I suppose its time to expound upon my previous assertions.
Let's talk barrels. Hammer forged huh? Remington started that in the '60s and it is only their custom shop which still uses button rifling. The first Remington snipers to modernly enter service was the Marines' M40 sniper rifle which featured all Remington components. After the war, the US Army followed suit and its M24 sniper rifle used barrels initially manufactured by Rock Barrel Company. Those barrels featured the Russian inspired 5R rifling as adapted by "Boots" Obermeyer. I was told that Remington turned to an outsider because they could not produce the new barrel in sufficient quantites at the time. While the 5R has proven itself superior, I don't believe that it is offered on current sporting rifles at this time. This doesn't mean that their regular barrels are bad. Their new Urban Sniper rifle featues a 20" three fluted barrel which fired a sub 6" group at 600 yards - not bad for a rifle meant for up to 300 yards distance. My varminter gets sub MOA groups with factory PMC ammo. With handloads, my brother got a one hole group (the same three bullets through the same hole - 3 shot group at 100 yards) the last time we visited the range together. My faith in Remington barrels is unshaken.
Recoil lugs. Yes, Mad Dog is correct in that having a flat bottom receiver and an integral recoil lug is more conducive towards a superior glass bedding job. The round receiver of Remington is almost idealized from a production viewpoint. With the Remington, you take a piece of round stock and begin milling away to get the finished receiver. Low cost with high productivity makes accountants happy. The trouble with the round receiver is that it wants to roll. Opps, that's not so good. That's where the Winchester with its flat bottom wins hands down. For a Winchester, you take and forge a billet of steel into its rough shape and mill away for the finished product. Conceptually it's integral recoil lug is superior. But another factor must be considered: Quality. Look at the top photo on page 179 of Vol IV, Death From Afar (Chandler & Chandler of Iron Brigade Armory). They report that the bottom corners of the Winchester lug are unevenly machined. This makes it tough to properly bed the action and onced bedded, raises the issue of whether it could ever be removed from the stock without damage to the bedding. Until Winchester improves its quality, which I believe it will, the new Pre-64 Model 70 is not the rifle upon which one would want to build a precision rifle (more on this later). While Remington does have a separate recoil lug, unlike the Winchester, it may be replaced and in replacing it, a heavier one may be substituted. That's not an option with Winchester.
Turning to the (Howell's designed) weak extractor, while it appears small, the Remington extractor is actually wider than the extractor on the Ruger M77. Also, consider that it is shielded from dirt and twigs and bugs and snow unlike the exposed Mauser inspired extractor of the Winchester M70. Here's the kicker. The extractor has a claimed 300 lb. of extracting power versus the 150 lb. of a conventional claw type extractor. (Otteson, The Bolt Action Rifle, Vol 1, page 127). Poundage set aside for weight watchers (sorry - I've a weakness for sick humor), the Remington is also a proven design. Good enough for Army and USMC snipers, good enough for me. Sure I've read of failures and that's only a couple of rifles after over 20k rounds fired. Not bad when one considers that hydrogen embrittlement affects all worked metals. Spare parts wise, stocking or carrying a spare (it's not hard to replace if you know how) for the Remington takes a lot less space than the Winchester.
Flimsly ejector? Well, given that a solid fixed ejector rarely fails, I grant the the solid ejector is superior. It is not without its design compromise though: open breechface on the bolt. There must be a milled slot on the bolt's body and breechface for the ejector to strike and eject the cartridge case. So, you have slightly weaker case support for the Winchester M70. The Remington is not without its faluts either: more parts and more mechanical in nature. But remember, it's the same system as used on the M1 Garand (Patton's "greatest battle implement ever devised"). The M16 also uses the same system. I'm sorry but I'm under the impression that the bugs on the M16 were worked out in the '60s. Overall, the plunger type ejector isn't weak. Besides, the argument about either extractor or ejector being prone to failure in the brush is more academic than anything. Excuse me, don't we walk and stalk with our actions closed?
The issue of lockup was asked. Recall that on the Winchester, one lug is necessarily smaller because of the Mauser type claw extractor. The tradeoff is at the lockup at the breech since one lug will lock up and the other really doesn't. Now, consider the Remington's internal ejector which allows for the two massive locking lugs of about the same size, for a perfectly balanced support on the breech. No big lug little lug here. This twin lugs of the Remington 700 provides for one of the strongest locking patterns on a sporting arm.
Returning to the issue of controlled feeding, it is more positive but as mentioned previously, compromises on case support. The Winchester, like the '03 Springfield, featues a tapered breechface which facilitates feeding. Unlike the flat breech of the Remington 700, the tapered breechface does not fully support the case. Cartridge failure is more susceptible when cases are not supported than when they are. No shooter welcomes any jet of gas towards him/her. With the flat breech of the Remington and the "three rings of steel" (bolt head, barrel and receiver) surrounding the cartridge, gases from a failed case is more likely diverted to the side than towards the rear. To quote Otteson, "[T]he closed bolt-nose fit can confine case-head failure and limit gas escape back into enlarged, and thus more susceptible, portions of the receiver." (Otteson, The Bolt Action, Vol 1, pg 121). It's simply safer. By the way, don't dwell on the "three rings" bit from Remington. While it's true (if it wasn't, would it be here on The Firing Line?
) and it isn't anything new as it was used before on the earlier Remington M721 (see Lacy, The Remington 700). It wasn't until 1954 when the marketing lads decided that it could be a selling point that Remington began touting it as a feature of desire.
Oh yes, let's talk about all those doo dads and must haves that our precision shooting community must add on which the Winchester folks don't need or want. You don't need them either since Remington Varminters shoot straight enough without adding on any bells or whistles. Returning to doo dadds and must haves, consider that the Remington 700 as a precision rifle is a work in progress. There are years of experience and armourer/gunsmith training which is well supported by a cottage industry: all of which serves turning an already accurate rifle into a super accurate precision rifle. No such industry or extent of training exists for the Winchester. You're talking about starting from ground zero, doing research, figuring out what works when and devloping all those doo dads must haves which already exists for the Remington. Not that Winchester can't be doo dad up as Remington, it's just a little harder to start up.
Most of these issues, like those of Mad Dog's, are academic. It's like saying blondes are better than brunettes or redheads. Both are good guns and each design is based on compromises and its what you are willing to accept and feel comfortable with. Winchesters work great for Mad Dog and I'm happy for him. Remingtons work great for me. Now, if Marlin can improve their quality control and barrels for their MR7, after all, they seem to have the best of Remington, Winchester and Browning. Like I said earlier, buy both.
[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited April 04, 1999).]