700 SPS Tactical vs. Model 10 Precision Carbine

[rickdavis81]

I agree about using the bc for bench and bipod/prone use. I bought the LRH for actual hunting. The new accustocks don't have the wedge setup for the recoil lug.

 

[Trickymissfit]

I think that maybe I mislead the folks about modifying the Savage stock, and need to rectify this. The stocks I reworked were the cheap synthetic stock that Savage used on their cheapest rifles as well as a few others. I also did one differently than the others, and it was better. On that one I ground a long relief in the barrel channel, and epoxied a steel plate under the barrel. Plus the two aluminum arrows. Then went back in there and added clearance for the barrel itself. I also did one with two pieces of 3/16" hydraulic tubing epoxied into the forend.

The Savage stocks with the wedge will work, but you have to learn to make it work. Most guys won't. I was doing them ten years before Savage even thought about it. There's more issues with the rear tang than anything.
gary

 

[DanielLudwig]

Anytime I hear "aluminum bedding block" or "chassis" I turn and run far away. Would be all well and good if the temp/humidity never changed...
Daniel

 

[MudRunner2005]

Anytime I hear "aluminum bedding block" or "chassis" I turn and run far away. Would be all well and good if the temp/humidity never changed...
Daniel

Please elaborate...

 

[BearDog]

Aluminum can expand and contract and does so at a different rate than steel which can supposedly change your point of impact. Not saying it doesn't happen, obviously it is a scientific fact, but I have never experienced it. If you do a search on Pillar bedding vs Aluminum bedding, you'll probably get 500 threads and an endless debate. It's a coke vs pepsi sort of argument. We don't need to open up that can of worms. But it will go into more detail about how temperature will effect different material. When I recommended the B&C stock it wasn't due to the fact that it had an Aluminum bedding block. It was because it was a solid stock at a really reasonable price. Whether or not you go with the block, or a pillar system, they both offer you a solid system to screw your action down to, so it is not compressing the stock material. The more serious shooters will tell you they are a good starting point, and you absolutely want to have your stock bedded as well.

 

[Trickymissfit]

Aluminum can expand and contract and does so at a different rate than steel which can supposedly change your point of impact. Not saying it doesn't happen, obviously it is a scientific fact, but I have never experienced it. If you do a search on Pillar bedding vs Aluminum bedding, you'll probably get 500 threads and an endless debate. It's a coke vs pepsi sort of argument. We don't need to open up that can of worms. But it will go into more detail about how temperature will effect different material. When I recommended the B&C stock it wasn't due to the fact that it had an Aluminum bedding block. It was because it was a solid stock at a really reasonable price. Whether or not you go with the block, or a pillar system, they both offer you a solid system to screw your action down to, so it is not compressing the stock material. The more serious shooters will tell you they are a good starting point, and you absolutely want to have your stock bedded as well.

you are correct! Aluminum has a very high expansion ratio verses steel. I made my wedge assembly from a solid block of 4150 steel, and wired it all out. Afterwards ground the angles flat. For pillars, I always used steel. Never trusted aluminum.
gary

 

[MudRunner2005]

Aluminum can expand and contract and does so at a different rate than steel which can supposedly change your point of impact. Not saying it doesn't happen, obviously it is a scientific fact, but I have never experienced it. If you do a search on Pillar bedding vs Aluminum bedding, you'll probably get 500 threads and an endless debate. It's a coke vs pepsi sort of argument. We don't need to open up that can of worms. But it will go into more detail about how temperature will effect different material. When I recommended the B&C stock it wasn't due to the fact that it had an Aluminum bedding block. It was because it was a solid stock at a really reasonable price. Whether or not you go with the block, or a pillar system, they both offer you a solid system to screw your action down to, so it is not compressing the stock material. The more serious shooters will tell you they are a good starting point, and you absolutely want to have your stock bedded as well.

I know aluminum expands and contracts, but the fluctuations for it to actually do so to an intense point are extreme temp swings. Wooden stocks are ALOT more susceptive to temp swings and swelling from atmospheric moisture throwing off your POI than anything. I have never had an aluminum bed blocked synthtic stock throw off my POI while hunting...That goes from 16 degrees ambient to about 60 degrees.

 

[aramarine6]

I've owned both. Both have their advantages/disadvantages. Both have identical accuracy with my given handloads for each(.4moa) The savage however is very finicky with certain factory loads where as the remington is pretty consistant with most of them(.75-1 moa) I prefer the accutrigger/accustock over the remington trigger/stock. However I really like the 700 action. Neither one of them has a clear advantage over the other IMO. Good luck with your choice

 

[Deleted member 48126]

I have the 700 AAC with (the threaded barrel) in 308 with a 20 inch barrel that I received from Butterbean on the forum. It has a bell and carlson stock, jewel trigger, and has a nikon 4.5x20x42 scope on it. I took a box of federal deerthugs in 165 grn to the range and put 5 shots into the same hole at 50 yards and then moved out to 300 and hit 20 out of 20 on a 6 inch steel plate. I was happy. I know that isnt the stock out of the box one with the hogue stock but I am pleased with the rifle as a "semi-custom." I like remington over savage. Savages are accurate but I feel like their models are even "cheaper" than what remington has in the same class.

 

[Trickymissfit]

Aluminum can expand and contract and does so at a different rate than steel which can supposedly change your point of impact. Not saying it doesn't happen, obviously it is a scientific fact, but I have never experienced it. If you do a search on Pillar bedding vs Aluminum bedding, you'll probably get 500 threads and an endless debate. It's a coke vs pepsi sort of argument. We don't need to open up that can of worms. But it will go into more detail about how temperature will effect different material. When I recommended the B&C stock it wasn't due to the fact that it had an Aluminum bedding block. It was because it was a solid stock at a really reasonable price. Whether or not you go with the block, or a pillar system, they both offer you a solid system to screw your action down to, so it is not compressing the stock material. The more serious shooters will tell you they are a good starting point, and you absolutely want to have your stock bedded as well.

more importantly, aluminum doesn't expand and contract evenly. If it were all a similar cross section, then the only problem is with the amount of contraction and expansion. The only thing worse if brass and bronze. The best would be cast steel or stabilized cast iron. This is why aluminum cylinder blocks never produce as much horsepower and cast iron ones.
gary

 

[westcliffe01]

My Savage 10PC in 223 (I know this thread is about a 308) has shot 0.5MOA summer, winter, snow, sleet, any conditions it has been fired in. I have not done any modification to it whatsoever other than loctiting the Warne one piece scope base to the receiver, which I do to all my rifles.

I have had a few Remingtons and have spend several hundred $ on each for upgrades and none of them has shot like my 10PC. It so happened that the predecessor to my 10PC was a 700SPS with the 26" heavy barrel..

In my opinion, Remington is still riding the coat tails of their past performance. Their product, out the box no longer compares, but most of the newcomers to the sport have been told the Remington legends. The Remington rifles I owned were not bottom of the barrel models, the "Classic" model I had was nearly $800 used and the 223 SPS was $550 used with a bipod. The SPS needed the stock changed, not only from a stiffness point of view but also to balance the heavy 26" barrel. Its trigger was acceptable when I got it (used) and all I had to do was get rid of the cheap chinese scope that was on it and fix the stock.

The Classic had little in the way of redeeming qualities. It had a nice looking but useless stock, terrible 8lb trigger that was finally replaced with a <$100 Shilen trigger. I got a varmint thumbhole stock for it at a modest price, and bedded it, but there was no way it was ever going to be even a 1.5moa rifle.

I finally traded it on this forum for a "basket case" Savage rifle in 308 that had a Shilen barrel and a rifle basix trigger and a good laminate stock. Found that the barrel had not been properly installed. A Remington recoil lug had been used with a small diameter anti rotation pin which prevented the barrel nut from seating against the recoil lug. $60 worth of nut and proper recoil lug later and the rifle was reassembled. Then traded off the rifle basix trigger for a stock accutrigger and shot my first 1/4" group while doing load development.

Life is too short to believe in legends. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. When every Remington rifle I bought does not shoot well, even after the application of quite a bit of work and $$$, and when it is so easy and cheap to re-barrel a Savage with high quality barrels, I knew what my decision was going to be. Each has to decide for themselves.

 

[Trickymissfit]

My Savage 10PC in 223 (I know this thread is about a 308) has shot 0.5MOA summer, winter, snow, sleet, any conditions it has been fired in. I have not done any modification to it whatsoever other than loctiting the Warne one piece scope base to the receiver, which I do to all my rifles.

I have had a few Remingtons and have spend several hundred $ on each for upgrades and none of them has shot like my 10PC. It so happened that the predecessor to my 10PC was a 700SPS with the 26" heavy barrel..

In my opinion, Remington is still riding the coat tails of their past performance. Their product, out the box no longer compares, but most of the newcomers to the sport have been told the Remington legends. The Remington rifles I owned were not bottom of the barrel models, the "Classic" model I had was nearly $800 used and the 223 SPS was $550 used with a bipod. The SPS needed the stock changed, not only from a stiffness point of view but also to balance the heavy 26" barrel. Its trigger was acceptable when I got it (used) and all I had to do was get rid of the cheap chinese scope that was on it and fix the stock.

The Classic had little in the way of redeeming qualities. It had a nice looking but useless stock, terrible 8lb trigger that was finally replaced with a <$100 Shilen trigger. I got a varmint thumbhole stock for it at a modest price, and bedded it, but there was no way it was ever going to be even a 1.5moa rifle.

I finally traded it on this forum for a "basket case" Savage rifle in 308 that had a Shilen barrel and a rifle basix trigger and a good laminate stock. Found that the barrel had not been properly installed. A Remington recoil lug had been used with a small diameter anti rotation pin which prevented the barrel nut from seating against the recoil lug. $60 worth of nut and proper recoil lug later and the rifle was reassembled. Then traded off the rifle basix trigger for a stock accutrigger and shot my first 1/4" group while doing load development.

Life is too short to believe in legends. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. When every Remington rifle I bought does not shoot well, even after the application of quite a bit of work and $$$, and when it is so easy and cheap to re-barrel a Savage with high quality barrels, I knew what my decision was going to be. Each has to decide for themselves.

I've owned exactly five Savage rifles in one form or another. Two of these are 99's chambered in .300. These two rifles simply reek with class. But they won't shoot with a good bolt gun in the same caliber. I don't loose thirty seconds of sleep over the issue. The others are 112's and one Mod. 12. One of the 112's was a single shot varmint rifle chambered in 22-250. It was a very early laminate stocked rifle that had the blued receiver and stainless steel barrel. The other is a magazine rifle, but otherwise similar to the chambering. The mod. 12 is a single shot 22-250 as well. The first 112BVSS would shoot mid two's all day long with near zero issues. That rifle did shoot several sub two tenth inch groups. But alas somebody wanted it worse than I, and I've always missed it. The other 112 shot mid to low three tenths inch groups all the time (five shot). After about 1300 rounds thru it I decided to give it a tune up ( groups were still around .44") on a whim. Replaced the trigger with a Rifle Basix, and added a speed lock kit. Then pulled the barrel and did a 3/8th's inch setback. Cut a new 22-250 chamber with a borrowed reamer. Then I pillar bedded it with home built steel pillars. Kept the OEM recoil lug, but ground it flat and parallel (took about .010"). Then rebedded the recoil lug area with Super Belzonia and steel bird shot. Did some minor skim bedding, and did a little bit of relieving in the stock. Nothing else was done. The rifle went right back to shooting .30" groups, and would drop into the mid twos on occasion. All this work took about five or six days including the cure time. The only thing done to the receiver was to lightly stone a couple burrs off the receiver face and where the bedding screws had pulled up a raised area. At the time, I didn't even check the receiver to see if it was square (it was later checked out, and was very square).

Now I own several Remington's, but most are 541's. But I've owned several 700's over the years. Currently I own exactly one! Out of the box it was a 4.25" gun (.223) with the best hand loads I could assemble. I told the folks I bought it from, that this 700VS was a real dog. Well the gunsmith at my local dealer said let me look at it. He shot five inch groups! Called me up and asked me to allow the boys over in Fairland to try their hand with it (Ferris Pindell's buddies). About a week later they called me at the house to ask me how I managed to get it to shoot four and a quarter inch groups? I gave them my load data, and the managed to get close to what I was getting. About this time I read some stuff Bill Calfee wrote on judging a barrel, and we pulled it for an inspection. It was full of tight spots and loose spots. Tore up tight patches as well. It was rough looking to the eye as well. We then did a chamber cast, and liked to died when we got the plug. So we did another one with the same results. You didn't even have to measure it to see that the chamber was crooked, and the necked looked bent to the bore. I took them to work and checked them in a Shadowgraph. The chamber was cut .007" off center with the bore, and at roughly a seven degree angle! Looking at my bore charts and taking into fact what we already knew about the chamber, it looked like I could cut two inches off the big end, and maybe two inches off the other end. It turned out that I lost about six inches altogether, as it was worse than believed. Ferris loaned me a .223 N.M. chamber reamer, and we chambered the barrel. The receiver was all over the place, and I trued it as best I could. The bolt lugs were seating on a large burr that was about .06".
So the head space was never even close from the factory. I recut the threads in the receiver to match the barrel threads that were about .010" larger in the pitch diameter (they were that bad). Then dusted the area the lugs seat on in a Browne & Sharp #13. The actual bolt lugs looked pretty good! The aluminum bedding device that Remington used was a mess. Looked like the action was touching in three small points, plus it had an upwards warp in the forend. I spent a lot of time working on that piece of junk, and finally ended up recutting it with a light pass from a ball end mill in a Bridgeport. It was a few thousandths small, and I just lapped it to fit the receiver. The gutted the bar up front, and replaced it with Super Belzonia with steel shot in it. After it cured I made a couple passes to relieve it in the Bridgeport. The recoil lug area wasn't all that bad, but needed a little bit of work. I then pillar bedded the bedding block to be sure. I had to make my own screws! But it wasn't all that hard to do (why the oddball pitch?). Assembled the gun again, and Doug and I went shooting with Hornaday 55 grain Vamx factory loads. The first group was a 3/4" group, and Doug was happy (I wasn't). Every case had a bent rim from the extractor! Plus the ejector pin was leaving a mark. Turned out that the ejector pin was freezing up in the bore. That was an easy fix. The extractor was replaced with an M16 extractor, and the marks on the rim went away. Groups got a little better, but then started seeing major issues with the trigger. It was untouched from right out of the box, and was set at about 4.5lb. pull. Kind of rough. But the real issue showed it's ugly face when it fired when the safety was let off! Doug said it was me, and it did it with him. Called it a day and Doug took the rifle back to his shop for a look see. He went thru the trigger, and set it up on his gauge block. It had 3lb. of pull, and would freeze up during travel! Plus the safety issue was still there. But groups got a little better, and we're in the fives. He went thru it again, and the results were the same. Called Ferris to see what he thought, and Ferris asked to look it over. He said the trigger was junk and unsafe! Gave me a 1978 trigger that he'd gone thru, and did some work on the safety. Seemed to fix it, and the rifle is now shoot mid to low fours with an occasional mid three's group. Doug and I used to shoot every Tuesday morning at a local range, and that's when I started loading at the range. I saw 3270fps with a 55 grain Vmax, and looked like I lost about 75 fps after cutting the barrel back. While this was going on Doug pulled three 700's off his rack and all had bad triggers! He sent them back like I should have. The last time Doug and I shot on Tuesday he brought two shop guns. One was a Sako with the set trigger, and the other was Savage Mod. 12 BVSS. The Sako was in .308 and the Savage was a fast twist .223. It started shooting in the three's, and got into the two's (all five shot groups). I was not happy again!

Now as much as I cussed that 700, it's my favorite hunting rifle! Not perfect, but I like it. The short barrel gives it a good off hand balance. Doesn't shoot off a rest as well as I'd like due to the forend shape. Killed quite a few coyotes with it, and most shots are off hand. I now wish it was a 1:10 twist gun. Had I to rechamber the barrel again, I'd have done it in .222 AI.
gary