Well if they can make the 870 as one of the most reliable and common pumps out there for a long time...and then screw it up I believe anything. New 870's have elevator and extraction issues A LOT!!
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Talk about Remington's QC down the drain!!!
- Thread starter stello1001
- Start date
Yes, costs go down as processes improve, but that is far from the entire cost of running a business. Especially comparing 1960's to now. Add mismanagement, bad business decisions, a very "mature" workforce with high health care costs and pay, dated machinery, etc. I remember econ 101, and honestly, half the crap they teach in business school is great in theory, but it's a little more complicated in reality.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a big difference between the unit cost of a Rem 700 going down as the process improves and Remington making a profit as a company. The two things aren't always the same. Lots of other factors play into profitability as a company, and that company's ability to satisfy shareholders, attract new investment, and compete with young innovative companies. I think you guys that are saying Remington should be able to make an action now more efficiently and possibly cheaper (comparing $ value then vs now) are probably correct, but obviously they have other issues within their business that are causing them to not be profitable, or as profitable as they need to be to survive.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a big difference between the unit cost of a Rem 700 going down as the process improves and Remington making a profit as a company. The two things aren't always the same. Lots of other factors play into profitability as a company, and that company's ability to satisfy shareholders, attract new investment, and compete with young innovative companies. I think you guys that are saying Remington should be able to make an action now more efficiently and possibly cheaper (comparing $ value then vs now) are probably correct, but obviously they have other issues within their business that are causing them to not be profitable, or as profitable as they need to be to survive.
Last edited:
This reply sound exactly like it came from someome who just took ECON101.....and never bothered to take MAUFACTURING 101.
manufacturing processes do not "continually improve".....we strive to continually improve them.....but theres only so efficient you can make a process........you might be able to take a 100 step process and make it 97 steps.........youre never going to take a 100 step process and make it 20 steps.
its not like remington engineers are sitting around saying "well its 2018 now, time to remove that unnecessary machining weve been doing"
That being said, it literally makes no difference how efficient they make their process.......because they are going to sell the rifles at what people will pay for them....thats BUSlNESS 101.
if remington makes them for $100 or $500.....it doesnt matter, because they are still going to sell them for $700, because thats what people will pay for them
Last edited:
This reply is 100% correct. Remington should have had all the low hanging fruit plucked from the efficiency tree decades ago. You can only squeeze so much juice out of a grape. You get to a point where you can't cut any more cost without sacrificing things..........like quality, and if you can't cut costs somehow, or increase sales volume or price, you can't pay for all the other increases the business sees year after year.
You need to get an MBA, and engineering degree, AND work in the metal manufacturing industry for over 25 years with ever increasing technical and business responsibility and accountability before you are fit to even think about lecturing those of us who have.
The electronics example is positively the worst possible example you could think of to compare. Maybe if machining metal were in its infancy 20 years ago.
I mean look at anything you do, take shooting for instance, don't you get better at shooting the more you practice? It’s the same for manufacturing, the more times you produce the same item, the more efficient you get at producing that item and the more efficient you are the lower the cost is to produce.
Machines wear out with "practice" they don't get better. Now sit back and think about that statement. If it was entirely true, then at some point you would hit 0 dollars to manufacture, and then it would start to pay before you even sell it. If it was entirely true at some point you would be able to hit anything at any distance. As with anything there are limiting factors. As with anything 101, its a simplistic view. Making advanced decisions with a simplistic view leads to disaster.
If it was entirely true at some point you would be able to hit anything at any distance. LIKE ME. LOL
I don't deny Remington has issues. I purchased a youth model in .243 for the youngsters for cheap. Adjustable lop, 20in barrel, with a cheap scope. Tossed the scope, and put a Vortex Diamondback on it. I didn't expect much out of the rifle at all for what it was. I cleaned it and off to the range I went. I was very satisfied with the results it gave me. Sure the action is a little gritty, and the gun is definitely nothing to boast about. But it shoots.
Attachments
Google "Wage Stagnation," real wages have barely increased since the 60's or 70's. If you factor productivity into the equation than wages have gone down since that time, or at least not kept pace.
You guys want to compare the actual dollar numbers from 1970 to today. For instance, the minimum wage in 1970 was $1.60 and now the minimum wage is 7.25 so that means that labor costs have increased by 4.5 times, right? No, you need to take into account inflation. Think about it this way, what could you buy with 1.60 in 1970? Could you buy more with a 1.60 in 1970 than you can with 7.25 in 2017? The answer is yes! 1.60 in 1970 dollars is the equivalent of 10.25 in 2017 dollars. So again, wages have not gone up, or at least they haven't gone up enough to increase the cost of production of an item that is almost exactly the same as it was in 1970. The same is true for most items that go into manufacturing, raw materials, tooling, machinery, etc. If you factor inflation into the equation the costs of those items are not that much different than they were in 1970. What you have to consider is production.
I'm not saying that they can continue to improve manufacturing techniques to a point where it doesn't cost anything to produce something, that's stupid, but are you really going to tell me that a state of the art CNC machine is not going to produce more items per hour than a skilled dude on manual lathe? That kind of technology is incredible and if you look at actions produced per labor hour or actions per person or whatever metric you want to use, there is no question that production and efficiency have increased tremendously in the last 30 years. This kind of technology does two things: number 1, it decreases the amount of people that you need to employ, this lowers all the costs associated with said actual people, like health insurance. Number 2, the costs of those machines are relatively fixed over a certain number of units, yes, I know that you have tooling and eventually you have maintenance and replacement, but over a certain number of units the costs are more or less fixed. So, if you can produce more items over relatively fixed costs, than guess what... you just decreased the cost of production!
You guys were killing MochoKing, but what he said was technically correct. Of course there are a million other factors that go into the business, like I said in my first post, I'm sure Remington's profit margin is not the same as it was 30 years ago, in fact, if you go look at their financials, their EBITDA margin was only 4.8% for the third quarter 2017 and their net income was -16 million, which obviously isn't very good. For the same quarter in 2011 (which is the last financial statement I could find on their site) showed an EBITDA margin of 9%. I'm not sure what it was in 1970, but I'm willing to bet that it was higher than 4.8%. But over the course of 30 years, manufacturing the same product, I think the reason for that decline has more to do with the business side of the equation, namely poor decision making and competition than it does with the cost of manufacturing.
Now I know I'm not as smart as 308pirate and I probably didn't do a great job at explaining that, but do you guys see where I'm coming from? At least a little?
I bet you remington doesn't make 700s on a bunch of multi million dollar CNC machines. If they did buy a bunch of CNC tooling they would still be recouping cost. And their actions would be dead straight and accurate and cost 1000 dollars a piece like a Defiance.
For mass production items like low-end firearms (which is all Remington produces), labor has become less relevant to the overall cost because much more of the process should be performed by machines now. That's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that as processes improve, costs go down. People are constantly coming up with cheaper and easier ways to produce better products.
Nearly every gun manufacturer on the market offers better performance for the money than Remington. Far and away, the primary reason anyone chooses Remington is to take Remington parts off of it so it will perform. The only other reason is folks who bought their last rifle in the 80s when the 700 was the top performer and they can't fathom the idea that Remington performance, value, and QC has fallen as far as it has.
Greg is right that poor business decisions are much more likely the cause of Remington's issues than manufacturing costs. My guess is, like many companies, they decided to start letting accountants run operations. That is the beginning of the end for most companies that aren't making something patented or unique, because you'll never compete with other companies that are letting operations run operations. Steve Jobs spoke about this many times - the foolishness of chasing profit margin (accountants) instead of market share (better product).
One more comment - if Remington is not building these rifles on high-dollar CNC machines, then how are they building them? If a company like Remington can't afford a few milling machines to make tight-tolerance metal parts, then who can? I'd bet a Dr. Pepper they have a floor full of CNC machines putting these things out. I'd also bet that they have incentivized their employees based on quantity instead of quality, and they've probably done some other silly things like refused to pay experienced workers their market value and allowed them to leave to be replaced by less experienced, cheaper workers. All things that serve the bottom line positively in the short term but serve the product, company, and customer negatively in the long term.
I can easily tell from posts here who has actually run a manufacturing business and who just reads about it and tries to pass off as knowledgeable.
Some of the comments made here about CNC machining are just plain dumb and based on fantasy. Just as dumb as selectively applying inflation to explain away wages and not applying inflation to all the other factors that make up manufacturing burden.
Some of the comments made here about CNC machining are just plain dumb and based on fantasy. Just as dumb as selectively applying inflation to explain away wages and not applying inflation to all the other factors that make up manufacturing burden.
There is a multi million dollar metal fabricating shop here in my neck of the woods. Been going since the 60's. 2 brothers run it. If its made of metal, these guys can make/fix it. They have been using the same machines for 30+ years. And their quality of work is A+. All the oilfield companies and farmers bring anything and everything to these guys for repairs and anything else they need made. Dozers. Drilling rigs. Pumpjacks. Mud pumps. Well heads. You name it. Even custom oifield tools and machinery. And anybody who works in the oilfield knows, you dont hire a dumbass to make a custom tool. Somebody can die. These guys are the best at their craft. No doubt about it. And guess what, they even spin up custom rifle barrels!
Point is, these guys prices and labor costs have went virtually unchanged in 30 years. And they keep all their tooling machines in top working order. They have atleast 30 different machines in their shop. Not to mention a welder every 6 feet all throughout their 8000 sq ft facility. And heavy equipment for moving other heavy epuipment.
The problem with Remington is they have dumbasses making their rifles. Your product is only as good as your help. That is a fact.
Funny thing is, neither of them have a degree in engineering. Only 100+ years of field experience of, ya know, actually building shit. They also run the office and handle all the accounting/billing/taxes. No accounting degrees either. I know, I know them personally.
So anybody in this thread that has that "im smarter than you" because I have a degree can go pound sand. What are you doing with your degree? Running a multi million dollar business I hope.
Point is, these guys prices and labor costs have went virtually unchanged in 30 years. And they keep all their tooling machines in top working order. They have atleast 30 different machines in their shop. Not to mention a welder every 6 feet all throughout their 8000 sq ft facility. And heavy equipment for moving other heavy epuipment.
The problem with Remington is they have dumbasses making their rifles. Your product is only as good as your help. That is a fact.
Funny thing is, neither of them have a degree in engineering. Only 100+ years of field experience of, ya know, actually building shit. They also run the office and handle all the accounting/billing/taxes. No accounting degrees either. I know, I know them personally.
So anybody in this thread that has that "im smarter than you" because I have a degree can go pound sand. What are you doing with your degree? Running a multi million dollar business I hope.
In a past life I worked with and managed Industrial Engineers. Interesting to hear them discuss "building in failure" as part of a production process - if it works well or last forever, who is going to buy your newest and greatest?
New, bone stock Remington 700 SPS in .308, 5 rounds at 100 yards with FGMM. Average group, not cherry picked. Is it the most refined rifle? No, but it shoots good and it was pretty cheap!
It's funny, you're really good at telling everyone how smart you are and how dumb the rest of us are but you have yet to contribute anything other than personal attacks and insults.
Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I simply don't have the time to school you and others of what I have learned over 25 years, and for the most part I get the vibe that you don't want to learn either. You and that machodude know what you think you know and are sure of it.
So why bother?
Actually, I love learning new things. The older I get the more I realize their are way too many subjects that I don't know enough about and learning from someone who has experience is always the best way. Hell, that's why I'm on this forum.
Haha. Their QC is shit. There should only have been one hole in that group! The bias is strong here. They don't even have a dedicated Remmy sticky thread. Grass is always greener, right?
Last edited:
I dont think there is any bias in this thread. Almost everybody on this forum salivates over the 700 action. The older Remingtons were good rifles. Its no secret Remington rolls out more shit rifles than good rifles now days.
Oh yeah, I dont see a dedicated Savage sticky thread either. Savage makes better rifles than Remington. And others. Where is the outrage?
Rebutting claims of poor QC with a single acceptable product is missing the point. No offense to you, but the idea isn't that they're incapable of making a decent rifle, but that they fail to meet that standard more often than they should.
Kind of like equating shitty QC with one upside down bullet, I imagine. I own several of their products and don't have issues with any of them, except an old nylon 66 that doesn't feed so well. If you look hard enough, you will find quality control issues with ANY brand of product. Because Remington far out-produces most other manufacturers, the law of averages dictate there are bound to be more examples. Also, when one person has an issue with one product they go around to every forum they can find and bitch about it. The same does not hold true with satisfied customers. I bet they are on par, percentage of satisfied customer wise, with other builders of the same market share.
Last edited:
We can agree to disagree. Their overall quality has taken a huge down-turn over the past 10-ish years. Triggers on the 700 are a known problem. At times they have feeding & extraction issues. The 870 has become a pile of junk, and the 1100 isn't far behind it.
However, you're right that if you get one that feeds & ejects and has a good trigger, they do generally shoot ok. Your group is excellent. The good news there is that the ship isn't sunk yet and they can save it with the right attention directed at the right issues.
All of this is very concerning, as I have always been a big green customer, and am considering a purchase soon in a popular caliber right now. As someone stated earlier, I too, have nineties era, remmys, (J bolt), it kinda makes you wonder what you are getting into.
I've only had to send one rifle back to Ilion, it was a short turn around, and the problem was fixed. Time will tell.
I've only had to send one rifle back to Ilion, it was a short turn around, and the problem was fixed. Time will tell.
I have a Remington 1187 that I took to the range and fired 50 rounds. Came home an dissasembled and cleaned, lubed, oiled everything.
As is my habit after I have handled a firearm I sprayed the exterior with remoil, wipe it down and put it in the safe. Two weeks later I take it out and its has rust spots from one end to the other. In a panic that I have allowed moisture to get in my safe I inspect every firearm from a cheap pistol to my most expensive rife. None have rusted.
I was able to remove the rust spots from the barrel and magazine tube. The receiver had a silver dollar size spot that had pitted the metal. Called Remington and told a CS rep what had happened. He told me that I had allowed the gun to get wet and it was not covered under warranty and it was my problem. Their problem with rusting I think is now well known.
From my understanding all Remington ammo is made in Mexico since about 1968. Remington will never see another dime from me on any of their products.
As is my habit after I have handled a firearm I sprayed the exterior with remoil, wipe it down and put it in the safe. Two weeks later I take it out and its has rust spots from one end to the other. In a panic that I have allowed moisture to get in my safe I inspect every firearm from a cheap pistol to my most expensive rife. None have rusted.
I was able to remove the rust spots from the barrel and magazine tube. The receiver had a silver dollar size spot that had pitted the metal. Called Remington and told a CS rep what had happened. He told me that I had allowed the gun to get wet and it was not covered under warranty and it was my problem. Their problem with rusting I think is now well known.
From my understanding all Remington ammo is made in Mexico since about 1968. Remington will never see another dime from me on any of their products.
Here's a great example. You see it everywhere. You can't tell me someone are Remington doesn't know about this. But they keep pumping them out this way. Most all new 700s are like this.
1. Go look at a new production 700 at the LGS for primary extraction <Place holder for me to get a more correct photo>
Here's one from the 60's that has it. The Primary extraction cams actually make contact and work as designed.
1. Go look at a new production 700 at the LGS for primary extraction <Place holder for me to get a more correct photo>
Here's one from the 60's that has it. The Primary extraction cams actually make contact and work as designed.
Attachments
Last edited:
Did you really take a pic of a cocked 700 to show the effects of primary extraction?
The gap on the new rifle is so freaking huge there's no way that bolt handle touched the ramp on the back of the receiver anywhere along the bolt opening arc.
Would you like me to go back to the store to have some one else hold the camera while I go down the line of 10+ rifles and show how none of them have primary extraction with the striker decocked?
Or are you talking about the early bolt shroud that's 3/8" or so shorter than current production?
Yes please!
... though I would be willing to settle for you explaining why a picture of cocked 700 bolt not touching the extraction cam is a fail.
lol Remington
Last action from them I ever bought had the absolute worst bolt/action mating I've ever seen in my life. To work the bolt back to extract a round and then forward again was like trying to slide 2 uneven rocks against each other and then feel the bolt go off in all sorts of angles.
It also didn't help that when you fired a round, the bolt wouldn't cam over enough to properly grab the fired case 2/3 of the time.
Last action from them I ever bought had the absolute worst bolt/action mating I've ever seen in my life. To work the bolt back to extract a round and then forward again was like trying to slide 2 uneven rocks against each other and then feel the bolt go off in all sorts of angles.
It also didn't help that when you fired a round, the bolt wouldn't cam over enough to properly grab the fired case 2/3 of the time.
Because no where during the lift of the bolt handle does it touch the primary extraction cam. I was in a gun shop free-wheeling a phone in one hand and rifles in the other. I went up the bolt lift looking for primary extraction and it didn't happen, that cocked it, then I went back down to illustrate the gap. Without better lighting and/or video and another person holding the camera it's hard to catch on camera because there is no stopping/contact point like there is with the older rifle.
ETA: Feel free, Anyone, to check this on your own... It's been a "thing" with new production 700's for a couple years at least.
OK... the fact still remains that cam will NEVER touch when cocked and it has nothing to do with QC.
Why would you post that pic if you knew it was cocked as it shows us nothing?
Look I'll take the picture down and edit the post if you want, but the next time the shop is open and I have someone to hold my phone I'm going to post up a very similar image without a sliver of silver behind the bolt shroud...
What you're saying isn't necessarily correct either. It depends on where the cocking piece transfers from the sear to the cocking cam and back of the bolt body, also where the lugs start to back out onto the ramps. Obviously it's cleaner to just decock the rifle, but plenty of rifles exhibit primary extraction cams working even cocked.
What you're saying isn't necessarily correct either. It depends on where the cocking piece transfers from the sear to the cocking cam and back of the bolt body, also where the lugs start to back out onto the ramps. Obviously it's cleaner to just decock the rifle, but plenty of rifles exhibit primary extraction cams working even cocked.
Last edited:
To me the pic looks BS.
Bullets feed from trays into shaped slots to feeder tubes and there pretty much ain't no way that got down a tube that way. It's sorta like making a square fit down a round hole. There's one way it can go and that is pointy end in the pointy part of the slot. The square end won't do that.
I won't say I've been over the top about Remingtons QC, but lets get real. I've had bullets that hit 2 ft. difference at 440 yds. from a .257 (my reloads hit w/in 10 inches). But, they all went bang, the bullets were pointed the right way, no primers loaded backwards (same kind of shape loading), and for the most part the powder charge was within reason. could have been a given lot of cartridges that the powder wasn't flowing so well.
FWIW, the only "catastrophic" factory loads I've come across have been from Federal.
Bullets feed from trays into shaped slots to feeder tubes and there pretty much ain't no way that got down a tube that way. It's sorta like making a square fit down a round hole. There's one way it can go and that is pointy end in the pointy part of the slot. The square end won't do that.
I won't say I've been over the top about Remingtons QC, but lets get real. I've had bullets that hit 2 ft. difference at 440 yds. from a .257 (my reloads hit w/in 10 inches). But, they all went bang, the bullets were pointed the right way, no primers loaded backwards (same kind of shape loading), and for the most part the powder charge was within reason. could have been a given lot of cartridges that the powder wasn't flowing so well.
FWIW, the only "catastrophic" factory loads I've come across have been from Federal.
Oh brother... you're really going to double down.
Please try to take a picture of the moment you are describing above without your hand on the bolt knob and maybe, just maybe, you will understand why I am so confident that is not the case in your photo. (hint: spring pressure)
I never once questioned you're integrity or honesty. All I wanted to know is why you posted a photo that shows a cocked 700 and stated it showed lack of extraction cam contact. Whether you didn't know it was cocked(you posted above you did know), don't know how the 700 works, are intentionally trying to mislead or whatever other reason would have been sufficient answers. Taking 10,000 more photos won't answer my question and clearly neither will you... I no longer care. Have a good night.
I already answered your question. You keep pressing this like if the picture is wrong then the rifle magically has primary extraction. The new ones don't-- if they do it's minimal and the geometry is often wonky--. The old ones did. That's all I'm trying to show. I'll get a better picture up of the new one, but it's harder to do because there is no point at which the cam engages. I just take a series of pictures or video of gap until the bolt starts moving backwards because the lugs disengage (not because of PE).
ETA: Spring pressures means shit when it's against the back of the bolt body. On the sear, yes, it pulls back on the bolt body and would prevent a potentially PE-having rifle from showing it, but there is a transition point where the cocking piece hits either the cocking cam or the back of the bolt body at which point there is no spring pressure exerted pulling the bolt body to the rear for the same reason you can't stand in a bucket and lift yourself up. Where that point happens depends on several things and it CAN happen that it is before the complete upward stroke of the bolt handle.
No you didn't. You explained why you snapped the photo the way you did. You also stated you understand why it is a misrepresentation.
The question you still have not directly answered, to my knowledge, is why you posted the photo stating it represents something it does not.
That is not why I keep pressing. It matters not, to me, whether that one rifle did or did not have primary extraction. I have no vested interest in 700's or your opinion of their QC.
What I do care about is 2 fold:
1) Assisting other members/shooters with accurate info and knowledge gained through actual experience when I'm able
2) Pissing on the corn flakes of posts that intentionally provide misinformation.
So to be clear... my initial intention was to press until I figured out if you were intentionally posting misinformation. The fact you keep insisting that you can prove all 700's have faulty bolt timing with the firing pin still installed lead to me to conclude you are just slightly misguided rather than maliciously posting intentionally false info. It's also clear that you know it all and no info I could provide, like the fact you should remove the firing pin to properly check bolt timing, would be of any interest to you. Hence, this conversation doesn't fall under the 2 fold items above and I longer care. Have a good night
Grab a no go gauge and report back. Out of my 6 R700's, only the 5r 223 doesn't close on the no go.
My last two R700's both had burrs on the action that were missed and clearly visible. On the 30-06 long range it where the scope mounting screw had been drilled and the burr had to be removed to attach a base. The other (7mm mag long range) was on the underside of the tang and long enough to draw blood...
My 7mm Reg mag chamber wall had an extra ring cut into it .2" forward of the belt relief that caused near mechanical locks on starting loads that were full length sized once fired cases (cases that had their first firing in that same rifle) and because there was no primary extraction to assist, were quite hard to remove.
The 30-06's recoil lug was miss-aligned enough that the action screws were what centered the action into the stock. once those were removed the barreled action sprung to the off side as there was not enough room in the recoil lug inlet to accommodate it.
To be clear, I love the simplicity of the 700 action and it's vast aftermarket support, but a barrel vise, action wrench, files, polishing compound, power tools and various measuring gauges should not be required for ownership.
My last two R700's both had burrs on the action that were missed and clearly visible. On the 30-06 long range it where the scope mounting screw had been drilled and the burr had to be removed to attach a base. The other (7mm mag long range) was on the underside of the tang and long enough to draw blood...
My 7mm Reg mag chamber wall had an extra ring cut into it .2" forward of the belt relief that caused near mechanical locks on starting loads that were full length sized once fired cases (cases that had their first firing in that same rifle) and because there was no primary extraction to assist, were quite hard to remove.
The 30-06's recoil lug was miss-aligned enough that the action screws were what centered the action into the stock. once those were removed the barreled action sprung to the off side as there was not enough room in the recoil lug inlet to accommodate it.
To be clear, I love the simplicity of the 700 action and it's vast aftermarket support, but a barrel vise, action wrench, files, polishing compound, power tools and various measuring gauges should not be required for ownership.
Last edited:
I don't think remington's recoil lug is meant to center the action. I am pretty sure that is what the action screws are for. When I have recoil lug that touches anything on the side, I remove the offending material.
So how much lateral mismatch is OK between the action centerline, the action screw holes, and the vertical centerline of the recoil lug?
And even ignoring all the above, how are 5/6 rifles with excessive headspace and rifles with burrs all over the place OK?
From what I have tested with my Remage barrels, as long as it fits in the stock it doesn't make much difference. A QC issue? Sure, but overstated as a problem in my experience. Unless he meant it was crooked the other way.
Closing on a no go is common, if it closes on a field, or a no go plus tape I would worry. Well I wouldn't really, I would just kiss the lands on my first loading and then set up my die accordingly.
Did I say the burs were ok? 2 out of 6 and 6 out of 100 million. My last RR action didn't have any, so 2 out 7 out of 100 million. It doesn't have any primary extraction though.
Last edited:
For those that can't read between the lines, I apologize for snapping a picture at the wrong time. I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I got caught up doing multiple things at once and done the wrong thing on accident. I'm pretty confident the cocking piece was engaging the cocking cam on the back of the bolt at the point that picture was taken anyway, but none-the-less it would be cleaner to decock the rifle first and get a fresh picture/video, and I will attempt to do that in the future. I've pulled that picture for the time being. At any rate, I invite you to check out any older (1960's-1980's) M700 and compare to a new one. Look for yourself if you think I'm full of shit.
How you spend your money is your business. I don't get anything for money spent with or without remington, but I do enjoy people enjoying this sport, not cussing equipment. I worked for close to a year building precision rigs, rebuilding M700's, etc... I know what primary extraction is, I know how these rifles work. I've seen hundreds of examples of them right off the shelves/out of the factory whatever. They have a REPUTATION for misaligned scope holes, weak/nonexistent primary extraction, canted recoil lugs, bent barrels, smashed rifling. I have seen all of this first hand... It's not surprising to see these same issues over and over again. I think of it as a gamble, personally. If you win the gamble you get what you paid for, if you lose, you get a rifle that eventually you're going to want to be worked over. So the only way I suggest buying a new remington is by handling it and checking for yourself unless your goal is simply to rip it down for the action to be rebuilt and go custom from there. I've seen some of the same issues from the $450 SPS up to the $1200 5r's and the like.
It's little things. For most people it doesn't matter-- you know they touch off a round and it gets stuck in the chamber and they get a kick out of having to slam the rifle on the ground or throw a cleaning rod down the bore to get the case out "Wheeewwwie!! that was a hot one!". I've seen it... But they're little things that remain unfixed (In my opinion) due to not-caring, penny pinching, and/or incompetence.
But for the money, again, I just suggest you look at what Remington is putting out, then put the 700 down and go look at a Tikka T3, or a Bergara B14, or a Ruger American or RPR. Do they all have quirks? Yes. But do you have to expect it off the bat, and be surprised if it doesn't have it? No. With all of them in my experience you'll see better accuracy on the whole, better machining (maybe excepting the RPR/American bolt bodies), better surface treatments, primary extraction, more innovation and more support, quicker, especially for the direction this community is pushing.
I've bought M700's, I've built on them before both for myself and for others, and I'm done with that. There are custom receiver options that are way more worth your money vs. a rebuilt 700, and anymore I even argue that on the lower price level, you're better off building with a Ruger American or Tikka. If tomorrow Remington put out a M700 for a similar price at the same quality level as a Bergara, I'd say "Wow, they really turned that one around, good for them". But it hasn't happened. The trend is downward and the position they're at now is not something I recommend to anyone anymore because I've done it in the past and seen too many people buy rifles/shotguns that don't extract or don't shoot worth a shit on my suggestion. It used to be Remington vs. Savage. Other companies have stepped up, Remington has AT BEST stayed where they were, but IMO they've dropped the ball. I'm not saying NEVER BUY REMINGTON! I'm saying watch what you buy because there ARE issues out there, which is I think the point of this thread.
How you spend your money is your business. I don't get anything for money spent with or without remington, but I do enjoy people enjoying this sport, not cussing equipment. I worked for close to a year building precision rigs, rebuilding M700's, etc... I know what primary extraction is, I know how these rifles work. I've seen hundreds of examples of them right off the shelves/out of the factory whatever. They have a REPUTATION for misaligned scope holes, weak/nonexistent primary extraction, canted recoil lugs, bent barrels, smashed rifling. I have seen all of this first hand... It's not surprising to see these same issues over and over again. I think of it as a gamble, personally. If you win the gamble you get what you paid for, if you lose, you get a rifle that eventually you're going to want to be worked over. So the only way I suggest buying a new remington is by handling it and checking for yourself unless your goal is simply to rip it down for the action to be rebuilt and go custom from there. I've seen some of the same issues from the $450 SPS up to the $1200 5r's and the like.
It's little things. For most people it doesn't matter-- you know they touch off a round and it gets stuck in the chamber and they get a kick out of having to slam the rifle on the ground or throw a cleaning rod down the bore to get the case out "Wheeewwwie!! that was a hot one!". I've seen it... But they're little things that remain unfixed (In my opinion) due to not-caring, penny pinching, and/or incompetence.
But for the money, again, I just suggest you look at what Remington is putting out, then put the 700 down and go look at a Tikka T3, or a Bergara B14, or a Ruger American or RPR. Do they all have quirks? Yes. But do you have to expect it off the bat, and be surprised if it doesn't have it? No. With all of them in my experience you'll see better accuracy on the whole, better machining (maybe excepting the RPR/American bolt bodies), better surface treatments, primary extraction, more innovation and more support, quicker, especially for the direction this community is pushing.
I've bought M700's, I've built on them before both for myself and for others, and I'm done with that. There are custom receiver options that are way more worth your money vs. a rebuilt 700, and anymore I even argue that on the lower price level, you're better off building with a Ruger American or Tikka. If tomorrow Remington put out a M700 for a similar price at the same quality level as a Bergara, I'd say "Wow, they really turned that one around, good for them". But it hasn't happened. The trend is downward and the position they're at now is not something I recommend to anyone anymore because I've done it in the past and seen too many people buy rifles/shotguns that don't extract or don't shoot worth a shit on my suggestion. It used to be Remington vs. Savage. Other companies have stepped up, Remington has AT BEST stayed where they were, but IMO they've dropped the ball. I'm not saying NEVER BUY REMINGTON! I'm saying watch what you buy because there ARE issues out there, which is I think the point of this thread.
I haven't experienced any of the problems being discussed in this thread. I do have a .270 that will shoot 150gr fusions out to 400 yards like they were hand loaded for the rifle. I also have a 20" 5R that I purchased new less than a year ago and is my favorite rifle to shoot. I have only ran 175FGMM that I bought for $14 a box from an individual. I wouldn't trade either for any rifle. I have a tikka ctr in 6.5 creedmoor that I like as well.
Similar threads
