Remington 700 quality

[Sargesniper]

a little more to it than your post. They tried the Win. Md. 70 in Vietnam, and moved over to the 700. Now noone has really said why all that much, but the end user prefered the Remington based rifle. Kind of a moote point anyway when looking at distances involved with 85% of the shots taken. Considering the time frame and most rifles were chambered in 30-06; the Winchester might have had a slight advantage (I'm not seeing it) in action length. But those real long bullets didn't exist at the time. But when we made the move to the 7.62x51 the ball game changed. The Winchester short action was slightly longer. But the one real advantage I see with the Winchester is in the saftey lever. You don't have to move your hand as much to move it. Yet by far the most kills in a sniper's rifle was with a N.M. M14 (thus a moote point). The very long distance stuff was (or has) been taken over by the big bore stuff. Yet the four hundred yard shot was the norm. Unless you live in some super remote place in North America (Alaska?), most of us don't know what silence is really like. You can hear an Ak47 or an RPD in use four hundred yards away. The Winchester is probably slightly quieter in use. I'll have to have a beer with a certain scout sniper in my VFW post to get his view point on the subject. I do know that's the SOG teams didn't like the bolt guns at all for covert use, as they were considered to be too noisey in operation.

All still kinda of a dull point anyway. Considering that 90% of all KIA's are under 100 yards, and 85% of them are under 75 yards. On the battlefield 85% of all KIA's come from arty, and another 10% come from air strikes. That leaves the other guys doing 5%. Nothing new, as it's been a known fact for 70 years or more. There will always be snipers in one form or another, but for most of them their days are numbered.
gary

Please don't tell that to the Marine Snipers at the school in Quantico. You will have a debate on your hands for sure.
As far as your asumption to the 400 yd. norm goes i will say that the Marine Snipers mod.70's were zeroed at 500 yds. Yes some KIA's were shorter but when you start shooting a bolt gun against AK's at 75-100 yds. then you are either one brave individual or one stupid individual. Either way you will pay the ultimate price.
The USMC used the MI-D instead of the M-14 for sniping so i guess you are referring to the Army Snipers. Most KIA's were with either the M-70 or later on with the Rem.700
I can assure you that the art of sniping is not a dull point either. Also the SOG guys were not considered to be Snipers. They were covert groups for the most part with very few guys running a mission. They used the most firepower they could because when compromised, things got far from being dull. These were very brave and dedicated men doing what they did best,God bless them all.
Semper Fi!

 

[Trickymissfit]

Please don't tell that to the Marine Snipers at the school in Quantico. You will have a debate on your hands for sure.
As far as your asumption to the 400 yd. norm goes i will say that the Marine Snipers mod.70's were zeroed at 500 yds. Yes some KIA's were shorter but when you start shooting a bolt gun against AK's at 75-100 yds. then you are either one brave individual or one stupid individual. Either way you will pay the ultimate price.
The USMC used the MI-D instead of the M-14 for sniping so i guess you are referring to the Army Snipers. Most KIA's were with either the M-70 or later on with the Rem.700
I can assure you that the art of sniping is not a dull point either. Also the SOG guys were not considered to be Snipers. They were covert groups for the most part with very few guys running a mission. They used the most firepower they could because when compromised, things got far from being dull. These were very brave and dedicated men doing what they did best,God bless them all.
Semper Fi!

many SOG guys were qualified snipers, but just didn't do it a lot for other reasons. But rest assured they did. You could basicly divide their whole group up into several elements that did totally different things. Towards the later half of that war about 40% were doing Brightlight missions as a priority (these were considered tobe up most priority). The only folks I ever saw using an M1D were NVA, and their rifles came right out of Europe with British proof marks on them. Green Beret A teams often had qualified snipers (they are not SOG), and I've seen them use just about everything from bolt guns to 50 caliber M2's (nothing like the one they issued). More often than not they simply used a national match M14, and they could have used anything they wanted.

I've seen Marine snipers use everything from odd looking M16's (very odd) to bolt guns. Even Hathcock used an M14 from time to time (speaks of it in his book). I think it's more or less whatever your comfortable with, and also fits the ranges your normally working in.

gary

 

[Sargesniper]

many SOG guys were qualified snipers, but just didn't do it a lot for other reasons. But rest assured they did. You could basicly divide their whole group up into several elements that did totally different things. Towards the later half of that war about 40% were doing Brightlight missions as a priority (these were considered tobe up most priority). The only folks I ever saw using an M1D were NVA, and their rifles came right out of Europe with British proof marks on them. Green Beret A teams often had qualified snipers (they are not SOG), and I've seen them use just about everything from bolt guns to 50 caliber M2's (nothing like the one they issued). More often than not they simply used a national match M14, and they could have used anything they wanted.

I've seen Marine snipers use everything from odd looking M16's (very odd) to bolt guns. Even Hathcock used an M14 from time to time (speaks of it in his book). I think it's more or less whatever your comfortable with, and also fits the ranges your normally working in.

gary

Gary, where and in what year did you see the NVA using the M1 Garand?
Where and what year did you see the Marine Snipers using M16,s for sniping?
I know that the M14 was used with a Starlight scope for night shooting but have never witnessed it used for any other sniping role.I know for a fact that the USMC snipers were issued the M1 Garand (at least some were). I cannot dispute what you say about Carlos using an M14 other than to say i believe if he did, it would have been in a night time deployment only.
The only bolt action used to my knowledge were the M-70 in 30/06 and later in the war the Mod. 700 in 7.62x51 (.308)
If you have the book,The One Round War you will see what rifles were used. A very informative read on the Viet Nam war. ..... SEMPER FI!

 

[Trickymissfit]

Gary, where and in what year did you see the NVA using the M1 Garand?
Where and what year did you see the Marine Snipers using M16,s for sniping?
I know that the M14 was used with a Starlight scope for night shooting but have never witnessed it used for any other sniping role.I know for a fact that the USMC snipers were issued the M1 Garand (at least some were). I cannot dispute what you say about Carlos using an M14 other than to say i believe if he did, it would have been in a night time deployment only.
The only bolt action used to my knowledge were the M-70 in 30/06 and later in the war the Mod. 700 in 7.62x51 (.308)
If you have the book,The One Round War you will see what rifles were used. A very informative read on the Viet Nam war. ..... SEMPER FI!

Que Son Valley area, and to be exact about eight Klicks due south of th southern tip of the Hiep Duc Ridge was the first one. That would be in very late August or mid September 1968. I had that rifle for awhile before giving it away, and had an SF armorer look up the numbers and the proof marks for me. It was a late manufactured rifle that was shipped to Engand. By the way it as an extremely accurate rifle used by a guy that had no idea what he was doing with it. It even had the issued scope on it. I late ran into threeor four others in use by the NVA, but rarely saw them actually using a standard M1 Garrand (odd?). They like the M1 and M2 Carbine better than anything.

I did see Marines using a couple scoped M14's over by Baldy or maybe Ross (probably Hathcock's unit). They were shooting from inside the wire and targets in the five to seven hundred yard range. Didn't talk to them, as I was getting ready to CA into the valley early the next morning (was probably Ross now that I think about it). On the otherhand, the track sargent (or whatever they call the head dude in the motor pool in a CAV unit) was tasked with the road sweep on Highway One every morning. He took an M48 with a couple ACAV's and had his guys and several Marines with him (A Troop 1st / 1st CAV out of Hawkhill). There was always at least one Marine sniper with them, and what hey used varied by whatever they wanted to carry tha day. Sometimes there was a bolt gun, and many times an M14. That Sargent and I are close friends, but never knew each other in the combat zone. My base camp was about a klick south of the Hiep Duc Ridge and his was close to 35 klicks east, but we often crossed pathes (strange). The CAV units in my AO were either the 17th or most of the time B troop 1st/1st.

Speaking of Carlos Hathcock! Last year I came into an autographed copy of his book (actually there are three different autographs on this one). It's not the 91 Confirmed Kills book. Really good read, and pretty much a bio of him.
gary

 

[Bart B]

All the snipers I talked with in the late 1960' through early 1970's who were also on US military rifle teams preferred the Win. 70 to the Rem 700. The Winnie's had far too many features that made them better for an accurate, reliable, easy-field-maintainable sniper rifle compared to the Remmy's. They all also felt that Winchester being in financial straits at that time was the main reason the flag officers and bean counters running the military chose the decendant of the M1917 Enfield as it's new sniper rifle action instead of the decendant of the M1903 Springfield. Meanwhile, the Winnies were still favored on the firing lines in competition with bolt guns.

 

[Sargesniper]

All the snipers I talked with in the late 1960' through early 1970's who were also on US military rifle teams preferred the Win. 70 to the Rem 700. The Winnie's had far too many features that made them better for an accurate, reliable, easy-field-maintainable sniper rifle compared to the Remmy's. They all also felt that Winchester being in financial straits at that time was the main reason the flag officers and bean counters running the military chose the decendant of the M1917 Enfield as it's new sniper rifle action instead of the decendant of the M1903 Springfield. Meanwhile, the Winnies were still favored on the firing lines in competition with bolt guns.

In March of 1967 the 3rd. Marines at Camp Carroll were just getting the 700 in to replace the 70. A lot of grumbling was heard for sure. I too like the 70 over the 700. Mine is as accurate as the ones the Snipers were using at that time. I have both the 700 and the 70 at this time but i shoot the 700 a lot more these days. Mine was made in 1957 and is set up with the target stock and a 10x Unertl. Original barrel too! Could not find an 8x anywhere at the time but not much difference. The trigger finally broke and rather than find parts i chose to replace with a Timney. The weakest part of the 70 is the trigger but this one was as fine as they come. Mine was a USMC rifle at one time because of the marking with the pencil grinder on the receiver (US Property) This is the way the MTU armorors marked the rifles. I believe it was used in comp.though. It is bedded like the Sniper Rifles were. Love it,just don't shoot it much anymore.
..... SEMPER FI!

 

[Bart B]

In the late '60's, the USN Small Arms Match Conditioning Unit in San Diego got the first batch of Rem 700's to be sent to SEAL teams. I don't know what military shop built them. They clamped each one in an accuracy cradle then shot several 10-shot groups at 600 yards with different lots of M118 match ammo. Two cans (920 rounds) of the most accurate lot was packaged with the 700 that shot it then shipped to a team. Some included a 20" long black supressor that screwed on the barrel's muzzle.

'Twas interesting that the Rem. 700's didn't shoot any more accurate than the 7.62 NATO converted M1 Garand's rebuilt for then used by the USN Rifle Teams at the time. Good lots of ammo would shoot inside 6 inches at 600 from both rifle types. In fact, the USN SAMCU even suggested to the USMC and US Army those converted Garands be used as the standard military sniper rifles complete with the Redfield 3-9 scope that was supplied with the Rem's.

I don't remember what barrel the 700's had (McMillan?) but the Garands had standard 1:12 twist broach rifled barrels from Springfield Armory in Springfield, MA, and chambered with standard MIL SPEC reamers. They were all made in 1964 and 1965; air gauged and those put in Team rifles had groove diameters at about .3077" to .3079". Those "tight" barrels were made when the rifling broach was well worn down and its teeth made smooth cuts; time to be replaced with a new broach.

 

[Greyfox]

I read an article a year or two ago in the American Rifleman about sniper rifles of the Vietnam era. Land, Carlos Hathcock's superior at the time(I beleve) was quoted saying that Hathcock's M70 was a 2 MOA rifle with the issued ammo.
On a different note. About 6 or 7 years ago I bought a Commemerative , Marine Scout Sniper Rem700. It was a limited edition, parkerized, 700 with an oiled stock, stripper clip cut receiver, and continued serial # from the originals. I gave it a try at with 168SMK handloads and was pleasantly surprised that right out of the box it would keep five shots under an inch at 200 yards. I haven't shot it since. It looks great with a period 3x9 Redield mounted on it.

 

[Bart B]

I read an article a year or two ago in the American Rifleman about sniper rifles of the Vietnam era. Land, Carlos Hathcock's superior at the time(I beleve) was quoted saying that Hathcock's M70 was a 2 MOA rifle with the issued ammo.

I agree. The service marksmanship unit clamped it in an accuracy cradle and shot a few groups with good lots of M72 30 caliber match ammo. The throat in it swallowed the erosion gauge and was well worn.

When I talked with GySgt Hathcock at the 1971 Interservice Rifle Matches, he told me his old Winchester sniper rifle's barrel had many rounds through it and would probably just barely hold the 20" V ring on the old military "C" 1000 yard target used then. But he said he liked the trigger on it and knew well the sight settings needed for all ranges up to 1000 or a bit more.

 

[Trickymissfit]

In March of 1967 the 3rd. Marines at Camp Carroll were just getting the 700 in to replace the 70. A lot of grumbling was heard for sure. I too like the 70 over the 700. Mine is as accurate as the ones the Snipers were using at that time. I have both the 700 and the 70 at this time but i shoot the 700 a lot more these days. Mine was made in 1957 and is set up with the target stock and a 10x Unertl. Original barrel too! Could not find an 8x anywhere at the time but not much difference. The trigger finally broke and rather than find parts i chose to replace with a Timney. The weakest part of the 70 is the trigger but this one was as fine as they come. Mine was a USMC rifle at one time because of the marking with the pencil grinder on the receiver (US Property) This is the way the MTU armorors marked the rifles. I believe it was used in comp.though. It is bedded like the Sniper Rifles were. Love it,just don't shoot it much anymore.
..... SEMPER FI!

my first set of orders would have placed me at the Camp Carrol area in December 1967. They ended up in a garbage can right beside a desk. Tobe exact 75% of the guys orders were tossed in there, and new ones cut. I ended up a little south of Chu Lai for about four or five months. Then pulled up stakes and never went back.
gary

 

[krury]

I would never say Remington's are junk. They have a long history of quality over the years. Anytime you have competition in any industry, that requires the manufactures to either step up their game or be left behind. I think that's what you see in the firearm industry. Remington, Browning, Savage and all the others are pushing to be the best, and the competition is fierce. The good part of all of this is that the customer almost always wins in these situations. We see the end results and get to have fun shooting them.

As for your question about purchasing a Remington. The last three bolt guns have been Remington 700's. The VS in .308, SPS in .243 and BDL in 30-06.

Jim

I like Remington's, Howas, Savages but except for accustocks (which I like), I have a closet full of Tupperware stocks. Generally the first thing I do is a trigger job, Bell and Carlson sporter or Tactical stock and break in the barrel. I like the laminate stock on my Ruger Gunsite Scout though.

 

[krury]

Duplicate post

 

[TracySes23]

I believe that is false. The NRA had come out with a statement confirming that Soros had no connection to the Remington. I think they are in the tank for the age old reason........crappy management. We had one of Remington's R&D guys at a shoot. He was very frustrated. He said that the company was very bureaucratic, and getting ideas, or improvements implemented was near impossible. In contrast, the Savage people attend our shoots on a regular basis, bring new designs to get input, donate rifles as prizes, and have given tours of their factory to the members of our rifle club. The CEO of Savage even showed up at one of the local clubs to participate in a shoot. The contrast between the two companies is stark. We are located within driving distance of both Remington, and Savage.

I discovered the same thing as you did about Soros not owning any interest in any firearms companies. I also found other "truth or false" sites proclaiming the same thing as what the NRA proclaimed.
I just read yesterday that ATK is in the process of becoming the new owner of Savage Arms. So far I haven't discovered anything negative about ATK. However I get increasingly uncomfortable when I consider one company could possibly end up owning nearly all of the firearms industry. A number of years ago, laws were passed to stop companies from having a monopoly like that, but it doesn't seem to have stopped them.
The biggest reason I'm uncomfortable with one two or even three companies owning all of the industry, is because for instance, if one company owns it all, I believe the government would have an easier time of halting production. I may be completely wrong, but the discomfort is still there.
I also believe Soros has enough money to buy anonymity, which could make it nearly impossible to know the truth as to whether that's true or not. I hope my fears are unfounded.

 

[Trickymissfit]

I discovered the same thing as you did about Soros not owning any interest in any firearms companies. I also found other "truth or false" sites proclaiming the same thing as what the NRA proclaimed.
I just read yesterday that ATK is in the process of becoming the new owner of Savage Arms. So far I haven't discovered anything negative about ATK. However I get increasingly uncomfortable when I consider one company could possibly end up owning nearly all of the firearms industry. A number of years ago, laws were passed to stop companies from having a monopoly like that, but it doesn't seem to have stopped them.
The biggest reason I'm uncomfortable with one two or even three companies owning all of the industry, is because for instance, if one company owns it all, I believe the government would have an easier time of halting production. I may be completely wrong, but the discomfort is still there.
I also believe Soros has enough money to buy anonymity, which could make it nearly impossible to know the truth as to whether that's true or not. I hope my fears are unfounded.

I know little about George Soros, except that he was a Nazi SS trooper. He cannot deny it as there are photos of him in uniform. Now wether Mr. Soros owns a part of Remington is a moote point as it could well be a holding company he owns thru several other holding companies. I'll give him that benefit. Yet I also don't trust a copperhead either! I've said it more than once that unless Remington changes it's ways they are a dead issue. Some think that the demise of Mike Walker is the reason; I don't know. I honestly think it's the profit margin first and the product last. Or 1960's American industrial status quo. Ruger was the first to eat their lunch, and Savage has given them lessons at their own venue. Who's next?
gary