Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Remington 700 quality
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Trickymissfit" data-source="post: 642724" data-attributes="member: 25383"><p>you probably have better info than I do first of all. I was told that the Ruger rifles were much different than the garden varity of Ruger we think of. The trigger group alone was a different design. I suspect they were push feed instead of their controlled feed setup. And I'd pretty much bet the farm they didn't build the barrel. But alas, all that's secondary and 99% of here will never see one of them.</p><p> </p><p>To touch on that bedding issue between the Remington and the Winchester actions a second or so. On paper the Remington has a little more contact area than the Winchester, but it's a different kind of contact. The Winchester is pretty flat on the bottom, and the reciever is pulled down against a solid area of contact. While the Remington (and Savage too) are round and will try to spread the area they come in contact with (sorta like a wedge). So yes the Winchester should stay properly bedded longer. I got into a very long and somewhat heated argument about this same issue fifteen years ago with Joe Barnes and friends. I knew that neither side was completely right in the argument, and set out to prove one or another was wrong. I drew both actions up bedded in a mechanical CAD program and then set the same downward force from the bedding screws. At the time I think I used something like 50 in. lb. of force. The actuall area under hard stress was much larger with the Winchester. While the round action actually had more force on the sides than the bottom (actually in the 5 & 7 oclock areas). The Remington in a wood stock was actually slightly better than the Winchester in a similar stock. But (here's a big difference) with good aluminum bedding blocks that went up the sides of the actions the Winchester was way better. An area I did not touch upon (and should have) was the tang area and the recoil lugs. I think Remington might be a little better here. Yet it's also a known fact that the front mounted recoil lug is not a great system, and actually can cause other issues.</p><p> </p><p>At the time I was working feverously on a .223 Winchester and a couple other rifles trying to get that last little bit out of them. The Winchester just needed a new barrel right up front with no questions asked. I never could get the trigger group into an acceptable mode, and the lock time was always at a snail's pace. But the rifle felt better in my hands. That rifle shot in the sixes, and it was a fight to get there. Later I got my hands on a similar rifle in 22-250. Never shot the 22-250 as I already owned two others. Rebarreled it with a Sealy Masker 1:14 twist 6mm barrel. Chambered it in 6BR. Added a speedlock kit and a Timeny trigger. It started out in the low sixes and just got better. I think it will shoot in the low threes without too much trouble. (have not played with it in quite awhile) Would have been a better barrel, had it been a 1:11 twist barrel, but I had zero dollars in the barrel from the getgo.</p><p>gary</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trickymissfit, post: 642724, member: 25383"] you probably have better info than I do first of all. I was told that the Ruger rifles were much different than the garden varity of Ruger we think of. The trigger group alone was a different design. I suspect they were push feed instead of their controlled feed setup. And I'd pretty much bet the farm they didn't build the barrel. But alas, all that's secondary and 99% of here will never see one of them. To touch on that bedding issue between the Remington and the Winchester actions a second or so. On paper the Remington has a little more contact area than the Winchester, but it's a different kind of contact. The Winchester is pretty flat on the bottom, and the reciever is pulled down against a solid area of contact. While the Remington (and Savage too) are round and will try to spread the area they come in contact with (sorta like a wedge). So yes the Winchester should stay properly bedded longer. I got into a very long and somewhat heated argument about this same issue fifteen years ago with Joe Barnes and friends. I knew that neither side was completely right in the argument, and set out to prove one or another was wrong. I drew both actions up bedded in a mechanical CAD program and then set the same downward force from the bedding screws. At the time I think I used something like 50 in. lb. of force. The actuall area under hard stress was much larger with the Winchester. While the round action actually had more force on the sides than the bottom (actually in the 5 & 7 oclock areas). The Remington in a wood stock was actually slightly better than the Winchester in a similar stock. But (here's a big difference) with good aluminum bedding blocks that went up the sides of the actions the Winchester was way better. An area I did not touch upon (and should have) was the tang area and the recoil lugs. I think Remington might be a little better here. Yet it's also a known fact that the front mounted recoil lug is not a great system, and actually can cause other issues. At the time I was working feverously on a .223 Winchester and a couple other rifles trying to get that last little bit out of them. The Winchester just needed a new barrel right up front with no questions asked. I never could get the trigger group into an acceptable mode, and the lock time was always at a snail's pace. But the rifle felt better in my hands. That rifle shot in the sixes, and it was a fight to get there. Later I got my hands on a similar rifle in 22-250. Never shot the 22-250 as I already owned two others. Rebarreled it with a Sealy Masker 1:14 twist 6mm barrel. Chambered it in 6BR. Added a speedlock kit and a Timeny trigger. It started out in the low sixes and just got better. I think it will shoot in the low threes without too much trouble. (have not played with it in quite awhile) Would have been a better barrel, had it been a 1:11 twist barrel, but I had zero dollars in the barrel from the getgo. gary [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Remington 700 quality
Top