Remington 700 quality

[Trickymissfit]

As a former Palma and US Goodwill International Team member, here's some info you should consider.

Yes, (most of) the US Palma Team members did prefer the Winchester action, but only through the 1992 world match. The reason was any bullet could be used in Palma matches fired in the USA under USA NRA rules. I wrote the first NRA High Power Rule Book regulation for the Palma rifle, it has subsequently been modified. Some folks used 200, 220 and even 250-gr. bullets in the .308 Win case. With bullets heavier than 160 grains from the .308 case, round receivers didn't hold epoxy bedding very long before their accuracy dropped off. Barreled action touque was the problem. But the rectangular Winchester receiver held bedding good enough to wear out a couple of barrels before it needed touched up. This problem was worse with belted magnums used under NRA Any Rifle rules for long range. One or two of the US military teams tried 2-inch long recoil lugs on Remington receivers but that didn't work. Only after gluing a Remington reciever in a flat side/bottom aluminum sleeve did they do well. Several folks sleeved Remington receivers for the .308 Win. round. Benchresters have been sleeving Remingtons for decades since the 1970's or earlier for their 22 and 24 caliber one-holers with 50 to 70 grain bullets for the same reason.

Outside the USA where only arsenal 7.62 NATO ammo's allowed in long range matches and everyone has to use the same ammo lot, those new cases shot more accurate from 3- or 4-lug actions. The ammo's slightly out of square case heads's the problem. A 2-lug action usually doesn't shoot that ammo well unless it just happens to have very square case heads. Fortunately, the ammo used in the 1992 International Palma Matches in the USA had Winchester cases that were probably the best ones ever made in this country. Winchester had to retool their production line 2 or 3 times to make those 92 PALMA headstamped cases. Nowadays, a Stolle Panda 3-lug or a Paramount/RPG 4-lug action's the favorite in the USA for international competition. Not surprising as in 1971, George Swenson in England made a 4-lug action the British Commonwealth fullbore shooters used for arsenal ammo that was far superior to their SMLE rifles chambered for the 7.62 NATO round. Some folks in the USA used that "Swing" action for their Palma rifles. The Barnard 4-lug action from Australia was also a favorite. I have a Paramount action for my Palma rifle. But a Winchester or Remington will shoot reloaded cases with 155-gr. Palma bullets very well.

The Remington 700/40X rifles were never issued to the US Palma Team. In the early 1990's, Remington offered to build 20 rifles on their 40X action for the US Palma Team. The Team Captain declined. Their problems with extractors, inconsistant triggers, and barrels that plagued them since their Model 7XX and 40X inception were still an issue. And Remington wanted to use a 1:10 twist barrel instead of a 1:13 that was best for 30 caliber bullets in the 147 to 155 grain weights. Ruger offered some rifles on a modified single shot Model 77 action. Their factory rifle folks didn't know what a Palma rifle was nor what it had to do so the just slapped some together. They were checked out by team members in late 1991. I got to handle a couple and was not impressed with them at all; their expoy bedding wasn't done right as it had a long pad under the breech end of the barrel. Worst rifle for accuracy the Team members had ever fired. To say nothing of the poor stock design and bad triggers. Ruger's best engineers decided to use barrels from a company (Green Mountain) that made black powder rifle barrels instead of one of the top aftermarket barrel companies that had a reputation for making good ones. Half had 4-groove barrels and half had 6 grooves; those with 6 grooves shot the worst. Only one was able to hold the 1000-yard 10 ring for accuracy, and then just barely. I wonder what all this says about Ruger's opinions on their factory .308 Win. barrels they used on their 77's.

The story I was always told was that they do some kind of an application process to get the contract to supply rifles for the U.S. Palma team. Somewhere along the line Remington got the contract to supply "X" amount of rifles. The teams then evaluated them, and rejected them (I do not know why). Later it was awarded to Wm. Ruger, and they too were rejected. Supposedly both sets of rifles are somewhere in the same wharehouse gathering dust. Think the wharehouse is in the upper northeast part of the country, but could be just as wrong.

I never knew that they ever used anything but the Sierra Palma bullet in a .308 case. Always thought that their was somekind of a bullet spec, and Sierra was contracted to make them (although there is more than one 155 grain bullet made out there. In the AA manual (the only manual I know that actually publishes Palma loads for the Sierra bullet other than Sierra) they list a 30-06 Palma load! I always thought that you only used the .308 case only.

All the info I ever heard about the above was mostly second handed, and from your post I can see I was probably in error. Yet I think we are in the same direction of thought. We don't shoot Palma matches around here (that I know of), but have always found the concept to be most interesting. Had we shot them around here much I might have tried that route thirty years ago when I had a young man's eyes!

It's very interesting what you can pick up from in a casual conversation around here.
gary

 

[Trickymissfit]

Bart, Gary,

I am enjoying reading this history stuff. ALOT.

It may get lost in this thread however.

I will continue to watch for posts from you two as I do some of the other very knowledgeable members of the forum.

Thanks for taking the time to write this stuff!

It's kinda like Fords and Chevys with somebody else passing them by while they duke it out. In the Vietnam issue we hear all sorts of stories about this and that. The numbers I gave all of you are well known facts, and may well be slightly conservative. I saw both brands of rifles used by some folks over there, but stayed my distance from them most of the time as there were good reasons. The S.F. folks and others on up the food chain rolled thru several base camps I operated out of, and like I said they could have had most anything they wanted short of a nuke. I had a mint M1D that I removed from a guy that took pot shots at me everyday from 850 yards. Had the scope been zeroed in properly I certain I wouldn't be punching keys on this PC right now (let alone good ammo). I witnessed at least one 900+ yard shot with a N.M. M14 with peep sights. Yet in the killing fields; 100 yards is about it most all the time (I don't care what some guy in the Military Channel has to say).

Hathcock was **** near killed at the fork in the road that goes from Baldy to Ross. Had he done the correct thing he'd have came out on unscathed (we all forget from time to time). I've often wondered if he was the real intended target, and not the Amtrac (command detonated dud round). That road was a bad one on a good day, and I hated to make a trip down it. But when we did I got out and walked a good part of it. But there were a lot worse places to step foot in or on. Kam Duc, Ashau, Hiep Duc Ridge A.O. in general, and last but probably the worst place on earth was the Pineapple Forest. All these garden spots with the exception of Kam Duc lead right into the Que Son Valley (some refer to it as death valley). A fairly tough AO on a good afternoon
gary

 

[Bart B]

The story I was always told was that they do some kind of an application process to get the contract to supply rifles for the U.S. Palma team. Somewhere along the line Remington got the contract to supply "X" amount of rifles. The teams then evaluated them, and rejected them (I do not know why). Later it was awarded to Wm. Ruger, and they too were rejected. Supposedly both sets of rifles are somewhere in the same wharehouse gathering dust. Think the wharehouse is in the upper northeast part of the country, but could be just as wrong.

As far as I know, no contract was ever let by the US Palma Team for any USA rifle maker; company's just offered them. Winchester outright offered their Model 70 .308 Win. match rifle in a special version with a unique trigger and the word "PALMA" stamped on their barrel for all the international folks to use at the 1976 match at Camp Perry. Users could (and all did) buy their rifle afterwords. I had one for a few years but it's trigger wasn't as good as a standard one so I sold it. A special, very accurate lot of M118 7.62 NATO match ammo was used.

All this was back when everyone at the World Championships had to use the same rifle. That stemmed from the British Empire having the most members on the International Committee and they believed the best way to see who was the best rifle shooter was to have everyone use the same rifle and lot of ammunition. Soon afterwords, ones own rifle could be used. But everyone still uses the same ammo. Samples are typically sent to each country the year before the big match so chambers and barrels could be made to shoot them the best. But after Australia sent everyone samples in 1987 for the 1988 match, they issued everyone a different lot at the 1988 match. None of the USA nor some other country's rifles shot that stuff very well. The Aussies won.

And in 1990 or 1991, Remington contacted the NRA offering to build rifles for the Palma team; they were not asked by anyone to do so.

Those 20 rifles made by Ruger are still stored in a vault at the NRA Whittington Center where they were used once, as far as I know. I've heard that they were sold at auction but cannot confirm that. Great for collectors but horrible to shoot seriously.

 

[Trickymissfit]

As far as I know, no contract was ever let by the US Palma Team for any USA rifle maker; company's just offered them. Winchester outright offered their Model 70 .308 Win. match rifle in a special version with a unique trigger and the word "PALMA" stamped on their barrel for all the international folks to use at the 1976 match at Camp Perry. Users could (and all did) buy their rifle afterwords. I had one for a few years but it's trigger wasn't as good as a standard one so I sold it. A special, very accurate lot of M118 7.62 NATO match ammo was used.

All this was back when everyone at the World Championships had to use the same rifle. That stemmed from the British Empire having the most members on the International Committee and they believed the best way to see who was the best rifle shooter was to have everyone use the same rifle and lot of ammunition. Soon afterwords, ones own rifle could be used. But everyone still uses the same ammo. Samples are typically sent to each country the year before the big match so chambers and barrels could be made to shoot them the best. But after Australia sent everyone samples in 1987 for the 1988 match, they issued everyone a different lot at the 1988 match. None of the USA nor some other country's rifles shot that stuff very well. The Aussies won.

And in 1990 or 1991, Remington contacted the NRA offering to build rifles for the Palma team; they were not asked by anyone to do so.

Those 20 rifles made by Ruger are still stored in a vault at the NRA Whittington Center where they were used once, as far as I know. I've heard that they were sold at auction but cannot confirm that. Great for collectors but horrible to shoot seriously.

you probably have better info than I do first of all. I was told that the Ruger rifles were much different than the garden varity of Ruger we think of. The trigger group alone was a different design. I suspect they were push feed instead of their controlled feed setup. And I'd pretty much bet the farm they didn't build the barrel. But alas, all that's secondary and 99% of here will never see one of them.

To touch on that bedding issue between the Remington and the Winchester actions a second or so. On paper the Remington has a little more contact area than the Winchester, but it's a different kind of contact. The Winchester is pretty flat on the bottom, and the reciever is pulled down against a solid area of contact. While the Remington (and Savage too) are round and will try to spread the area they come in contact with (sorta like a wedge). So yes the Winchester should stay properly bedded longer. I got into a very long and somewhat heated argument about this same issue fifteen years ago with Joe Barnes and friends. I knew that neither side was completely right in the argument, and set out to prove one or another was wrong. I drew both actions up bedded in a mechanical CAD program and then set the same downward force from the bedding screws. At the time I think I used something like 50 in. lb. of force. The actuall area under hard stress was much larger with the Winchester. While the round action actually had more force on the sides than the bottom (actually in the 5 & 7 oclock areas). The Remington in a wood stock was actually slightly better than the Winchester in a similar stock. But (here's a big difference) with good aluminum bedding blocks that went up the sides of the actions the Winchester was way better. An area I did not touch upon (and should have) was the tang area and the recoil lugs. I think Remington might be a little better here. Yet it's also a known fact that the front mounted recoil lug is not a great system, and actually can cause other issues.

At the time I was working feverously on a .223 Winchester and a couple other rifles trying to get that last little bit out of them. The Winchester just needed a new barrel right up front with no questions asked. I never could get the trigger group into an acceptable mode, and the lock time was always at a snail's pace. But the rifle felt better in my hands. That rifle shot in the sixes, and it was a fight to get there. Later I got my hands on a similar rifle in 22-250. Never shot the 22-250 as I already owned two others. Rebarreled it with a Sealy Masker 1:14 twist 6mm barrel. Chambered it in 6BR. Added a speedlock kit and a Timeny trigger. It started out in the low sixes and just got better. I think it will shoot in the low threes without too much trouble. (have not played with it in quite awhile) Would have been a better barrel, had it been a 1:11 twist barrel, but I had zero dollars in the barrel from the getgo.
gary

 

[Bart B]

you probably have better info than I do first of all. I was told that the Ruger rifles were much different than the garden varity of Ruger we think of. The trigger group alone was a different design. I suspect they were push feed instead of their controlled feed setup. And I'd pretty much bet the farm they didn't build the barrel. But alas, all that's secondary and 99% of here will never see one of them.

To touch on that bedding issue between the Remington and the Winchester actions a second or so. . . . .

Those Ruger receivers had a vertical front stock screw instead of the normal angled one. A loading platform was put in the magazine cutout. And that 77 receiver's not very stiff; it's one of the flimsiest of all USA receivers I've measured.

Measuring receivers for stiffness.....folks who do it right will see the Winchester 70 long action is near 3 times stiffer than the long action Remington. As the Winnie's heavier by several ounces, that should not be a surprise to folks. And it was in wood stocks that top shooters learned that the Remmies twisted out of good contact in their eposy in a few hundred rounds. The Winnies would hold bedding for two or three barrels.

And charging a magazine with a 5-round clip was virtually fool proof with Winchester box magazine designs; the Remington ones were close to cantankerous. It took a few years but folks learned that using a Sako style extractor fit to the front of a Remington bolt solved their breaking factory extractor problem

 

[Trickymissfit]

Those Ruger receivers had a vertical front stock screw instead of the normal angled one. A loading platform was put in the magazine cutout. And that 77 receiver's not very stiff; it's one of the flimsiest of all USA receivers I've measured.

Measuring receivers for stiffness.....folks who do it right will see the Winchester 70 long action is near 3 times stiffer than the long action Remington. As the Winnie's heavier by several ounces, that should not be a surprise to folks. And it was in wood stocks that top shooters learned that the Remmies twisted out of good contact in their eposy in a few hundred rounds. The Winnies would hold bedding for two or three barrels.

And charging a magazine with a 5-round clip was virtually fool proof with Winchester box magazine designs; the Remington ones were close to cantankerous. It took a few years but folks learned that using a Sako style extractor fit to the front of a Remington bolt solved their breaking factory extractor problem

I found the Remington extractor damaged the rims on cases. I went with an M16 extractor, and modded the ejector pin to make it look similar to a MK. V weatherby. Plus a went with a lighter spring. Cases damage is completely gone now. The Sako extractor was thought about, but at the time I couldn't find a loose one anywhere.
gary

 

[vacabill]

I recently bought a rem 700 ultramag from remington custom shop. I had a custom scope made by leupold, i bought 5 boxes of berger 168 gr vld and proceeded to sight my rifle in. I shot it and cleaned i repeatedly, after about 20 rounds i thought i better get serious about sighting it in. I shot three shot groups and cleaned it. At first it shot about a 5 in group, i thought it needed more shooting and cleaning, after 30 or so rounds it wasn't doing any better . I talked to my gunsmith and told him the problem he said try toking the stock evenly to 60 ft lbs. I did and shot it again and it was better . I had a 3 in group. I called remington and bitched. They said send it back. I did . I received it back with a note they cleaned the gun and sent me a card back with a group of 3 shots that are 1.3 in and said this group is .95 in. I have showed everyone i know this and they and they couldn't figure out how they got less than a 1 in group. I am hoping to shoot it on sunday to see if it is any different. They did say they did anything else and did not say how far the target was. I don't know what would make it shoot any better, hopefully it does. I was disappointed from the fact it did not shoot out of the box as much as this rifle costs. I could have bought a $500 weatherby that would have shot better.

 

[Bart B]

I had a 3 in group. I called remington and bitched. They said send it back. I did . I received it back with a note they cleaned the gun and sent me a card back with a group of 3 shots that are 1.3 in and said this group is .95 in. I have showed everyone i know this and they and they couldn't figure out how they got less than a 1 in group.

First off, a group measuring 1.3" across the two furthest hole's outside edge will measure about .95" center to center. I would call them then ask how they measure groups.

Second, maybe the guy at the factory shoots better and/or tests differently than you do. No slam against you, but this does happen.

Third, years ago, a factory rep for Remington (good friend) who won the High Power Nationals once in the early '60's said Remington 700's factory spec for calibers 27 and larger was 1" at a hundred yards.

 

[bornlucky]

i posted this same comment on a different thread as well but to build a rifle or even customizing one if it isn't a rem 700 your selection of stocks, triggers, barrels etc.
is very limited. It is getting better at least for savage, and weatherby aftermarket but still pales in comparison. i bought a marlin x7 new in .243 for $340 and it outshoots my $750 dollar remington hands down. The new savages for out of the box accuracy IMHO leaves the new rems in the dust. i wish the after market manufacturers would catch up.

 

[Mike 338]

i posted this same comment on a different thread as well but to build a rifle or even customizing one if it isn't a rem 700 your selection of stocks, triggers, barrels etc.
is very limited. It is getting better at least for savage, and weatherby aftermarket but still pales in comparison. i bought a marlin x7 new in .243 for $340 and it outshoots my $750 dollar remington hands down. The new savages for out of the box accuracy IMHO leaves the new rems in the dust. i wish the after market manufacturers would catch up.

Nothing wrong with tricking one out and if that's your plan from the get go, then buying one for aftermarket support makes sense. I'd venture to guess that many or most people are more than willing to shoot it and if it shoots, to leave it alone. Remington's been around for a long time and has plenty of market share. There's no good reason why they're not in the front seat as far as performance and quality goes.

Profitability expectations from the parent company (Freedom Group) no doubt plays a huge role in how profits are spent or simply taken. It's common enough to bleed off the profits from a successful company to support lesser acquisitions. It could be the work force has just had the pride beaten out of them Who knows? All I know is that you can go into a gun store and point in almost any direction and pick up a rifle that is attempting to improve their reputation for accuracy and reliability.

It reminds me of the U.S. Postal Service. They used to do "Overnight Mail" until one day they finally had to admit they just weren't any good at quick calling it "Overnight" and started calling it "Priority Mail". The Remington Company is adrift while their competitors are focused upon manufacturing products their Customers are asking for. They're fine for the bones for a build but sometimes you just want to spend your money and be satisfied with your purchase.

I didn't leave Remington, they left me.

 

[Trickymissfit]

I recently bought a rem 700 ultramag from remington custom shop. I had a custom scope made by leupold, i bought 5 boxes of berger 168 gr vld and proceeded to sight my rifle in. I shot it and cleaned i repeatedly, after about 20 rounds i thought i better get serious about sighting it in. I shot three shot groups and cleaned it. At first it shot about a 5 in group, i thought it needed more shooting and cleaning, after 30 or so rounds it wasn't doing any better . I talked to my gunsmith and told him the problem he said try toking the stock evenly to 60 ft lbs. I did and shot it again and it was better . I had a 3 in group. I called remington and bitched. They said send it back. I did . I received it back with a note they cleaned the gun and sent me a card back with a group of 3 shots that are 1.3 in and said this group is .95 in. I have showed everyone i know this and they and they couldn't figure out how they got less than a 1 in group. I am hoping to shoot it on sunday to see if it is any different. They did say they did anything else and did not say how far the target was. I don't know what would make it shoot any better, hopefully it does. I was disappointed from the fact it did not shoot out of the box as much as this rifle costs. I could have bought a $500 weatherby that would have shot better.

I seriously doubt cleaning the barrel is the issue here. I think you got the first hint when you retorqued the bedding screws. Would be interesting to see what the area that the recoil lug contacts looks like, and I'd just about bet that a light skim bed job along with a full bore rebed in the recoil lug would make a big difference. Also have you gave the fired cases a real close examination? Sometimes you can pick out problems with the chambering job.
gary

 

[Trickymissfit]

i posted this same comment on a different thread as well but to build a rifle or even customizing one if it isn't a rem 700 your selection of stocks, triggers, barrels etc.
is very limited. It is getting better at least for savage, and weatherby aftermarket but still pales in comparison. i bought a marlin x7 new in .243 for $340 and it outshoots my $750 dollar remington hands down. The new savages for out of the box accuracy IMHO leaves the new rems in the dust. i wish the after market manufacturers would catch up.

I have a Marlin MR-7 in the safe chambered in 30-06. It was one of the very first ones delivered, and at the time only offered them in two calibers (.280 and 30-06). With junk factory stuff it will shoot about 1.25" groups, and has no trouble shooting 3/4" groups with hand loads literally thrown together. Can't make it shoot 180 grain bullets very well, but 150's and 165's shoot very well in it. Not a target rifle of course, but a real good hunting rifle. Kinda wish I'd bought it in .280 instead, as I have several 30-06's already. .270 Winchester would have been even better, or 25-06.
gary

 

[vacabill]

i seriously doubt cleaning the barrel is the issue here. I think you got the first hint when you retorqued the bedding screws. Would be interesting to see what the area that the recoil lug contacts looks like, and i'd just about bet that a light skim bed job along with a full bore rebed in the recoil lug would make a big difference. Also have you gave the fired cases a real close examination? Sometimes you can pick out problems with the chambering job.
Gary

i think what bothers me the most is to spend so much and get so little. I'll check out the cases, i hope to shoot it tomorrow.

 

[Catbird]

Remington is my first choice. I've had to put a Houge stock on my SS 243, the one it came with was noisy. I consider it a reasonable tradeoff. It is a very accurate rifle. I am about to buy a Sendero in 264 Win.