The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**4V50 Gary** · April 5, 1999, 12:12 PM

There is one issue which remains to be addressed: machining of the receiver face on the Remington 700. On any bolt action rifle, there are critical surface areas of a receiver which can create strains on the action or barrel. This includes the guard screw threads, locking seats, barrel threads and the receiver ring face.

Following machining when the receiver is true (thanks to modern machining methods), it is then heat treated. Modern heat treatment minimizes distortions and while not perfect, this is where most distortions are produced. This is true not only for Remingtons but also for Winchesters. One solution is to heat treat prior to machining, but this makes machining very expensive. You'll need harder cutting dies (more money) or replace the regular ones faster (still more money). Remember how the M1C receiver was shipped to Griffin & Howe for fitting of a scope mounting rail and then the components were returned to Springfield for heat treatment and finishing prior to assembly? It couldn't be done any cheaper way, until the M1D with its barrel and scope combination came along and avoided the entire issue.

There is one other advantage of the Remington system over the Winchester which was neglected: lock time. The standard length Remington action has a lock time of 3.0 milliseconds and the Rem short action 2.6. The pre-64 Winchester Model 70 has a lock time of 3.8 milliseconds. The unlamented post-64 (& post 68) Winchester M70 has the same lock time as the standard length Remington. For additional comparison, the '03A3 has a locktime of between 6.1 to 7.6 milliseconds, depending of the type of mainspring used. The National Match was quicker at 5.5. Returning to the Winchester v. Remington debate, most of us, myself included, probably wouldn't notice the difference.

April 5, 1999, 12:12 PM	#20
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,855	There is one issue which remains to be addressed: machining of the receiver face on the Remington 700. On any bolt action rifle, there are critical surface areas of a receiver which can create strains on the action or barrel. This includes the guard screw threads, locking seats, barrel threads and the receiver ring face. Following machining when the receiver is true (thanks to modern machining methods), it is then heat treated. Modern heat treatment minimizes distortions and while not perfect, this is where most distortions are produced. This is true not only for Remingtons but also for Winchesters. One solution is to heat treat prior to machining, but this makes machining very expensive. You'll need harder cutting dies (more money) or replace the regular ones faster (still more money). Remember how the M1C receiver was shipped to Griffin & Howe for fitting of a scope mounting rail and then the components were returned to Springfield for heat treatment and finishing prior to assembly? It couldn't be done any cheaper way, until the M1D with its barrel and scope combination came along and avoided the entire issue. There is one other advantage of the Remington system over the Winchester which was neglected: lock time. The standard length Remington action has a lock time of 3.0 milliseconds and the Rem short action 2.6. The pre-64 Winchester Model 70 has a lock time of 3.8 milliseconds. The unlamented post-64 (& post 68) Winchester M70 has the same lock time as the standard length Remington. For additional comparison, the '03A3 has a locktime of between 6.1 to 7.6 milliseconds, depending of the type of mainspring used. The National Match was quicker at 5.5. Returning to the Winchester v. Remington debate, most of us, myself included, probably wouldn't notice the difference.