Win Model 70 vs. Rem 700

Spencer Stewart · March 31, 1999, 01:12 PM

Hello all,

A little while back Mad Dog expounded on the positives of the Model 70 in the "Ideal 7.62 /.308" thread http://www.thefiringline.com/NonCGI/...ML/000232.html and provided what seemed like to me (which isn't saying much) a sound argument for it's superiority over the Rem 700 action.

I went and visited a local dealer and asked what he thought about the Win Model 70 compared to the Rem 700. He said that the superiority of the Win Model 70 over the Rem 700 was a bunch of BS. His only argumetn though was that "the only thing you see in competition is the Rem 700, you never see the Model 70."

Help a newbie out and clarify some of this? The dealer didn't have as well executed argument as Mad Dog, however, it the MOdel 70 is better then why isn't it being used in competition?

Thanks

Spencer Stewart

[This message has been edited by Spencer Stewart (edited March 31, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Spencer Stewart (edited March 31, 1999).]

James K · March 31, 1999, 01:32 PM

Which is better, a blonde or a brunette? Same sort of thing for Win. 70 vs. Rem. 700. Both are fine rifles and both are very accurate. (Forget competition, using those rifles for comparison is like choosing a family sedan based on NASCAR 500 results.) If possible, get friends to let you try each. Fit, and how it feels to you, and how you like it will be more important than competition results or anyone else's opinion. Some Winchesters have the old type extractor, which gives "controlled feed". This could be important (not for the reasons people think) but not of much concern in a sporting rifle.

**Mal H** · March 31, 1999, 04:24 PM

Spencer - IMNSHO (emphasis on the O), no company makes more accurate "factory" barrels than Remington. The action, on the other hand is a toss-up. Like Jim said, don't base anything on competition rifles.

**4V50 Gary** · March 31, 1999, 07:34 PM

First, let me say I have a strong personal bias in favour of the Remington 700 (after all, they're one of the first - Savage was before them - to cater to us Southpaws).

That set aside, some will argue that the controlled feeding of the Win M70 is superior. If that was so, then name one modern machinegun which uses the same feeding system. Reliability is more critical in something which has to squirt out 600 plus RPM. Second, there's an obvious drawback in that there's less support for the cartridge case.

I'll have to agree with Mal H that Remington makes the most accurate factory barrels. Lest we forget, they supply the barrels for the Knight SR25.

The Winchester M70 strong points are worthy of mention: Strong and rigid receiver (with additional bonus of being flat on the bottom - less roll and easy to bed), Mauser type extractor, direct-acting safety, smooth and positive functioning, positive and controlled feeding, clean and attractive lines. This is somewhat offset by its Springfield type breech and gas handling.

The Remington 700 strong points include: strong breeching and locking, positive and convenient safety, full adjustable trigger, strong bedding configuration, one of the most accurate factory barrel of the major manufacturers, and for precision shooting enthusiasts, majority of research to attain sub-moa accuracy has been done.

While I may be a Remington man, I'm also a proud owner of a pre-64 Win M70. To paraphrase Mykl who responded to a similar inquiry regarding semiautos, Buy both.

MAD DOG · April 1, 1999, 11:15 AM

My predilection for the Pre 64 type Winchesters, and the Classic pre64 types produced now, is based on several notable design details that I consider superior to the 700 type weapons from Remington.
I also like the P14/17 Enfields, and genuine Mausers for the same set of reasons.
We need not concern ourselves with the "post 64" type Winchesters, in the push feed format, as they suffer essentially the same action problems as the Remington 700s.

Remington's barrel quality has varied dramatically over the last several years. There was a period where they seemed incapable of producing a barrel with a concentric bore. The Marines stopped using Remington barrels during this period, and they still are very leary of them. I have this on first hand authority from a man that builds rifles at Quantico, as well as several individuals in the 10th Special Forces Mountain Warfare Group. Yes, they are snipers.

The Mdl 70 has a much better extactor, and ejector system. As I stated previously, I hunt dangerous game, and a faulty extractor or ejector can really ruin your day when the chips are down. I care not a fig for benchrest type perfomance in a hunting rifle, and concentrate almost exclusively on reliability.
Accuracy is important to a degree, but I do not attempt to take game at 1000 yards. Generally, hunting distances on dangerous game will be less than 200 yards, and quite often they are trying to climb right into your lap...
The MDL 70 simply does not suffer from the weak ejector, dirt sensitivity, and faulty ejection/extraction in FIELD conditions like the Remington so often does.
Remember, we are talking about field conditions where snow, ice, dirt, mud, twigs, and bugs are encountered, as opposed to the relatively friendly ambience of the local range. The last place I want Murphy showing up is when I am tracking a wounded animal in heavy cover.
This reliability is crucial to me, and I will gladly sacrifice a 1/4 minute of accuracy in order to achieve PERFECT reliability.

As far as Winchester barrels go, they are hammer forged, and of the best quality I have found in domestically produced factory barrels.
I have yet to find one that would not print .5 minute groups or better after bedding and proper load development. This is entirely adequate for dangerous game hunting, and considerably better than 99.9% of shooters can accomplish offhand at any rate.

They are also available in Stainless, and this is a plus for hostile environment usage.
Winchester also provided McMillan stocks with some of their rifles, and this was a real plus over the poor synthetics offered by Remington.
Lastly, Remington 700s have no integral recoil lug. This design attribute was based on economic expediency rather than total quality. Thanks, but no thanks.
QED
Mad Dog

PS. The machine gun comparison by 4V50Gary holds no water, for several reasons.
Belt type feed is inherently controlled, many "Modern" machine guns like the M60 are notoriusly unreliable, and even full auto assault rifles like the M16 have their greatest reliability problems in feed and extraction functionality. Witness the "Forward Assist" design bandaid applied to the M16... A pathetic "answer" to an easily solved problem.
The better answer?
Don't design a gun that defecates where it ingests in the first place...

[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited April 01, 1999).]

Spencer Stewart · April 1, 1999, 02:24 PM

Thanks for the responses guys.

Jim, Thanks for the car analogy, makes sense. Also, I hear of folks renting guns to try them out before the buy. Is this only for handguns, or can rifles be rented also? Don't know many folks around with guns I can try.

4V50 Gary, "This is somewhat offset by its Springfield type breech and gas handling....
The Remington 700 strong points include: strong breeching and locking..." Not sure what breeching and locking is, can someone explain? I'd love to buy two right now, but I can't afford it, and one has to come before the other.

Mad Dog, Again, thanks for the clarification between field and competition shooting. Regarding your comment on the barrels being hammer forged, what about the stainless barrels? What is sacrificed/compromised for the durability increase in hostile environments? "Lastly, Remington 700s have no integral recoil lug." What is an integral recoil lug?

Our school (yes, it's a universtiy) library seems to be lacking in firearm literature for some reason, otherwise I would be better acquainted with the physiology and anatomy of firearms. Thanks for your help and patience guys!

Spencer Stewart

MAD DOG · April 1, 1999, 07:03 PM

The stainless barrels are hammer forged as well.
The advantage of stainless is reduced maintenance. The disadvantage is the dayglow brightness of the finish. I overcome this by blackening the barrel and action with our own Tefcoat mixture, a spray on/bake on finish similar to "Black T" or "Kalguard".
There are also hot tank stainless bluing processes now, and Dave Mazy of Chino Valley Arizona offers this as a finish. It can be done shiny or flat, to your taste or requirements.
He can be contacted at (520)636-1262

The "integral recoil lug" is forged into the shape of the receiver itself on better weapons. This is the part that absorbs the bulk of the energy during firing of the weapon, and transfers it to the stock. It does not move around, because it CAN'T. It is there forever and ever, Amen.
Fewer parts = "more better".

The Remingtons use a recoil lug that amounts to an eccentric washer screwed into the structure between the barrel and action. If it is not perfectly flat, the barrel will not seat properly. They can also rotate out of position if not properly installed. Most people building custom 700 based weapons use a stiffer, heavier "lug washer" than the one provided with the stock Remingtons.

It seems that every one that is "really serious" about the Remingtons ends up altering the actions extensively, whereas the Winchester guys just go out and shoot their Winchesters...
Go figure.

Shutoku Shia · April 1, 1999, 08:54 PM

MAD DOG, THANKS for the very, very informative post. You explained your reasoning behind the prior claim very, very well. I learned a lot from it. Again, thank you.

Shutoku

Flashman · April 1, 1999, 10:22 PM

MAD DOG: What do you think of the Winchester Synthetic stocks sold with their classic stainless rifles. Are these the McMillans you refer to?

James K · April 2, 1999, 01:06 AM

With your permission, a word on "controlled feed" vs. "push feed" bolt rifles. The latter usually produces a stronger action in terms of handling extreme overloads and case failures. The former provides better extraction and controls the case better when feeding from the magazine and, people say, prevents jams.

But the real reason for controlled feed is not to prevent jams but to prevent leaving a cartridge in the chamber if the bolt is retracted before being locked. The primer of the cartridge in the chamber can be struck by the bullet point of the next round being fed rapidly from the magazine.

If this happens, unpleasantness follows very shortly. In modern guns, this is obviated by careful fitting of feed lips and ramps. If a gunsmith changes the caliber to one with a different length or shoulder shape there could be trouble.

**4V50 Gary** · April 2, 1999, 10:32 PM

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).]

Spencer Stewart · April 3, 1999, 03:20 AM

Thanks for the detailed response Gary and Jim. I'm learning a lot, and I have a lot to digest. I realize and accept that both are good actions and rifles, and in order to separate the two one must nit-pick. That's what I like. Thank you very much. It sounds like I have some prioritizing to do to figure which gun to buy...first.

Spencer

**Rich Lucibella** · April 3, 1999, 08:28 AM

Guys. I, for one, am fascinated. This ranks anong the most erudite and understandable threads I've seen on firearms design. I'm learning a *lot*. Don't stop now!

Now, if only Mykl will get off his dead ...computer...and put his 2 cents in, we'll really be cookin' with gas! (Seems Mykl made the fatal mistake of installing Windows 98 on his computer and has been resurrecting his Windows 95 drive, piece by piece, for the past 10 days.)
Rich

fal308 · April 3, 1999, 01:24 PM

Like Rich said, this is an excellent thread. If anyone else has information of this quality to contribute please add your input. This is extremely fascinating.

Gary, could you expound more on the Marlin? I haven't heard much about it since it debuted.

[This message has been edited by fal308 (edited April 03, 1999).]

**Mal H** · April 3, 1999, 01:52 PM

This IS fun stuff! Gary, I knew there was a good reason I liked Remington 700's and you put it into words. As for "weak" ejectors, I'll think about that as I chase my brass several yards into the woods.

Now, don't anybody mention Sako, Kimber, or Weatherby, etc. or we'll be here all year!

MAD DOG · April 3, 1999, 04:03 PM

I quit building rifles on Sako actions two years ago when I had two brand new rifles bind up on the same day. Their extractors had been installed wrong at the factory, and blew out, causing the bolt to need hammering open, due to the metal to metal jam. We were breaking in the barrels using factory Federal ammo, 30-06, 150 grain.

As far as Winchester's machining on the recoil lug, this information comes from the same man (Chandler) that refaces all of the Remington 700 receiver face areas before he seats the new barrels on them...Because they are seldom if ever perfectly flat and square to the axis of the action...
Granted, the recoil lug area can be a little rough on the Winchesters, but it is easily taken care of with a sanding block, as opposed to the lathe necessary for the Remingtons.

When the Remington guys first brought out the .416 Rem Mag, we grabbed one, and a box of their factory ammo, and headed out to the range. (Well, okay, we opened the back door to the shop, and pointed it at the birm...) The first round out of the barrel caused the ejector to permanently deform into the bolt face, and of course, FAIL TO EJECT.
We had to pry the spent case out of the bolt face with a knife.
That is what I meant by weak ejectors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that I do not want happening while hunting dangerous game.

By the way, I do not recommend the Mdl70 Winchesters for "Precision Rifles", but rather for Dangerous Game bush whacker rifles, as stated earlier.
I use an assortment ranging from #1 single shot Rugers in .22-250, to old Remington 722s in .308 for precision work.
Every rifle has it's place, and they all perform best when used for that which they are intended. I will not be found chasing Brown Bear with a Remington 700 or a
Ruger #1, regardless of caliber.
Neither will I be found entering a benchrest rifle match with a P14 Express Rifle in .375H&H.
Nuff said.
Mad Dog

**4V50 Gary** · April 4, 1999, 10:12 PM

The Marlin MR7? I'm sorry but my knowledge of it is limited to what was printed in the American Rifleman a few years ago when it was first introduced. My opinion doesn't count for much as I've never handled one, seen one, or shot one. What many of us have seen is their ad touting how it has the favourite features we Americans like in a bolt action sporter: bolt shroud mounted safety, Remington style bolt head with internal extractor and ejector and strength, Browning style detachable box magazine and finally pre-64 Winchester M70 style siderail receiver which is forged and milled. Of that much, I can discuss.

Personally, I prefer the Winchester M70 style bolt shroud mounted safety which deactivates the firing pin and disengages it from contact with the trigger assembly. The drawback however is it is not as easy to use and isn't as silent as the Remington M700 style safety. The Remington's safety cams on the sear and as a design, is as positive.

We've already gone over the Remington style recoil lugs. I've neglected to mention that there is one inherent sacrifice in its design. Because of the internal extractor, the cartridge case must fit deeper into the bolt than on the Winchester M70. This is necessary for the extractor to have a good purchase on the cartridge rim. Resultingly, there is less chamber support for the cartridge. In making it's bolt head strong, Marlin opted for the Remington style over the pre-64 M70.

It is unknown whether Marlin forges their bolt as one piece or whether the bolt is a composite like the Remington M700. The Remington bolt is actually three parts joined together: bolt body, handle, and bolt head. If Marlin built their bolt as did Remington, I'm sure they took Remington's lead in ensuring that the lugs are part of the bolt head, thereby assuring safety. Economy in construction without compromising strength is acheived.

Turning to the box magazine, we can agree that it's a handy feature. The issue raised here is the rigidity of the receiver. We can take for granted that since no metal is removed for a magazine, the single shot bolt action has the most rigid receiver of all bolt action rifles. A single column magazine well requires removal of metal at the expense of rigidity. A double column magazine well requires removal of about 50% more metal, at a greater expense of rigidity. Slightly more metal needs to be removed for a detachable box magazine and you get the picture. The less rigid the receiver, the more it can torque under recoil; making its harmonics more sensitive to outside influences. That set aside, it is rather handy to be able to change magazines and with it, ammuntion (where's my grenade launching rounds?).

Finally, let's talk about the receiver itself. I've just read that the Pre-64 Winchester M70 receivers were not forged but milled. Wow. That bit of trivia set aside, tube type receivers like that of the Remington 700 tend to be more rigid than the siderail types like the Springfield or Mauser. However, to their credit, Winchester Engineers made the receiver very stiff and the girder-like construction of the Pre-64 Winchester is among the most rigid of all bolt action guns. From the photo I've seen, the Marlin receiver appears to be modelled after the Pre-64 Winchester and like its predecessor, features an integral recoil lug. There's one possible disadvantage to the forged and milled receiver: if the bottom is not milled flat, it could have an uneven surface which will not be conducive towards a good bedding job.

While I believe that the Marlin has a lot of positive and desirable attributes, I just don't want to spend my money on another right handed gun right now. Remember, I just bought a M1D which didn't come cheap. The issue with Marlin then is quality control (which I haven't heard any complains about yet) and a better barrel.

In closing, I'd like to address Mad Dog's justifiable concern for firearms reliability in hunting dangerous game. The English believe as does Mad Dog concerning reliability and from what I've read, they swear by the double gun. No bolt (controlled fed or otherwise) to go wrong and the double gun offers the quickest follow up shot for a large calibre hunting rifle (short of Ma Deuce). As for myself, after having read Ned Robert's, "The Muzzleloading Cap-Lock Rifle", I'm tempted to go after bear with a double barrel blackpowder percussion rifle...and Mad Dog calls himself mad?

headroom · April 5, 1999, 01:04 AM

one point that you all seemed to have forgotten was that the M70 has a 3 position safety with a bolt lock, having the M700 bolt come open is not something i really like

fal308 · April 5, 1999, 11:13 AM

Gary, thanks for the Marlin information. I haven't even seen one of these at a gunshow since after the initial introduction.
Does anyone know if they're selling at all or maybe they're all sitting in warehouses somewhere? Also does anyone know if they come in a left handed version?
Will check out Marlin's website after TFL.

**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, 12:27 PM

Folks,
Back online, but from Skyline instead of Aerie-8. Home machine has SW fully replaced, but now plagued with a recalcitrant MODEM. Will continue to diligently practice until I can correctly use the word "erudite" in at least six different contexts. Will contemplate the REM/WIN conundrum until such time as I can espouse an appropriate mantra.

Ipecac · April 6, 1999, 08:15 PM

I just have to add some fuel to this fire! I'm with Mad Dog on the superiority of the M70 type action vs the M700 when chasing dangerous game. I have guided many hunts in Alaska, including brown and black bear, and I cringe when a client brings a Remington actioned rifle on a bear hunt. Why? Because I have twice encountered extractor failures in Remingtons in the field; both were frozen and rendered inoperable. I have never seen nor heard of the same thing happening to a claw extractor. Luckily, the two failures have happened on a mt. goat and a moose hunt, not while poking holes in big bears.

BTW, I do not know a single Alaska hunting guide who uses a rifle with a model 700 action for his back-up. Winchester leads the pack by far in this area.

This is not to say Remingtons are bad rifles, they are just not my first choice for dangerous game. My first choice would be a fine double in .500 Nitro, and donations are gladly accepted.

Shutoku Shia · April 6, 1999, 09:09 PM

4V50 Gary and MAD DOG:

Am I right in assuming that a 700 action would be more accurate than Model 70 action? If so, why?

Shutoku

MAD DOG · April 7, 1999, 11:07 AM

Thanks, Ipecac.
I knew that there HAD to be at least one other experienced hunter out there that had seen the Remingtons screw the pooch in the field...
I also like the big bad double rifles, particularly the Krieghoffs.
They must be seen and fired to be truly appreciated, but at $10K a pop or more, I will have to stick with my bolt guns for a while longer.
After I finally get the new house built, the wife says that it is my turn to waste a bunch of money, so I have my eye on a trip to Africa.
I will drag along my son, and other suitable beasts of burden, and maybe a couple of buddies.
I intend to have a Krieghoff double in .470 Nitro or larger for the Buffs. The Dakota actioned .358 Norma Mag should suffice for nearly everything else. There will also be a Vintage 1903 Springfield 30-06 along for the ride and the view. It was built by Sukale back in the 1920s and has been to Africa before. I want to take it for old times sake, but more than anything, I feel that it will bring me luck.

Ipecac · April 7, 1999, 06:28 PM

Mad Dog,
You lucky dog! Africa, I'll get there in a couple of years. A .470'd probably be my first choice as well, but that .500 looks like fun; I haven't got the chance to handle the Krieghoff, however, I have got my hands on a Beretta, and it was choice.

One of the few single shot kills of a brown bear I've seen was a .416 Rem Mag from a Dakota rifle. Got to shoot that rifle, if'n it'd been a lefty action there would have been a fight.

A guide buddy of mine (he's been guiding in Alaska for over 20 years) uses the .358 Norma in a pre-64 as his backup rifle. He's also won several iron-sight shooting matches with it, so that M70 can shoot.

Glad to hear you're taking an '06 along, that's my do-everything-except-backup rifle. It's a M77 MKII wearing an MPI stock , and with handloads it'll shoot less than 1" @ 100yds, which ain't shabby. That rifle isn't pretty, but it works for me.

[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited April 07, 1999).]

March 31, 1999, 01:12 PM	#1
Spencer Stewart Member Join Date: March 11, 1999 Location: TX Posts: 29	Hello all, A little while back Mad Dog expounded on the positives of the Model 70 in the "Ideal 7.62 /.308" thread http://www.thefiringline.com/NonCGI/...ML/000232.html and provided what seemed like to me (which isn't saying much) a sound argument for it's superiority over the Rem 700 action. I went and visited a local dealer and asked what he thought about the Win Model 70 compared to the Rem 700. He said that the superiority of the Win Model 70 over the Rem 700 was a bunch of BS. His only argumetn though was that "the only thing you see in competition is the Rem 700, you never see the Model 70." Help a newbie out and clarify some of this? The dealer didn't have as well executed argument as Mad Dog, however, it the MOdel 70 is better then why isn't it being used in competition? Thanks Spencer Stewart [This message has been edited by Spencer Stewart (edited March 31, 1999).] [This message has been edited by Spencer Stewart (edited March 31, 1999).]

March 31, 1999, 01:32 PM	#2
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Which is better, a blonde or a brunette? Same sort of thing for Win. 70 vs. Rem. 700. Both are fine rifles and both are very accurate. (Forget competition, using those rifles for comparison is like choosing a family sedan based on NASCAR 500 results.) If possible, get friends to let you try each. Fit, and how it feels to you, and how you like it will be more important than competition results or anyone else's opinion. Some Winchesters have the old type extractor, which gives "controlled feed". This could be important (not for the reasons people think) but not of much concern in a sporting rifle.

March 31, 1999, 04:24 PM	#3
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,955	Spencer - IMNSHO (emphasis on the O), no company makes more accurate "factory" barrels than Remington. The action, on the other hand is a toss-up. Like Jim said, don't base anything on competition rifles.

March 31, 1999, 07:34 PM	#4
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,838	First, let me say I have a strong personal bias in favour of the Remington 700 (after all, they're one of the first - Savage was before them - to cater to us Southpaws). That set aside, some will argue that the controlled feeding of the Win M70 is superior. If that was so, then name one modern machinegun which uses the same feeding system. Reliability is more critical in something which has to squirt out 600 plus RPM. Second, there's an obvious drawback in that there's less support for the cartridge case. I'll have to agree with Mal H that Remington makes the most accurate factory barrels. Lest we forget, they supply the barrels for the Knight SR25. The Winchester M70 strong points are worthy of mention: Strong and rigid receiver (with additional bonus of being flat on the bottom - less roll and easy to bed), Mauser type extractor, direct-acting safety, smooth and positive functioning, positive and controlled feeding, clean and attractive lines. This is somewhat offset by its Springfield type breech and gas handling. The Remington 700 strong points include: strong breeching and locking, positive and convenient safety, full adjustable trigger, strong bedding configuration, one of the most accurate factory barrel of the major manufacturers, and for precision shooting enthusiasts, majority of research to attain sub-moa accuracy has been done. While I may be a Remington man, I'm also a proud owner of a pre-64 Win M70. To paraphrase Mykl who responded to a similar inquiry regarding semiautos, Buy both.

April 1, 1999, 11:15 AM	#5
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	My predilection for the Pre 64 type Winchesters, and the Classic pre64 types produced now, is based on several notable design details that I consider superior to the 700 type weapons from Remington. I also like the P14/17 Enfields, and genuine Mausers for the same set of reasons. We need not concern ourselves with the "post 64" type Winchesters, in the push feed format, as they suffer essentially the same action problems as the Remington 700s. Remington's barrel quality has varied dramatically over the last several years. There was a period where they seemed incapable of producing a barrel with a concentric bore. The Marines stopped using Remington barrels during this period, and they still are very leary of them. I have this on first hand authority from a man that builds rifles at Quantico, as well as several individuals in the 10th Special Forces Mountain Warfare Group. Yes, they are snipers. The Mdl 70 has a much better extactor, and ejector system. As I stated previously, I hunt dangerous game, and a faulty extractor or ejector can really ruin your day when the chips are down. I care not a fig for benchrest type perfomance in a hunting rifle, and concentrate almost exclusively on reliability. Accuracy is important to a degree, but I do not attempt to take game at 1000 yards. Generally, hunting distances on dangerous game will be less than 200 yards, and quite often they are trying to climb right into your lap... The MDL 70 simply does not suffer from the weak ejector, dirt sensitivity, and faulty ejection/extraction in FIELD conditions like the Remington so often does. Remember, we are talking about field conditions where snow, ice, dirt, mud, twigs, and bugs are encountered, as opposed to the relatively friendly ambience of the local range. The last place I want Murphy showing up is when I am tracking a wounded animal in heavy cover. This reliability is crucial to me, and I will gladly sacrifice a 1/4 minute of accuracy in order to achieve PERFECT reliability. As far as Winchester barrels go, they are hammer forged, and of the best quality I have found in domestically produced factory barrels. I have yet to find one that would not print .5 minute groups or better after bedding and proper load development. This is entirely adequate for dangerous game hunting, and considerably better than 99.9% of shooters can accomplish offhand at any rate. They are also available in Stainless, and this is a plus for hostile environment usage. Winchester also provided McMillan stocks with some of their rifles, and this was a real plus over the poor synthetics offered by Remington. Lastly, Remington 700s have no integral recoil lug. This design attribute was based on economic expediency rather than total quality. Thanks, but no thanks. QED Mad Dog PS. The machine gun comparison by 4V50Gary holds no water, for several reasons. Belt type feed is inherently controlled, many "Modern" machine guns like the M60 are notoriusly unreliable, and even full auto assault rifles like the M16 have their greatest reliability problems in feed and extraction functionality. Witness the "Forward Assist" design bandaid applied to the M16... A pathetic "answer" to an easily solved problem. The better answer? Don't design a gun that defecates where it ingests in the first place... [This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited April 01, 1999).]

April 1, 1999, 02:24 PM	#6
Spencer Stewart Member Join Date: March 11, 1999 Location: TX Posts: 29	Thanks for the responses guys. Jim, Thanks for the car analogy, makes sense. Also, I hear of folks renting guns to try them out before the buy. Is this only for handguns, or can rifles be rented also? Don't know many folks around with guns I can try. 4V50 Gary, "This is somewhat offset by its Springfield type breech and gas handling.... The Remington 700 strong points include: strong breeching and locking..." Not sure what breeching and locking is, can someone explain? I'd love to buy two right now, but I can't afford it, and one has to come before the other. Mad Dog, Again, thanks for the clarification between field and competition shooting. Regarding your comment on the barrels being hammer forged, what about the stainless barrels? What is sacrificed/compromised for the durability increase in hostile environments? "Lastly, Remington 700s have no integral recoil lug." What is an integral recoil lug? Our school (yes, it's a universtiy) library seems to be lacking in firearm literature for some reason, otherwise I would be better acquainted with the physiology and anatomy of firearms. Thanks for your help and patience guys! Spencer Stewart

April 1, 1999, 07:03 PM	#7
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	The stainless barrels are hammer forged as well. The advantage of stainless is reduced maintenance. The disadvantage is the dayglow brightness of the finish. I overcome this by blackening the barrel and action with our own Tefcoat mixture, a spray on/bake on finish similar to "Black T" or "Kalguard". There are also hot tank stainless bluing processes now, and Dave Mazy of Chino Valley Arizona offers this as a finish. It can be done shiny or flat, to your taste or requirements. He can be contacted at (520)636-1262 The "integral recoil lug" is forged into the shape of the receiver itself on better weapons. This is the part that absorbs the bulk of the energy during firing of the weapon, and transfers it to the stock. It does not move around, because it CAN'T. It is there forever and ever, Amen. Fewer parts = "more better". The Remingtons use a recoil lug that amounts to an eccentric washer screwed into the structure between the barrel and action. If it is not perfectly flat, the barrel will not seat properly. They can also rotate out of position if not properly installed. Most people building custom 700 based weapons use a stiffer, heavier "lug washer" than the one provided with the stock Remingtons. It seems that every one that is "really serious" about the Remingtons ends up altering the actions extensively, whereas the Winchester guys just go out and shoot their Winchesters... Go figure.

April 1, 1999, 08:54 PM	#8
Shutoku Shia Member Join Date: November 9, 1998 Location: San Leandro, California, U.S.A. Posts: 48	MAD DOG, THANKS for the very, very informative post. You explained your reasoning behind the prior claim very, very well. I learned a lot from it. Again, thank you. Shutoku

April 1, 1999, 10:22 PM	#9
Flashman Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 1999 Posts: 137	MAD DOG: What do you think of the Winchester Synthetic stocks sold with their classic stainless rifles. Are these the McMillans you refer to?

April 2, 1999, 01:06 AM	#10
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	With your permission, a word on "controlled feed" vs. "push feed" bolt rifles. The latter usually produces a stronger action in terms of handling extreme overloads and case failures. The former provides better extraction and controls the case better when feeding from the magazine and, people say, prevents jams. But the real reason for controlled feed is not to prevent jams but to prevent leaving a cartridge in the chamber if the bolt is retracted before being locked. The primer of the cartridge in the chamber can be struck by the bullet point of the next round being fed rapidly from the magazine. If this happens, unpleasantness follows very shortly. In modern guns, this is obviated by careful fitting of feed lips and ramps. If a gunsmith changes the caliber to one with a different length or shoulder shape there could be trouble.

April 2, 1999, 10:32 PM	#11
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,838	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).]

April 3, 1999, 03:20 AM	#12
Spencer Stewart Member Join Date: March 11, 1999 Location: TX Posts: 29	Thanks for the detailed response Gary and Jim. I'm learning a lot, and I have a lot to digest. I realize and accept that both are good actions and rifles, and in order to separate the two one must nit-pick. That's what I like. Thank you very much. It sounds like I have some prioritizing to do to figure which gun to buy...first. Spencer

April 3, 1999, 08:28 AM	#13
Rich Lucibella Staff Join Date: October 6, 1998 Location: South Florida Posts: 10,229	Guys. I, for one, am fascinated. This ranks anong the most erudite and understandable threads I've seen on firearms design. I'm learning a lot. Don't stop now! Now, if only Mykl will get off his dead ...computer...and put his 2 cents in, we'll really be cookin' with gas! (Seems Mykl made the fatal mistake of installing Windows 98 on his computer and has been resurrecting his Windows 95 drive, piece by piece, for the past 10 days.) Rich

April 3, 1999, 01:24 PM	#14
fal308 Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 12, 1998 Location: Missouri Posts: 1,992	Like Rich said, this is an excellent thread. If anyone else has information of this quality to contribute please add your input. This is extremely fascinating. Gary, could you expound more on the Marlin? I haven't heard much about it since it debuted. [This message has been edited by fal308 (edited April 03, 1999).]

April 3, 1999, 01:52 PM	#15
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,955	This IS fun stuff! Gary, I knew there was a good reason I liked Remington 700's and you put it into words. As for "weak" ejectors, I'll think about that as I chase my brass several yards into the woods. Now, don't anybody mention Sako, Kimber, or Weatherby, etc. or we'll be here all year!

April 3, 1999, 04:03 PM	#16
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	I quit building rifles on Sako actions two years ago when I had two brand new rifles bind up on the same day. Their extractors had been installed wrong at the factory, and blew out, causing the bolt to need hammering open, due to the metal to metal jam. We were breaking in the barrels using factory Federal ammo, 30-06, 150 grain. As far as Winchester's machining on the recoil lug, this information comes from the same man (Chandler) that refaces all of the Remington 700 receiver face areas before he seats the new barrels on them...Because they are seldom if ever perfectly flat and square to the axis of the action... Granted, the recoil lug area can be a little rough on the Winchesters, but it is easily taken care of with a sanding block, as opposed to the lathe necessary for the Remingtons. When the Remington guys first brought out the .416 Rem Mag, we grabbed one, and a box of their factory ammo, and headed out to the range. (Well, okay, we opened the back door to the shop, and pointed it at the birm...) The first round out of the barrel caused the ejector to permanently deform into the bolt face, and of course, FAIL TO EJECT. We had to pry the spent case out of the bolt face with a knife. That is what I meant by weak ejectors. This is exactly the sort of thing that I do not want happening while hunting dangerous game. By the way, I do not recommend the Mdl70 Winchesters for "Precision Rifles", but rather for Dangerous Game bush whacker rifles, as stated earlier. I use an assortment ranging from #1 single shot Rugers in .22-250, to old Remington 722s in .308 for precision work. Every rifle has it's place, and they all perform best when used for that which they are intended. I will not be found chasing Brown Bear with a Remington 700 or a Ruger #1, regardless of caliber. Neither will I be found entering a benchrest rifle match with a P14 Express Rifle in .375H&H. Nuff said. Mad Dog

April 4, 1999, 10:12 PM	#17
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,838	The Marlin MR7? I'm sorry but my knowledge of it is limited to what was printed in the American Rifleman a few years ago when it was first introduced. My opinion doesn't count for much as I've never handled one, seen one, or shot one. What many of us have seen is their ad touting how it has the favourite features we Americans like in a bolt action sporter: bolt shroud mounted safety, Remington style bolt head with internal extractor and ejector and strength, Browning style detachable box magazine and finally pre-64 Winchester M70 style siderail receiver which is forged and milled. Of that much, I can discuss. Personally, I prefer the Winchester M70 style bolt shroud mounted safety which deactivates the firing pin and disengages it from contact with the trigger assembly. The drawback however is it is not as easy to use and isn't as silent as the Remington M700 style safety. The Remington's safety cams on the sear and as a design, is as positive. We've already gone over the Remington style recoil lugs. I've neglected to mention that there is one inherent sacrifice in its design. Because of the internal extractor, the cartridge case must fit deeper into the bolt than on the Winchester M70. This is necessary for the extractor to have a good purchase on the cartridge rim. Resultingly, there is less chamber support for the cartridge. In making it's bolt head strong, Marlin opted for the Remington style over the pre-64 M70. It is unknown whether Marlin forges their bolt as one piece or whether the bolt is a composite like the Remington M700. The Remington bolt is actually three parts joined together: bolt body, handle, and bolt head. If Marlin built their bolt as did Remington, I'm sure they took Remington's lead in ensuring that the lugs are part of the bolt head, thereby assuring safety. Economy in construction without compromising strength is acheived. Turning to the box magazine, we can agree that it's a handy feature. The issue raised here is the rigidity of the receiver. We can take for granted that since no metal is removed for a magazine, the single shot bolt action has the most rigid receiver of all bolt action rifles. A single column magazine well requires removal of metal at the expense of rigidity. A double column magazine well requires removal of about 50% more metal, at a greater expense of rigidity. Slightly more metal needs to be removed for a detachable box magazine and you get the picture. The less rigid the receiver, the more it can torque under recoil; making its harmonics more sensitive to outside influences. That set aside, it is rather handy to be able to change magazines and with it, ammuntion (where's my grenade launching rounds?). Finally, let's talk about the receiver itself. I've just read that the Pre-64 Winchester M70 receivers were not forged but milled. Wow. That bit of trivia set aside, tube type receivers like that of the Remington 700 tend to be more rigid than the siderail types like the Springfield or Mauser. However, to their credit, Winchester Engineers made the receiver very stiff and the girder-like construction of the Pre-64 Winchester is among the most rigid of all bolt action guns. From the photo I've seen, the Marlin receiver appears to be modelled after the Pre-64 Winchester and like its predecessor, features an integral recoil lug. There's one possible disadvantage to the forged and milled receiver: if the bottom is not milled flat, it could have an uneven surface which will not be conducive towards a good bedding job. While I believe that the Marlin has a lot of positive and desirable attributes, I just don't want to spend my money on another right handed gun right now. Remember, I just bought a M1D which didn't come cheap. The issue with Marlin then is quality control (which I haven't heard any complains about yet) and a better barrel. In closing, I'd like to address Mad Dog's justifiable concern for firearms reliability in hunting dangerous game. The English believe as does Mad Dog concerning reliability and from what I've read, they swear by the double gun. No bolt (controlled fed or otherwise) to go wrong and the double gun offers the quickest follow up shot for a large calibre hunting rifle (short of Ma Deuce). As for myself, after having read Ned Robert's, "The Muzzleloading Cap-Lock Rifle", I'm tempted to go after bear with a double barrel blackpowder percussion rifle...and Mad Dog calls himself mad?

April 5, 1999, 01:04 AM	#18
headroom Member Join Date: March 15, 1999 Posts: 99	one point that you all seemed to have forgotten was that the M70 has a 3 position safety with a bolt lock, having the M700 bolt come open is not something i really like

April 5, 1999, 11:13 AM	#19
fal308 Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 12, 1998 Location: Missouri Posts: 1,992	Gary, thanks for the Marlin information. I haven't even seen one of these at a gunshow since after the initial introduction. Does anyone know if they're selling at all or maybe they're all sitting in warehouses somewhere? Also does anyone know if they come in a left handed version? Will check out Marlin's website after TFL.

April 5, 1999, 12:12 PM	#20
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,838	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, 12:27 PM	#21
. Senior Member Join Date: October 6, 1998 Location: My wife's house... Posts: 2,659	Folks, Back online, but from Skyline instead of Aerie-8. Home machine has SW fully replaced, but now plagued with a recalcitrant MODEM. Will continue to diligently practice until I can correctly use the word "erudite" in at least six different contexts. Will contemplate the REM/WIN conundrum until such time as I can espouse an appropriate mantra.

April 6, 1999, 08:15 PM	#22
Ipecac Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 1999 Posts: 440	I just have to add some fuel to this fire! I'm with Mad Dog on the superiority of the M70 type action vs the M700 when chasing dangerous game. I have guided many hunts in Alaska, including brown and black bear, and I cringe when a client brings a Remington actioned rifle on a bear hunt. Why? Because I have twice encountered extractor failures in Remingtons in the field; both were frozen and rendered inoperable. I have never seen nor heard of the same thing happening to a claw extractor. Luckily, the two failures have happened on a mt. goat and a moose hunt, not while poking holes in big bears. BTW, I do not know a single Alaska hunting guide who uses a rifle with a model 700 action for his back-up. Winchester leads the pack by far in this area. This is not to say Remingtons are bad rifles, they are just not my first choice for dangerous game. My first choice would be a fine double in .500 Nitro, and donations are gladly accepted.

April 6, 1999, 09:09 PM	#23
Shutoku Shia Member Join Date: November 9, 1998 Location: San Leandro, California, U.S.A. Posts: 48	4V50 Gary and MAD DOG: Am I right in assuming that a 700 action would be more accurate than Model 70 action? If so, why? Shutoku

April 7, 1999, 11:07 AM	#24
MAD DOG Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 1998 Location: Arizona. Posts: 853	Thanks, Ipecac. I knew that there HAD to be at least one other experienced hunter out there that had seen the Remingtons screw the pooch in the field... I also like the big bad double rifles, particularly the Krieghoffs. They must be seen and fired to be truly appreciated, but at $10K a pop or more, I will have to stick with my bolt guns for a while longer. After I finally get the new house built, the wife says that it is my turn to waste a bunch of money, so I have my eye on a trip to Africa. I will drag along my son, and other suitable beasts of burden, and maybe a couple of buddies. I intend to have a Krieghoff double in .470 Nitro or larger for the Buffs. The Dakota actioned .358 Norma Mag should suffice for nearly everything else. There will also be a Vintage 1903 Springfield 30-06 along for the ride and the view. It was built by Sukale back in the 1920s and has been to Africa before. I want to take it for old times sake, but more than anything, I feel that it will bring me luck.

April 7, 1999, 06:28 PM	#25
Ipecac Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 1999 Posts: 440	Mad Dog, You lucky dog! Africa, I'll get there in a couple of years. A .470'd probably be my first choice as well, but that .500 looks like fun; I haven't got the chance to handle the Krieghoff, however, I have got my hands on a Beretta, and it was choice. One of the few single shot kills of a brown bear I've seen was a .416 Rem Mag from a Dakota rifle. Got to shoot that rifle, if'n it'd been a lefty action there would have been a fight. A guide buddy of mine (he's been guiding in Alaska for over 20 years) uses the .358 Norma in a pre-64 as his backup rifle. He's also won several iron-sight shooting matches with it, so that M70 can shoot. Glad to hear you're taking an '06 along, that's my do-everything-except-backup rifle. It's a M77 MKII wearing an MPI stock , and with handloads it'll shoot less than 1" @ 100yds, which ain't shabby. That rifle isn't pretty, but it works for me. [This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited April 07, 1999).]