Remington 700 as a safari rifle anyone?

[coreydb]

I built a 416 Rem Mag from a Rem 700 and only had an AR 15 claw extractor installed in the bolt. To date had no problems shooting, feeding or extracting. I also don't exceed the reloading specs for the cartridge.

 

[IvW]

Love the honesty! Still with the Brno’s?

Yes

 

[Rule 303]

"My first dg rifle was a Rem 700 classic in 375 H&H.......biggest piece of shit I ever bought. I got rid of it as fast as I could, switched to Brno ZKK 602 actioned rifles and never looked back...." I went the other way with the 375H&H and glad I did, lighter, less felt recoil and just as accurate.

It does not matter what rifle make/model you have all will/can and have failed. Facing DG and a double feed happens, yes that does happen with the fabled Mauser, it is far quicker to clear a push feed than a control round feed. With a Rem 700 if changing to a Sako extractor ...don't. It has no more surface bearing area than the Rem 700 extractor, go the M16 instead, a far better extractor.

I still prefer CRF for big cases.

 

[farmer_john]

"My first dg rifle was a Rem 700 classic in 375 H&H.......biggest piece of shit I ever bought. I got rid of it as fast as I could, switched to Brno ZKK 602 actioned rifles and never looked back...." I went the other way with the 375H&H and glad I did, lighter, less felt recoil and just as accurate.

It does not matter what rifle make/model you have all will/can and have failed. Facing DG and a double feed happens, yes that does happen with the fabled Mauser, it is far quicker to clear a push feed than a control round feed. With a Rem 700 if changing to a Sako extractor ...don't. It has no more surface bearing area than the Rem 700 extractor, go the M16 instead, a far better extractor.

I still prefer CRF for big cases.

I think honestly push feed vs controlled is fanboy problems.
9mm vs 45
Ak vs ar
Plastic vs wood (m14 vs m16 at adoption)
The fact is a well made and MAINTAINED rifle will perform well.
Almost every semi auto rifle is push feed.

Lot of love for blaser r8 rifles here....... push feed
Tikka t3
Accuracy international
M24
M40
Ak variants
Svds
Ar and variants
All open bolt machine guns
No one complains about reliability in very austeer conditions

What people do neglect is maintanence. When was last time you jeard someone with a 50 year old rifle replace the firing pin/springs extractor/springs because there a consumable part that periodicslly needs replacing

I think alot of the fire arm issues people make alot of issue about is user error blamed on the gun. Ive seen alot of folks blame the gun for their crap accuracy too. Hand it to someone els it shoots clover holes. Or they claim shooting a paper plate at 100m is good accuracy and how great they are.....

 

[mchusmc]

Huge differance between hunting DG and killing people at long range.......never could understand how this comparison is brought up.....apples and oranges.....

Agreed, and I will take this a step further. I’m a retired Marine Colonel (a bit over 40 years active service) and had the opportunity to visit the Precision Weapons Section (PWS) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico and see M40 “series” sniper rifles being built. To make a long story short, during my visit I saw that pretty much the only major factory Remington part that is retained to build the USMC sniper rifles is the receiver. Of course the rifles get a new stock and match-grade barrel, but they also get a machined one-piece bolt with M-16 type extractor, new all-steel bottom metal, a proper recoil lug, new trigger, and so forth. To claim that the Remington 700 is the rifle that the Marines use as a sniper rifle is akin to saying that an applicable stock Chevrolet is what a race team uses in NASCAR events. Full disclosure, not sure what the Army does/doesn’t do in order to build their sniper rifles.

 

[R eight]

Agreed, and I will take this a step further. I’m a retired Marine Colonel (a bit over 40 years active service) and had the opportunity to visit the Precision Weapons Section (PWS) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico and see M40 “series” sniper rifles being built. To make a long story short, during my visit I saw that pretty much the only major factory Remington part that is retained to build the USMC sniper rifles is the receiver. Of course the rifles get a new stock and match-grade barrel, but they also get a machined one-piece bolt with M-16 type extractor, new all-steel bottom metal, a proper recoil lug, new trigger, and so forth. To claim that the Remington 700 is the rifle that the Marines use as a sniper rifle is akin to saying that an applicable stock Chevrolet is what a race team uses in NASCAR events. Full disclosure, not sure what the Army does/doesn’t do in order to build their sniper rifles.

The Remington 700 that we can buy off the shelf has very little in common with the model 700 sniper rifles that are extensively modified and used by the US military as sniper rifles.
Back in’93 I was lucky enough to visit Quantico and have a play with military 700 sniper rifles. They had Remington on the action but that’s where the similarity finished.

I’ve had a 700 factory extractor fail in the field. Problem solved by fitting a Sako/M16 type extractor.

I had used model 700’s for a couple of decades with thousands of rounds shot through them without a problem….. and then one failed at the worst possible time.

I was lucky enough to get a tour of that workshop back in ‘93. It was certainly impressive and an eye opener for an Aussie.

 

[Schüler Jumbo]

Agreed, and I will take this a step further. I’m a retired Marine Colonel (a bit over 40 years active service) and had the opportunity to visit the Precision Weapons Section (PWS) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico and see M40 “series” sniper rifles being built. To make a long story short, during my visit I saw that pretty much the only major factory Remington part that is retained to build the USMC sniper rifles is the receiver. Of course the rifles get a new stock and match-grade barrel, but they also get a machined one-piece bolt with M-16 type extractor, new all-steel bottom metal, a proper recoil lug, new trigger, and so forth. To claim that the Remington 700 is the rifle that the Marines use as a sniper rifle is akin to saying that an applicable stock Chevrolet is what a race team uses in NASCAR events. Full disclosure, not sure what the Army does/doesn’t do in order to build their sniper rifles.

But in the end still a Push Feed design that the Great US Marine Corp puts its faith in. My father was a Marine in the Pacific Theater of WWII. The push feed M1 Garand, push feed M1 Carbine, push feed M16 all have seen massive amounts of CQC that more than compare with dangerous game shooting distances. Understand that comparison!

 

[mchusmc]

But in the end still a Push Feed design that the Great US Marine Corp puts its faith in. My father was a Marine in the Pacific Theater of WWII. The push feed M1 Garand, push feed M1 Carbine, push feed M16 all have seen massive amounts of CQC that more than compare with dangerous game shooting distances. Understand that comparison!

Respectfully disagree. The Marine Corps puts their “faith” in the Remington receiver only. Every other major Remington component is discarded. Comparing semiautomatic and/or select fire push feed weapons of war to CRF rifles preferred for dangerous game hunting is not reasonable, in my humble opinion.

 

[Schüler Jumbo]

Respectfully you are wrong. The engineering of the M700 is push feed. Changing parts does not change the engineering design. Yes, comparing is reasonable; these engineered weapons must perform under maximum stress. You agreed with a ridiculous statement.

 

[farmer_john]

Agreed, and I will take this a step further. I’m a retired Marine Colonel (a bit over 40 years active service) and had the opportunity to visit the Precision Weapons Section (PWS) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico and see M40 “series” sniper rifles being built. To make a long story short, during my visit I saw that pretty much the only major factory Remington part that is retained to build the USMC sniper rifles is the receiver. Of course the rifles get a new stock and match-grade barrel, but they also get a machined one-piece bolt with M-16 type extractor, new all-steel bottom metal, a proper recoil lug, new trigger, and so forth. To claim that the Remington 700 is the rifle that the Marines use as a sniper rifle is akin to saying that an applicable stock Chevrolet is what a race team uses in NASCAR events. Full disclosure, not sure what the Army does/doesn’t do in order to build their sniper rifles.

The armys m24 wich there alot more of are stock

And alot of guns are push feed and bo one critisizes them.

And secondly no disrespect. A col insoecting a facility is along way away from real world use of any weapons.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

But in the end still a Push Feed design that the Great US Marine Corp puts its faith in. My father was a Marine in the Pacific Theater of WWII. The push feed M1 Garand, push feed M1 Carbine, push feed M16 all have seen massive amounts of CQC that more than compare with dangerous game shooting distances. Understand that comparison!

The point of CRF is to eliminate some chances of failure due to the operator short stoking the bolt. Also it’s a safety feature that will not allow a cartridge to be in the chamber without the bolt shut.
Comparing auto loading rifles to bolt actions adds nothing to the argument for push peed rifles as the human error has been eliminated, at least as far as operating the bolt.
Also sniper rifles are chosen and built for accuracy first and reliability second.
The DG rifle has more in common with the bolt action battle rifle of the Great War than the sniper rifles of today’s combat.
There are a number of reasons why I don’t like the Remington 700, being push feed is only one.

 

[Schüler Jumbo]

The point of CRF is to eliminate some chances of failure due to the operator short stoking the bolt. Also it’s a safety feature that will not allow a cartridge to be in the chamber without the bolt shut.
Comparing auto loading rifles to bolt actions adds nothing to the argument for push peed rifles as the human error has been eliminated, at least as far as operating the bolt.
Also sniper rifles are chosen and built for accuracy first and reliability second.
The DG rifle has more in common with the bolt action battle rifle of the Great War than the sniper rifles of today’s combat.
There are a number of reasons why I don’t like the Remington 700, being push feed is only one.

1. CRF actions can and do get short stroked.
2. Auto loading rifles should be discussed in the mix of engineered weapons for use in high stress applications.
3. WRONG! Sniper rifles are built for reliability.
4. Blaser is an example of a highly regarded dangerous game rifle that is engineered significantly different than WWI rifles.
5. I couldn’t care less about why you don’t like
a Remington M700! The M700 is one of the most successful rifle designs the world has ever experienced.

 

[Choupique]

sniper rifles are chosen and built for accuracy first and reliability second

I have to disagree with this. I think you would find universal consensus anywhere in the world that accuracy international rifles are top shelf in both reliability and accuracy. They are push feed. Steyr SSG - push feed. Sako TRG - push feed. Tikka CTR - push feed. I would trust any of these rifles in adverse conditions before any CRF rifle. Im sure there are others i am not familiar with and they are probably also push feed. They are made for the most dangerous game on earth.

I dont get too invested in this discussion usually because CRF is great and I think the argument one way or the other is almost entirely academic. You do however see countless discussions on making CRF rifles function correctly and nearly none on push feed rifles despite their prevalence. An alien reading this board might readily conclude that CRF rifles are nearly always a problem out of the box, just because its so frequently addressed.

 

[MHYOUNG 375]

Guys,

I'm coming to this party quite late, but I've used a pile of 700's over about 45 years. I've taken them to Africa for all sorts of game. I've never had a lick of problems with them including one in 375 and another in 416. My main rifle for many years was a Brown Precision 338 on a model 700 and I loved it.

Now! Having said all that one of my clients was getting ready for his buffalo hunt and in the process of his handling his old favorite 7MM Remington the bolt handle came off in his hand. That gave him and me pause. I had heard all the stories about 700 triggers, safeties, bolt handles and extractors which I blew off think those were just flukes. Not now! I am a believer. I sold my last 700 a couple years ago. In bolt action I only shoot Mauser type rifles now.

Mark

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Hold on guys I never said that sniper rifles were built for accuracy alone. And reliability was a far distant second. Of course it must be reliable.
There are a lot of advantages to having a push feed sniper rifle. The extractor snapping over the rim, the spring loaded ejector gently tossing out the empty no matter how hard the bolt is worked.
CRF was used to minimize human error in the operation of the bolt. Since the human doesn’t operate the bolt on an auto loading rifle I cannot see how it can help the argument.
Push feed rifles are cheaper to produce, and cheaper to make work correctly, as noted above there are a lot of CRF rifles that need a bit of work to function 100%. I feel that the advantages of a true CRF are worth the effort.
R 700s were built to be cheap, that’s unavoidable. They are cheap and accurate. Lots of things are successful that I don’t like, same goes for everyone.

 

[farmer_john]

The point of CRF is to eliminate some chances of failure due to the operator short stoking the bolt. Also it’s a safety feature that will not allow a cartridge to be in the chamber without the bolt shut.
Comparing auto loading rifles to bolt actions adds nothing to the argument for push peed rifles as the human error has been eliminated, at least as far as operating the bolt.
Also sniper rifles are chosen and built for accuracy first and reliability second.
The DG rifle has more in common with the bolt action battle rifle of the Great War than the sniper rifles of today’s combat.
There are a number of reasons why I don’t like the Remington 700, being push feed is only one.

Crf is a design from 1890s.
Techs come along way buddy.

2 whats this bs accuracy first reliability second.

3 youve nevre seen semi autos catastrophically jam??

Not liking remingtons fine.

Push feeds not the reason because your argument isnt based in reality or real world applications.

 

[farmer_john]

Hold on guys I never said that sniper rifles were built for accuracy alone. And reliability was a far distant second. Of course it must be reliable.
There are a lot of advantages to having a push feed sniper rifle. The extractor snapping over the rim, the spring loaded ejector gently tossing out the empty no matter how hard the bolt is worked.
CRF was used to minimize human error in the operation of the bolt. Since the human doesn’t operate the bolt on an auto loading rifle I cannot see how it can help the argument.
Push feed rifles are cheaper to produce, and cheaper to make work correctly, as noted above there are a lot of CRF rifles that need a bit of work to function 100%. I feel that the advantages of a true CRF are worth the effort.
R 700s were built to be cheap, that’s unavoidable. They are cheap and accurate. Lots of things are successful that I don’t like, same goes for everyone.

So let me get this straight..

Crfs need work to be 100% reliable
Push feeds need work to be reliable....

Seems like your nullifying your argument. Also single round feeding a crf is alot harder

But that said. I would argue both being well made and maintained
Will perform well.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

So let me get this straight..

Crfs need work to be 100% reliable
Push feeds need work to be reliable....

Seems like your nullifying your argument. Also single round feeding a crf is alot harder

But that said. I would argue both being well made and maintained
Will perform well.

I single round feed my 98 Mauser 404 and Springfield 03A3 by simply dropping a cartridge in the open action and closing the bolt. Can't get any easier than that. A few models CRF will not snap over on the cartridge rim but usually it doesn't take much to modify extractor so they will.

I personally don't care for Model 700 but mostly due to aesthetics. They seem to me to be "sloppy" cycling but I guess they work well enough. Safety and extractor were historically a complaint but the safety issue seems to have been resolved (finally) and the extractor is apparently a very easy and economical fix. Making a CRF extractor snap over is NOT an easy fix. Ask me how I know. Maybe not ... or I'll fill up the next two pages ... again.

If 416 is mounted in synthetic stock it will kick like hell no matter if CRF or push feed. I would not own a 416 Rigby or 458 Lott if someone gave them to me, no matter what make or model, wood or synthetic. I don't enjoy recoil that much ... and my fragile retinas don't enjoy it at all!

 

[Choupique]

CRF was used to minimize human error in the operation of the bolt.

Is there any literature out there on how the CRF setup came into prevelance? Its what basically every standard issue bolt action rifle fielded used (Springfield, mauser, enfield, arisaka, etc) so there are clear advantages to it for a combat rifle. As far as I know, there was never a widespread standard issue bolt action infantry rifle that was push feed.

I agree that with an auto, theres zero advantage to CRF since the action is automatic.

 

[migrabill]

I have a Remington 700 BDL in 30-06 that I can't bring myself to shoot. Mainly because it's never been shot. And it'a 1974!