I keep reading that blueprinting a rem 700 action is a waste of time. Whats the real scoop on this issue? Most smiths do not charge much to have this done so i will continue to have it done. Why are some saying that it doesnt help? In my mind anytime you can make something closer to perfection it sure cant hurt?? Whats the deal???? Lee
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
Some people are speaking far beyond their experience and intelligence.
All my bolt rifles have been trued. It's probably the cheapest thing to do to increse accuracy in a bolt rifle.
Some people are speaking far beyond their experience and intelligence.
All my bolt rifles have been trued. It's probably the cheapest thing to do to increse accuracy in a bolt rifle.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
I think the main arguement comes down to how much time and money do you want to spend completely truing an action, and what can you get by with truing wise.
What work are you getting done that doesn't cost that much money?
To me blue printing would mean completely truing the threads, the receiver lugs, the bolt would be sleeved, the firing pin would be turned down and bushed, the action would be faced, the race ways would be reamed, the bolt face would be trued... I don't think this type of work is going to be done for cheap.
When considering how far you can go and what it gains you vs cost, many people feel it is better to go with a custom action.
That said, there are simpler steps to true up portions of a Remington action and get very respectable results, such as lapping the lugs and facing the action...
It all depends on what you are wanting and a cost vs benefit analysis.
Dave
I think the main arguement comes down to how much time and money do you want to spend completely truing an action, and what can you get by with truing wise.
What work are you getting done that doesn't cost that much money?
To me blue printing would mean completely truing the threads, the receiver lugs, the bolt would be sleeved, the firing pin would be turned down and bushed, the action would be faced, the race ways would be reamed, the bolt face would be trued... I don't think this type of work is going to be done for cheap.
When considering how far you can go and what it gains you vs cost, many people feel it is better to go with a custom action.
That said, there are simpler steps to true up portions of a Remington action and get very respectable results, such as lapping the lugs and facing the action...
It all depends on what you are wanting and a cost vs benefit analysis.
Dave
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
I had a basic action truing done. no firing pin work done an not raceway work done. I had the bolt and bolt face squared and receiver threads re-cut and luggs lapped. also had a ptg firing pin assembly installed. Price was very resonable. Lee
I had a basic action truing done. no firing pin work done an not raceway work done. I had the bolt and bolt face squared and receiver threads re-cut and luggs lapped. also had a ptg firing pin assembly installed. Price was very resonable. Lee
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
maybe it is just semantics, but to me that isn't blue-printing, which is what is typicall argued about... it is hard to find someone to argue that there is a benefit to some degree of truing, but when you are trying to build bench style rifles is when you get the big arguments about blue-printing and how good you can make a Remington action for a cost benefit over buying a nice custom action... that is where the most arguement comes from I think. For tactical style game (you don't want something so uber tight anyway) where 1/2 MOA is good enough, doing less complete work on a Remington is worth the money and effort... Now, that is just my opinion.
Dave
maybe it is just semantics, but to me that isn't blue-printing, which is what is typicall argued about... it is hard to find someone to argue that there is a benefit to some degree of truing, but when you are trying to build bench style rifles is when you get the big arguments about blue-printing and how good you can make a Remington action for a cost benefit over buying a nice custom action... that is where the most arguement comes from I think. For tactical style game (you don't want something so uber tight anyway) where 1/2 MOA is good enough, doing less complete work on a Remington is worth the money and effort... Now, that is just my opinion.
Dave
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
some that lead charmed lives fall into guns that just shoot.....if there is still love for the weapon after it is worn out the original barrel....then MAYBE it would be time to consider a blueprint job.....
some that lead charmed lives fall into guns that just shoot.....if there is still love for the weapon after it is worn out the original barrel....then MAYBE it would be time to consider a blueprint job.....
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
I say blueprint it, unless you are shooting against me in a competition. Then I would say don't worry about it.
I say blueprint it, unless you are shooting against me in a competition. Then I would say don't worry about it.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DebosDave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">maybe it is just semantics, but to me that isn't blue-printing, which is what is typicall argued about... it is hard to find someone to argue that there is a benefit to some degree of truing, but when you are trying to build bench style rifles is when you get the big arguments about blue-printing and how good you can make a Remington action for a cost benefit over buying a nice custom action... that is where the most arguement comes from I think. For tactical style game (you don't want something so uber tight anyway) where 1/2 MOA is good enough, doing less complete work on a Remington is worth the money and effort... Now, that is just my opinion.
Dave </div></div>
+1...
Dave,
I agree. I didn't understand that part of your equation. Comparing an standard Rem 700 against a custom action is like comparing a VolksWagon beetle bug against a Corvette. They both get you somewhere. But it just isn't the same.
All my bench guns have been built on custom actions. Even the Boyer gun was built on a Hall action. However my hunting rifles have been built on old Rem 700 actions. But I didn't have to pay someone else to do the work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DebosDave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">maybe it is just semantics, but to me that isn't blue-printing, which is what is typicall argued about... it is hard to find someone to argue that there is a benefit to some degree of truing, but when you are trying to build bench style rifles is when you get the big arguments about blue-printing and how good you can make a Remington action for a cost benefit over buying a nice custom action... that is where the most arguement comes from I think. For tactical style game (you don't want something so uber tight anyway) where 1/2 MOA is good enough, doing less complete work on a Remington is worth the money and effort... Now, that is just my opinion.
Dave </div></div>
+1...
Dave,
I agree. I didn't understand that part of your equation. Comparing an standard Rem 700 against a custom action is like comparing a VolksWagon beetle bug against a Corvette. They both get you somewhere. But it just isn't the same.
All my bench guns have been built on custom actions. Even the Boyer gun was built on a Hall action. However my hunting rifles have been built on old Rem 700 actions. But I didn't have to pay someone else to do the work.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
I guess my questions is- By me having the bolt and bolt face squared the receiver face squared threads re-cut and lugs lapped, will i gain anything, or is it a waste of cash? I of course had a new barrel installed as well. My rifle is shooting great!! I had Robert Snyder build me a 243AI and i just got it yesterday. I am loading Lapua brass with 43.6gr of H4350 and shooting 87gr v-max loaded to touch the lands. While breaking in the barrel i am getting 1/2" groups. I have only shot a total of 12 rounds thus far. My groups are 3 shot groups. I think my money was well spent!!! Lee
I guess my questions is- By me having the bolt and bolt face squared the receiver face squared threads re-cut and lugs lapped, will i gain anything, or is it a waste of cash? I of course had a new barrel installed as well. My rifle is shooting great!! I had Robert Snyder build me a 243AI and i just got it yesterday. I am loading Lapua brass with 43.6gr of H4350 and shooting 87gr v-max loaded to touch the lands. While breaking in the barrel i am getting 1/2" groups. I have only shot a total of 12 rounds thus far. My groups are 3 shot groups. I think my money was well spent!!! Lee
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
I think you being satisfied with the way the rifle performs says if it is worth it.
Congratulations...! I hope it continues to shoot well for you.
I think you being satisfied with the way the rifle performs says if it is worth it.
Congratulations...! I hope it continues to shoot well for you.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
Robert Snyder builds a heck of a rifle fellas. I am not an expert on long range shooting, but i am a long time gun guy, and i know quality work when i see it. The chamber is cut perfectly for the loads i will be shooting. The accuracy i am already getting with this rifle with just fire forming loads is super!! Thanks again Robert, You have my business!!!! Lee
Robert Snyder builds a heck of a rifle fellas. I am not an expert on long range shooting, but i am a long time gun guy, and i know quality work when i see it. The chamber is cut perfectly for the loads i will be shooting. The accuracy i am already getting with this rifle with just fire forming loads is super!! Thanks again Robert, You have my business!!!! Lee
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skeetlee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I keep reading that blueprinting a rem 700 action is a waste of time. Whats the real scoop on this issue? Most smiths do not charge much to have this done so i will continue to have it done. Why are some saying that it doesnt help? In my mind anytime you can make something closer to perfection it sure cant hurt?? Whats the deal???? Lee </div></div>
I am no way experienced but went through the same thought process. This is what I figured out on the spend to have work done Vs run what you brung. How does it shoot now, without work? My 700 shoots just fine for me, this is quarter rule graph paper and black lines are 1" outside to outside at 100 yards. Top left is AE150, all others are GMM175 in this photo.
My point, spending coin to make it shoot better makes no sense to me. Maybe it would tighten up but I really doubt money would make it better; count the bullets holes in bottom left. I sat down and ciphered numbers and came to the conclusion, use the money for ammo.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skeetlee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I keep reading that blueprinting a rem 700 action is a waste of time. Whats the real scoop on this issue? Most smiths do not charge much to have this done so i will continue to have it done. Why are some saying that it doesnt help? In my mind anytime you can make something closer to perfection it sure cant hurt?? Whats the deal???? Lee </div></div>
I am no way experienced but went through the same thought process. This is what I figured out on the spend to have work done Vs run what you brung. How does it shoot now, without work? My 700 shoots just fine for me, this is quarter rule graph paper and black lines are 1" outside to outside at 100 yards. Top left is AE150, all others are GMM175 in this photo.
My point, spending coin to make it shoot better makes no sense to me. Maybe it would tighten up but I really doubt money would make it better; count the bullets holes in bottom left. I sat down and ciphered numbers and came to the conclusion, use the money for ammo.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Victor N TN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's probably the cheapest thing to do to increse accuracy in a bolt rifle.</div></div>
I beg to differ -- the cheapest thing you can do to increase accuracy is to use good ammunition.
My Remington 700 SPS tactical (the one with the 20" bull barrel) was an MOA shooter out-of-the-box. I'll have to do a lot more shooting to get to the point where I shoot better than the rifle -- one reason I put a trainer together.
Of course my one experience is not a good statistical sampling, maybe they're not all so good.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Victor N TN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's probably the cheapest thing to do to increse accuracy in a bolt rifle.</div></div>
I beg to differ -- the cheapest thing you can do to increase accuracy is to use good ammunition.
My Remington 700 SPS tactical (the one with the 20" bull barrel) was an MOA shooter out-of-the-box. I'll have to do a lot more shooting to get to the point where I shoot better than the rifle -- one reason I put a trainer together.
Of course my one experience is not a good statistical sampling, maybe they're not all so good.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LFOD1776</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Victor N TN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's probably the cheapest thing to do to increse accuracy in a bolt rifle.</div></div>
I beg to differ -- the cheapest thing you can do to increase accuracy is to use good ammunition.
My Remington 700 SPS tactical (the one with the 20" bull barrel) was an MOA shooter out-of-the-box. I'll have to do a lot more shooting to get to the point where I shoot better than the rifle -- one reason I put a trainer together.
Of course my one experience is not a good statistical sampling, maybe they're not all so good. </div></div>
You're only partly right.
I can take a really good rifle and repeatably shoot decent groups with bland factory ammo. However, you can take a lemon and shoot match grade ammo out of it and you still won't have crap as far as repeatability.
You have to have a decent rifle for the ammo to make a difference.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LFOD1776</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Victor N TN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's probably the cheapest thing to do to increse accuracy in a bolt rifle.</div></div>
I beg to differ -- the cheapest thing you can do to increase accuracy is to use good ammunition.
My Remington 700 SPS tactical (the one with the 20" bull barrel) was an MOA shooter out-of-the-box. I'll have to do a lot more shooting to get to the point where I shoot better than the rifle -- one reason I put a trainer together.
Of course my one experience is not a good statistical sampling, maybe they're not all so good. </div></div>
You're only partly right.
I can take a really good rifle and repeatably shoot decent groups with bland factory ammo. However, you can take a lemon and shoot match grade ammo out of it and you still won't have crap as far as repeatability.
You have to have a decent rifle for the ammo to make a difference.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's HIGHLY overated.</div></div>
Just wondering if you can quantify this statement for us?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's HIGHLY overated.</div></div>
Just wondering if you can quantify this statement for us?
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Victor N TN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can take a really good rifle and repeatably shoot decent groups with bland factory ammo. However, you can take a lemon and shoot match grade ammo out of it and you still won't have crap as far as repeatability.
You have to have a decent rifle for the ammo to make a difference.</div></div>
Fair enough -- there certainly are rifles out there that can't even shoot the good stuff accurately (Lord knows I've owned a few myself) -- but we're talking about Remington 700s here, not Mini-14s!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Victor N TN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can take a really good rifle and repeatably shoot decent groups with bland factory ammo. However, you can take a lemon and shoot match grade ammo out of it and you still won't have crap as far as repeatability.
You have to have a decent rifle for the ammo to make a difference.</div></div>
Fair enough -- there certainly are rifles out there that can't even shoot the good stuff accurately (Lord knows I've owned a few myself) -- but we're talking about Remington 700s here, not Mini-14s!
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 actio
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DebosDave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the main arguement comes down to how much time and money do you want to spend completely truing an action, and what can you get by with truing wise.
What work are you getting done that doesn't cost that much money?
To me blue printing would mean completely truing the threads, the receiver lugs, the bolt would be sleeved, the firing pin would be turned down and bushed, the action would be faced, the race ways would be reamed, the bolt face would be trued... I don't think this type of work is going to be done for cheap.
When considering how far you can go and what it gains you vs cost, many people feel it is better to go with a custom action.
That said, there are simpler steps to true up portions of a Remington action and get very respectable results, such as lapping the lugs and facing the action...
It all depends on what you are wanting and a cost vs benefit analysis.
Dave </div></div>
Exactly, what are you expecting from the rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DebosDave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the main arguement comes down to how much time and money do you want to spend completely truing an action, and what can you get by with truing wise.
What work are you getting done that doesn't cost that much money?
To me blue printing would mean completely truing the threads, the receiver lugs, the bolt would be sleeved, the firing pin would be turned down and bushed, the action would be faced, the race ways would be reamed, the bolt face would be trued... I don't think this type of work is going to be done for cheap.
When considering how far you can go and what it gains you vs cost, many people feel it is better to go with a custom action.
That said, there are simpler steps to true up portions of a Remington action and get very respectable results, such as lapping the lugs and facing the action...
It all depends on what you are wanting and a cost vs benefit analysis.
Dave </div></div>
Exactly, what are you expecting from the rifle.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DebosDave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's HIGHLY overated.</div></div>
Just wondering if you can quantify this statement for us? </div></div>
As soon as you quantify how much improvement on accuracy blueprinting an action results in.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DebosDave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's HIGHLY overated.</div></div>
Just wondering if you can quantify this statement for us? </div></div>
As soon as you quantify how much improvement on accuracy blueprinting an action results in.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As soon as you quantify how much improvement on accuracy blueprinting an action results in.</div></div>
That is a hard thing to quantify as each action is different, there are some that are very highly out of spec and will improve drastically by some minor work, and there are others that may only improve by a small margin when they are trued up. But this fact has and is quantified continually by several companies who will simply 'accurize' a factory rifle, and will guarantee the results. Score High and Tac Ops are a couple that I know of off hand. How many rifles have you sent away for some accurizing work and gotten them back shooting the exact same or worse?
I guess HIGHLY overated would depend greatly on the results you were expecting from the job.. are you looking to go from .750" groups to .010" yeah, I would say that would be over-expecting from a factory action without doing even more than blueprinting (sleeving the action). Now say you have a factory rifle that will hold 1 MOA and you can get that down to 1/2 or a little better, just by truing up some surfaces, that doesn't seem overated to me... Guess it still depends on what you are expecting, and at that point it becomes a cost/benefit analysis.
Is completely blueprinting an action for a shooter that can't hold 1 MOA overrated? Likely, maybe at that point the shooter should be looking at shooting more instead of dropping money into the action, but there is a reason why you don't see many people at the top of the sport using factory sticks...
DD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As soon as you quantify how much improvement on accuracy blueprinting an action results in.</div></div>
That is a hard thing to quantify as each action is different, there are some that are very highly out of spec and will improve drastically by some minor work, and there are others that may only improve by a small margin when they are trued up. But this fact has and is quantified continually by several companies who will simply 'accurize' a factory rifle, and will guarantee the results. Score High and Tac Ops are a couple that I know of off hand. How many rifles have you sent away for some accurizing work and gotten them back shooting the exact same or worse?
I guess HIGHLY overated would depend greatly on the results you were expecting from the job.. are you looking to go from .750" groups to .010" yeah, I would say that would be over-expecting from a factory action without doing even more than blueprinting (sleeving the action). Now say you have a factory rifle that will hold 1 MOA and you can get that down to 1/2 or a little better, just by truing up some surfaces, that doesn't seem overated to me... Guess it still depends on what you are expecting, and at that point it becomes a cost/benefit analysis.
Is completely blueprinting an action for a shooter that can't hold 1 MOA overrated? Likely, maybe at that point the shooter should be looking at shooting more instead of dropping money into the action, but there is a reason why you don't see many people at the top of the sport using factory sticks...
DD
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
I've had several rifles put together with several of them being blueprinted. Anymore I have the bolt face checked for square an that is about it.
I've had several rifles put together with several of them being blueprinted. Anymore I have the bolt face checked for square an that is about it.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
Without question, I wouldn't have that barreled action trued up at all... seems to be working well, but are you saying that all factory barreled actions are capable of that performance? Or are you saying action work is not worth it to you?
DD
Without question, I wouldn't have that barreled action trued up at all... seems to be working well, but are you saying that all factory barreled actions are capable of that performance? Or are you saying action work is not worth it to you?
DD
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
It is not worth it to me to have an action blueprinted based on past experience.
It is not worth it to me to have an action blueprinted based on past experience.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
When I was reseaching my build I saw a couple of well respected smiths that offer a minimal job of squaring the receiver face and bolt lug recess then lapping the lugs in addition to the full work of bushing the bolt and everything else. Their contention was that cleaning up the face and lugs will allow a rifle to shoot better than most owners and the full blown job was only necessary for a benchrest applications.
At the same time other smiths refused to put their name on the side of a rifle unless they did everything mechanically possible to offer the best results possible.
When I was reseaching my build I saw a couple of well respected smiths that offer a minimal job of squaring the receiver face and bolt lug recess then lapping the lugs in addition to the full work of bushing the bolt and everything else. Their contention was that cleaning up the face and lugs will allow a rifle to shoot better than most owners and the full blown job was only necessary for a benchrest applications.
At the same time other smiths refused to put their name on the side of a rifle unless they did everything mechanically possible to offer the best results possible.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
I've read this thread and looked at the photos of groups. Chucknelson, out standing groups and nice rifle. I wouldn’t touch it either.
I can tell you this with all certainty, every Remington 700 receiver I've worked on where the machined surfaces and raceways are in question, with out fail, have not been concentric, coaxial or perpendicular to anything.
First let me say this, there has to be a standard for checking the previous machining, whether it was performed by the factory or another smith. The bolt raceway seems to be the standard location in which all other machining is compared.
Now, in a Remington 700, the bolt raceway is no where close to being true and concentric with the center line of the rifle bore and or the receiver body. When measured, there is a difference in diameter between the raceway located in the front receiver ring and rear receiver ring by as much as .002". The standard is to use a tight fitting mandrel inserted in the bolt raceway but, if there's a difference of .0005" to .002" between the front and rear receiver rings, you'll never get the dial in dead nuts. For this reason, on my personal rifles and those customers that wish to have the same, I ream the bolt raceway to .705” and install a .703” PTG after market bolt body and handle. The fit and function is flawless. After reaming the raceway, the actual reamer pilot is used to dial in the receiver
The method I use is what I feel to be the best method based on the variables I have no control over. I start by inserting the tightest bushings that will fit into the receiver raceway, front and rear. The bushings are those that are sold by PTG. It's not uncommon to use bushings that have as much as .002" difference between them. The receiver I checked just last night took a .703" in the rear and a .7045" in the front.
I next insert a .500" diameter precision ground mandrel through the bushings and insert the entire package into a truing fixture I've made. The truing fixture has an OD of 2.5" and is 3" long. It has an ID of 1.500" that will accommodate an aluminum sleeve, slip fit, with an ID of 1.37"ish, just a slip fit over a 700 receiver. A total of eight 5/16 x 24 screws act as in board and out board spiders and are what adjust the receiver for dial in.
I indicate the receiver in by its raceway using the bushings and precision ground mandrel to .0002" or less. At this point truing cuts can be made and it's also at this point where you can tell how much the receiver is out. To date, all receiver faces, bolt lug abutments and receiver threads have failed to be perpendicular and or concentric to the raceway.
When truing cuts are made to the receiver face, bolt lug abutments and receiver threads one can see just how far out they really are. The bolt lug abutments are usually so far out that there has to be a measurable amount of receiver bolt deflection when the bolt is closed. The deflection will be either up or down and slightly off to one side. What does this do to your chambered round in relation to the chamber / lead / throat?
The receiver face is never perpendicular to the bolt raceway causing the barrel to look off in its own direction, yet another list of problems not to mention a recoil lug that hasn’t been ground parallel. Ever have trouble getting a particular rifle to zero or run out of horizontal adjustment in your scope?
The bolts are more times than not fairly straight but a clean up is in order. The clean up is made so the rear of the locking lugs, bolt face, bolt nose and locking lugs front are all perpendicular to the bolt raceway. The cuts made to the bolt nose and locking lug front are just cosmetic, nothing more.
In short, if your spending money on a custom barrel and its installation and pillar bedding, true the receiver. If it's a factory Remington 700, it's not even close as it comes from the factory. If someone is saying "its wasted money and useless" I want them to be at one of the matches I shoot in.
I've read this thread and looked at the photos of groups. Chucknelson, out standing groups and nice rifle. I wouldn’t touch it either.
I can tell you this with all certainty, every Remington 700 receiver I've worked on where the machined surfaces and raceways are in question, with out fail, have not been concentric, coaxial or perpendicular to anything.
First let me say this, there has to be a standard for checking the previous machining, whether it was performed by the factory or another smith. The bolt raceway seems to be the standard location in which all other machining is compared.
Now, in a Remington 700, the bolt raceway is no where close to being true and concentric with the center line of the rifle bore and or the receiver body. When measured, there is a difference in diameter between the raceway located in the front receiver ring and rear receiver ring by as much as .002". The standard is to use a tight fitting mandrel inserted in the bolt raceway but, if there's a difference of .0005" to .002" between the front and rear receiver rings, you'll never get the dial in dead nuts. For this reason, on my personal rifles and those customers that wish to have the same, I ream the bolt raceway to .705” and install a .703” PTG after market bolt body and handle. The fit and function is flawless. After reaming the raceway, the actual reamer pilot is used to dial in the receiver
The method I use is what I feel to be the best method based on the variables I have no control over. I start by inserting the tightest bushings that will fit into the receiver raceway, front and rear. The bushings are those that are sold by PTG. It's not uncommon to use bushings that have as much as .002" difference between them. The receiver I checked just last night took a .703" in the rear and a .7045" in the front.
I next insert a .500" diameter precision ground mandrel through the bushings and insert the entire package into a truing fixture I've made. The truing fixture has an OD of 2.5" and is 3" long. It has an ID of 1.500" that will accommodate an aluminum sleeve, slip fit, with an ID of 1.37"ish, just a slip fit over a 700 receiver. A total of eight 5/16 x 24 screws act as in board and out board spiders and are what adjust the receiver for dial in.
I indicate the receiver in by its raceway using the bushings and precision ground mandrel to .0002" or less. At this point truing cuts can be made and it's also at this point where you can tell how much the receiver is out. To date, all receiver faces, bolt lug abutments and receiver threads have failed to be perpendicular and or concentric to the raceway.
When truing cuts are made to the receiver face, bolt lug abutments and receiver threads one can see just how far out they really are. The bolt lug abutments are usually so far out that there has to be a measurable amount of receiver bolt deflection when the bolt is closed. The deflection will be either up or down and slightly off to one side. What does this do to your chambered round in relation to the chamber / lead / throat?
The receiver face is never perpendicular to the bolt raceway causing the barrel to look off in its own direction, yet another list of problems not to mention a recoil lug that hasn’t been ground parallel. Ever have trouble getting a particular rifle to zero or run out of horizontal adjustment in your scope?
The bolts are more times than not fairly straight but a clean up is in order. The clean up is made so the rear of the locking lugs, bolt face, bolt nose and locking lugs front are all perpendicular to the bolt raceway. The cuts made to the bolt nose and locking lug front are just cosmetic, nothing more.
In short, if your spending money on a custom barrel and its installation and pillar bedding, true the receiver. If it's a factory Remington 700, it's not even close as it comes from the factory. If someone is saying "its wasted money and useless" I want them to be at one of the matches I shoot in.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not worth it to me to have an action blueprinted based on past experience. </div></div>
You still havent really answered the original question?
I think Victor made some good points. You get what your paying for. A factory rifle has factory performance. I hear few people say there factory rifle is a real tac driver. There is quite a few that shoot well but very few that ever could compair to what you get with a custom machining job.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucknelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not worth it to me to have an action blueprinted based on past experience. </div></div>
You still havent really answered the original question?
I think Victor made some good points. You get what your paying for. A factory rifle has factory performance. I hear few people say there factory rifle is a real tac driver. There is quite a few that shoot well but very few that ever could compair to what you get with a custom machining job.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
I have a factory rem 700 varmint in 243 that has shot even better groups than the group chucknelson has posted. But i also have several other rem 700 that do not shoot that well. Most will not shoot that good every time. I think i will continue to have my rifles trued before installing a new barrel. Thanks for all the replies. Lee
I have a factory rem 700 varmint in 243 that has shot even better groups than the group chucknelson has posted. But i also have several other rem 700 that do not shoot that well. Most will not shoot that good every time. I think i will continue to have my rifles trued before installing a new barrel. Thanks for all the replies. Lee
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
wnroscoe - thank you for the explanation. I have read similar accounts in PS and by other smiths here related to R700s.
As an article that I read recently (but can't think of where) stated most factory bolt action rifles have come a long way in terms of accuracy. I have a bud that has a R700 .300 WSM, he called me from the truck after shooting it for the first time b/c he shot a group just like Chuck's above. I had a R700 in 700P form that could do the same.
That said, I think the difference is what is one asking the rifle to do? Shoot a 3 shot fouled bore group under MOA at 100 - sure, all day / every day. Walk out to a UKD target beyond 500 and be able to know <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> where your CCB hits? Or if you are going to run a multiple target array at various distances shooting holds - not have to try to interpret the margin between your distance dope and the amount that you'll have to factor in for the gun to settle down from CCB? After a couple thousand rounds I got tired of that ended up sending that R700P to one of the board's smiths years ago; and what I got back shoots the same clean & cold / hot & dirty.
Again, just depends on what you want
Good luck
wnroscoe - thank you for the explanation. I have read similar accounts in PS and by other smiths here related to R700s.
As an article that I read recently (but can't think of where) stated most factory bolt action rifles have come a long way in terms of accuracy. I have a bud that has a R700 .300 WSM, he called me from the truck after shooting it for the first time b/c he shot a group just like Chuck's above. I had a R700 in 700P form that could do the same.
That said, I think the difference is what is one asking the rifle to do? Shoot a 3 shot fouled bore group under MOA at 100 - sure, all day / every day. Walk out to a UKD target beyond 500 and be able to know <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> where your CCB hits? Or if you are going to run a multiple target array at various distances shooting holds - not have to try to interpret the margin between your distance dope and the amount that you'll have to factor in for the gun to settle down from CCB? After a couple thousand rounds I got tired of that ended up sending that R700P to one of the board's smiths years ago; and what I got back shoots the same clean & cold / hot & dirty.
Again, just depends on what you want
Good luck
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That said, I think the difference is what is one asking the rifle to do? </div></div>
That’s the real question. What you get with a trued receiver, custom barrel and installation and pillar bedding is shot to shot consistency. It's all about removing the variables. That being said, it's hard to argue with Chuck’s target
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That said, I think the difference is what is one asking the rifle to do? </div></div>
That’s the real question. What you get with a trued receiver, custom barrel and installation and pillar bedding is shot to shot consistency. It's all about removing the variables. That being said, it's hard to argue with Chuck’s target
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
True it! Most smith around here probley wouldnt stamp their company name on a barrel if it wasnt done. On my PAI 6.5 which is build off a Remington 700SA is very smooth. Alot smoother than when I bought the SPS it was built off of. Also be aware of smiths who only do half the job! This is what should be trued.
Bolt face, Bolt lugs, Receiver face, Receiver threads, Receiver lug seats, and lapp the lugs.
True it! Most smith around here probley wouldnt stamp their company name on a barrel if it wasnt done. On my PAI 6.5 which is build off a Remington 700SA is very smooth. Alot smoother than when I bought the SPS it was built off of. Also be aware of smiths who only do half the job! This is what should be trued.
Bolt face, Bolt lugs, Receiver face, Receiver threads, Receiver lug seats, and lapp the lugs.
Re: To blue print or not to blue print a rem 700 a
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wnroscoe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I can tell you this with all certainty, every Remington 700 receiver I've worked on where the machined surfaces and raceways are in question, with out fail, have not been concentric, coaxial or perpendicular to anything. </div></div>
+1, It has also been my experience as well that it is well worth it from an accuracy point of view to true the threads, face the receiver and make sure the lugs are straight and contacting correctly. Also a good trigger with the right amount of pull for the application is a good aid to accuracy.
Money spent bushing the bolt and firing pin made no difference in my groups at all while the above work did.
The remaining money in the project is best spent on practice.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wnroscoe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I can tell you this with all certainty, every Remington 700 receiver I've worked on where the machined surfaces and raceways are in question, with out fail, have not been concentric, coaxial or perpendicular to anything. </div></div>
+1, It has also been my experience as well that it is well worth it from an accuracy point of view to true the threads, face the receiver and make sure the lugs are straight and contacting correctly. Also a good trigger with the right amount of pull for the application is a good aid to accuracy.
Money spent bushing the bolt and firing pin made no difference in my groups at all while the above work did.
The remaining money in the project is best spent on practice.
Similar threads
