fhuqtards,only "shoot" your mouths and Imaginations. Hint.
If only in the interest of keeping things "fair",for you [bleep],here's a few of the .224's I shoot. Twist rates run the gamut and well over 100 spouts all told. Hint.
The 14" RPM 22-250 will shoot none of these,if only for starters. Had 1000 of the new RMR 75's hit the porch yesterday to boot. Hint.
It's never been difficult to cypher who shoots and who don't. Fortunately for you gals however,Imagination and Pretend are free,so even you ladies can "afford" to "contribute". Hint.
Tikka started out as a budget rifle. Popularity has driven prices higher. It retains a a lot of ease-of-manufacturing shortcuts. One-size-fits-all receiver length, tubular reciever, inability to top of the magazinbe without removing it. And all that's fine if it works well. But the one thing I simply can't stand is that weird recoil lug design - where the is a loose aluminum recoil lug wedge that is pressed into the stock and engages a notch in the bottom of the receiver. Since that design was introduced, the net has been replete with comments on that fact that those wedges get deformed over time, that they inadequately engage the receiver, that they get lost - so much so to the point that some users shoot them without the lug. The recoil lug needs to be integral with the receiver like on Mausers, Win M70s and Ruger M77s, or between the barrel like on Rem 700s and Browning X-Bolts. The recoil lug should not be a little loose piece that can be lost, or has to be glued into the stock, or has to be replaced with an after-market steel lug due deformation of the stock aluminum lug. To me, of all the things in a Tikka, that recoil lug screams "cheap." Otherwise, they apparently work fine, and to me look nice.
Since the T3x came on the scene it has a steel lug. The shroud is also steel. The Lug is certainly a PITA at times but is effective, a lot of rifles have done away with the conventional recoil lug whether it is sandwiched between the barrel and receiver or a piece of the action.
You beat me to it. The T3x has made the aluminum lug a thing of the past.
As for the "one size fits all" receiver I don't see how its actually a problem, rather than an issue of preference. Same with asthetics. Some may like it, some may not, but they seem far from being an objective problem.
I dunno, still not seeing any way a 700 is actually demonstrably better. More like people just prefer one over the other for their own reasons.
Magazine, BDL floorplate and ADL are available from the factory and tons of aftermarket offerings as well. 2 action lengths allows longer COAL Better gas handling in the case of a pierced primer. Right lug raceway is wide open on a Tikka Triigertech,Timney,Geiselle ,Shilen and Jewell triggers. Every stockmaker out there has a 700 pattern . Scope mounting options More Gunsmiths that know how to work on them Receiver can be lightened on a 700 not on a Tikka.
The bit about gas handling is a great point! That is what I am looking for.
The rest is all about the availability of custom options, which doesn't really say the 700 is a better rifle in any way. If anything, it says a ton of it is often replaced. But in any case, does not mean superiority over a Tikka. Just that there is more ability to customize if someone wants.
Means nothing if they don't.
But at least there's one or two good points where a Remington 700 is better than a Tikka, because everything else so far in the thread seems to be "I like it better".
The 700 was a “budget rifle” and used “ease of manufacturing shortcuts” when it was introduced too. I consider them same same.
Same, I mean even when they were a few hundred bucks cheaper here in Canada, it came up to the same thing since an SPS or ADL was going to have a trigger replaced with a Triggertech. And then I had to live with garbage finish. Still like 700s.
But at that price they cost the same as a Tikka, on which I never replaced anything. Well, not true. I replaced a stock with a B&C once and found out that for several hundred dollars more, it did nothing for me and the Tikka stock suited me just fine.
So they're a wash for me too. I mean the 700 ain't exactly without any corner cutting itself if we're calling the Tikkas a budget gun.
I like 700's and have owned and used a boatload of them but the difference between the Tikka T3 and 700 is that the Tikka is ready to shoot well right out of the box. I have never owned or seen one that did not easily meet the guarantee of 3 shots under an inch. I bought my first T-3 about 20 years ago, I have bought some 700's since then but the 700's keep going down the road and the Tikkas stay.
If anyone ask me what rifle to purchase I unhesitatingly recommend Tikka. They are plug and play - requiring nothing except adding a scope.
I've looked at at least a dozen 'new' 700s and none of them had any mechanical primary extraction due to the different design of the bolt tube. Sad.... -Al
I like 700's and have owned and used a boatload of them but the difference between the Tikka T3 and 700 is that the Tikka is ready to shoot well right out of the box. I have never owned or seen one that did not easily meet the guarantee of 3 shots under an inch. I bought my first T-3 about 20 years ago, I have bought some 700's since then but the 700's keep going down the road and the Tikkas stay.
If anyone ask me what rifle to purchase I unhesitatingly recommend Tikka. They are plug and play - requiring nothing except adding a scope.
drover
I agree 100%. I have also sent some 700's down the road after being a life long fan. Tikka has replaced the 700 as being the best shooting (Out of the Box Gun). Say what you want about them, The Dam things just flat out shoot.
I've looked at at least a dozen 'new' 700s and none of them had any mechanical primary extraction due to the different design of the bolt tube. Sad.... -Al
It looks to me that the Alpha 1 is the replacement for the 700 even though they kept 700 in the name. I do like a longer mag box, 8x40 screws and the side bolt release. Old scope mount won’t fit so there is that. I would like to see what twists they will be offering
The 700 was a “budget rifle” and used “ease of manufacturing shortcuts” when it was introduced too. I consider them same same.
Same, I mean even when they were a few hundred bucks cheaper here in Canada, it came up to the same thing since an SPS or ADL was going to have a trigger replaced with a Triggertech. And then I had to live with garbage finish. Still like 700s.
But at that price they cost the same as a Tikka, on which I never replaced anything. Well, not true. I replaced a stock with a B&C once and found out that for several hundred dollars more, it did nothing for me and the Tikka stock suited me just fine.
So they're a wash for me too. I mean the 700 ain't exactly without any corner cutting itself if we're calling the Tikkas a budget gun.
The garbage finish wouldn't be so bad if it didn't rust like crazy.
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/IMG_1702.JPG)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/ww233/beretzs/IMG_4781.JPG)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1280x1024q90/922/vFaG3U.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1280x1024q90/922/lLmSHq.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1280x1024q90/922/mtAK1C.jpg)