identifying remington 700 416 rem.

[csmiffy]

EDIT: damn and blast, thought this was in the 375 and up page. apologies unless the moderators can move it for me. Went to delete and start again but failed miserably.

As per the thread title, I have a Remington 700 in 416 rem. After doing some searching for that calibre on here, I have found they aren't all quite the same. Some are KS models, etcI got it approx 1996.
A friend has it at the moment so can't check too much out in detail but should hopefully be getting it back in the next few weeks.
What is the difference between them all and how do I know?
Cheers.
I will also say it is a light bugger. Havent weighed it since I got it but it is just only a touch over 8lb.
I think from memory it was 8 1/4 without scope and empty tank. That sticks in my head as my mates old burnt out Parker Hale 30-06 with a rooted barrel was 8-1/2 with a scope.

 

[IvW]

Rem 700, 416 RM and 8lb should not be associated with the same rifle.......

 

[Neil Molendyk]

Rem 700, 416 RM and 8lb should not be associated with the same rifle.......

I have a 338 Win Mag custom that weighs 7 pounds scope and ammo included. Used on elk in the mountains in winter. Winter helps with the heavy clothing. But it falls into the same category. Just make the first shot count.

 

[csmiffy]

Rem 700, 416 RM and 8lb should not be associated with the same rifle.......

Yeah. I managed to find some paperwork back in the day before I got it that suggested it should've been close to 10lb.
Even if I have the weights mixed up, it is still only middle 8lb.
A scope and 4 rounds would bump it up past 9.
340gr Woodleighs past 2700 are a bit snappy lol

 

[csmiffy]

The factory recoil pad isnt that soft either. Looks nice and thick/soft but yeah nah.

 

[ChrisG]

As to the weight, you can fill some 1/2" copper pipe with molten lead, then epoxy them into the stock. However, before you do that, it should be fully glass bedded around the recoil lug and under/behind the tang and action bolts. Adding weight to a stock makes the stock more immobile which leads to cracks on a rifle bigger than .375.

Bore a hole in the buttstock under the pad big enough to just fit one of those lead filled pipes in and epoxy it in. If the rifle is now butt heavy, add a lead filled pipe epoxied in under the forearm. Only add half the weight you think you need to the buttstock, then check the balance.

I don't know why manufacturers cannot produce rifles of the proper weight when chambering them in bigger calibers. Ruger does the same thing with the hawkeye in .416 Ruger. 7.5 lbs.... stupid in my opinion. Make it weigh at least 9.5 to soak up some of the recoil.

 

[IvW]

So they can pump out cheap rifles.....

 

[ChrisG]

So they can pump out cheap rifles.....

You're not wrong. Modern firearms companies have allowed the design of rifles to be governed by the marketing people instead of the engineers. It really wouldn't be that hard to up the barrel profile and just add some weight to the stock.

I guess if you want something done right, buy an older rifle and do it yourself.

 

[Joker12]

EDIT: damn and blast, thought this was in the 375 and up page. apologies unless the moderators can move it for me. Went to delete and start again but failed miserably.

As per the thread title, I have a Remington 700 in 416 rem. After doing some searching for that calibre on here, I have found they aren't all quite the same. Some are KS models, etcI got it approx 1996.
A friend has it at the moment so can't check too much out in detail but should hopefully be getting it back in the next few weeks.
What is the difference between them all and how do I know?
Cheers.
I will also say it is a light bugger. Havent weighed it since I got it but it is just only a touch over 8lb.
I think from memory it was 8 1/4 without scope and empty tank. That sticks in my head as my mates old burnt out Parker Hale 30-06 with a rooted barrel was 8-1/2 with a scope.

The KS had a synthetic ( Kevlar fiber ) stock.

 

[csmiffy]

"The KS had a synthetic ( Kevlar fiber ) stock."
@Joker12 thats an easy one then
It definitely isnt one of those

 

[Joker12]

"The KS had a synthetic ( Kevlar fiber ) stock."
@Joker12 thats an easy one then
It definitely isnt one of those

The first ones also had a blind box magazine (no floorplate).

 

[BeeMaa]

Do not overlook how the rifle fits you. As the caliber goes up, the better a rifle should fit you. A heavy rifle with a soft butt pad can kick like a mule, while a light one with a hard butt pad can be easy to shoot...all because of rifle fit. I never would have believed this until I experienced it for myself. Take the time and spend the money to have the rifle properly fitted to you. Your shooting experience will be much more enjoyable.

 

[csmiffy]

@Joker12 well it has a floorplate so not one of the originals.
@BeeMaa knowing how fit affects shotguns I get that completely, but ultimately if the stock fits well then a decent recoil pad can only help

 

[csmiffy]

Well got the old girl back t'other day.
Just using date codes etc I can assume the following:
CJ on the left of the barrel works out to be April '89.
The serial number on the action starts with a C and that supposedly equates to the late 80's so that matches up with the barrel.
So ultimately this seems to be one of the more early ones but just after the non-floorplate jobbies mentioned by @Joker12 earlier
nudging 33 years old this April

 

[Muskox]

There are multiple iterations of 700 KS rifles.

The first one had a synthetic fiberglass/kevlar stock covered in pantyhose and painted. This gave it a kind of a texture. I had one of these in 338 Winchester in the Mountain Rifle Custom KS model. Was an extremely hard kicker with 250's as any 6 pound 338 would be.

I do not know who the original stock maker was. Maybe Bell and Carlson. Maybe McMillan?

Then there was another Bell and Carlson one and an HS Precision one.

There is also such a thing as a 700 Big Game, which from memory only came in 416. Had HS stock on it (I think) it was not as custom shop rifle, but was a limited run. I bought one of these, it also was an extremely hard kicker.

700's don't bother me. Today in 2022 there are much better mouse traps, but I'd own another one.

 

[Ark. Trapper]

It looks like a standard 700 Classic to me.

 

[csmiffy]

@Ark. Trapper quite possibly