700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

[tomcat68]

Does anyone know if the quality of the new 700's is less than the older ones. I have heard debates about the bolts especially. Are the new ones cast? If a person was going to find a donor rifle for rebarrel and action truing would there be any benefit to either.

Thanks,
Tomcat68

 

[71firebird400]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

From what I've seen there will ALWAYS be those that insist the old ones are the best, or that the quality has gone to shit. In my experience, there's good and bad from every generation. My recently purchased Remington's are shooting awesome. I'd have no hesitation using a new action as a foundation for a custom rifle.

 

[kingston]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 71firebird400</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my experience, there's good and bad from every generation. </div></div>

X2!

 

[redbullitt]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

My dad's old 700 (80s ish) seems just as solid as my newer one (09 or so). Both shoot great and haven't had any trouble with either of them.

Agreed, I'd go with whatever one I had at hand.

 

[trobertson5-0]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

I think OVERALL Remington quality control has taken a dive since being taken over by the newest "super company". They seem to cut more corners. The standard finish now was the economy finish from the 90's and I haven't seen a well blued 700 in years. The stocks they send out on SPS rifles feel like they are made from recycled milk jugs.

Now I have a G series .22-250 that shoots 1/4" 3 shot groups after being put into a HS precision stock and out of the junky SPS one,and I have a 1980's 7x57 mountian rifle that is lucky to shoot 2" groups. I think lemons and sweethearts have left Remington(and every other) factory since they opened.

That being said,a donor action is a donor action. I would use a G prefix as quickly as I would a A prefix. A good smith will make them work. TJR

 

[samnev]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

I concur, I just think there were fewer problems and the earlier rifles were finished better. The newer ones seem to shoot well just not finished as well. When I look at my 70's built 700 HB BDL Varminter and compare it to todays rifles it's no contest.

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trobertson5-0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The standard finish now was the economy finish from the 90's and I haven't seen a well blued 700 in years. </div></div>

In 1960, a new German Mauser was $19.95 ($143 in today money). An M1 Garand was $79.95 ($572 in today money). A Colt SAA was $125 ($895 in today money). I don't know what a Rem 700 used to cost, but if you adjust it for inflation, I bet for the same price you can still get the nice finish version.

Lower price points came out below the nicer rifles to also capture the part of the market for people on a tighter budget who want a rugged finish. If you want a premium finish, it is available. An XCR Compact Tactical is very nice in finish quality.

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Santo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I look at my 70's built 700 HB BDL Varminter and compare it to todays rifles it's no contest. </div></div>

I bet only true when compared to today's low-end models. Let me know the cost of that in 1970. I will adjust it for inflation and then show you a Remington rifle today for that price that is at least as nice.

I believe the "Good Old Days" are a myth. Nearly anything back then you can get better today.

 

[johndoe]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

I concur, I just think there were fewer problems and the earlier rifles were finished better. The newer ones seem to shoot well just not finished as well. When I look at my 70's built 700 HB BDL Varminter and compare it to todays rifles it's no contest. [/quot

I second that

 

[long-shot]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe the "Good Old Days" are a myth. Nearly anything back then you can get better today. </div></div>

So says the man who was just purchased by Remington! No offense, but it "might" alter your opinion.

 

[trobertson5-0]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Santo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I look at my 70's built 700 HB BDL Varminter and compare it to todays rifles it's no contest. </div></div>

I bet only true when compared to today's low-end models. Let me know the cost of that in 1970. I will adjust it for inflation and then show you a Remington rifle today for that price that is at least as nice.

I believe the "Good Old Days" are a myth. Nearly anything back then you can get better today. </div></div>

I have 700s built in the 60's,70's,80's and 90's and quite a few built today. The overall product utility may be comparable but the fit and finish is not even close from a 60's or 70's rifle to today. The polishing on the actions,bluing quality,and stock finish and fit are not in the same ballpark. Not even close.

I understand inflation and agree the rifles FUNCTION as well today as ever. Sitting a 60's built ADL next to what passes for a ADL today anybody could tell a huge difference in time invested in building the rifle.

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trobertson5-0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sitting a 60's built ADL next to what passes for a ADL today anybody could tell a huge difference in time invested in building the rifle. </div></div>

All I am suggesting is that you tell me what the 60s ADL cost, and I will adjust that for inflation - and then let's see if for that price the new rifle is better or worse. I actually don't know the answer - but that is the test I would devise.

 

[wnroscoe]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> All I am suggesting is that you tell me what the 60s ADL cost </div></div>

Not an ADL but, in 1984 I purchased a Remington modle 700 BDL in 7mmRM for $425.00. That was 26 years ago. Today, they're approx $779.99

I would guess that in 1965 (mid 60's) they were approx $150 to $175. I'd guess an ADL would have been $30 less.

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.


$150 in 1965 is like $1010 now.

 

[trobertson5-0]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trobertson5-0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sitting a 60's built ADL next to what passes for a ADL today anybody could tell a huge difference in time invested in building the rifle. </div></div>

All I am suggesting is that you tell me what the 60s ADL cost, and I will adjust that for inflation - and then let's see if for that price the new rifle is better or worse. I actually don't know the answer - but that is the test I would devise. </div></div>

Best I can find is $145,but you don't seem to get the fact that the original price versus todays price is moot. You can't buy the quality of fit and finish today,AT ANY PRICE direct from Remington.

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trobertson5-0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Best I can find is $145,but you don't seem to get the fact that the original price versus todays price is moot. You can't buy the quality of fit and finish today,AT ANY PRICE direct from Remington. </div></div>

I don't have the old rifle to look at so I am not sure. The XCR Compact Tactical is very nice in finish.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/compact/centerfire/model-700-xcr-compact-tactical.aspx

Street price is $1170 or so, which would have been $175 in 1965. Only problem is, there were no rifles in 1965 with such a nice finish that also was rust proof.

 

[kbrady]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: trobertson5-0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Best I can find is $145,but you don't seem to get the fact that the original price versus todays price is moot. You can't buy the quality of fit and finish today,AT ANY PRICE direct from Remington. </div></div>

I don't have the old rifle to look at so I am not sure. The XCR Compact Tactical is very nice in finish.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/compact/centerfire/model-700-xcr-compact-tactical.aspx

Street price is $1170 or so, which would have been $175 in 1965. Only problem is, there were no rifles in 1965 with such a nice finish that also was rust proof.</div></div>

You'll notice the MSRP on that particular rifle is $1407, do some reverse inflation calculations on that. I also don't see where it is worth that, or what you say the street price is.

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

$1407 was $209 in 1965.

It costs that much because it has an expensive stock, an expensive finish, and a stainless receiver and barrel.

I was commenting on troberson's post where he said a high-end finish was not available at any price.

 

[PFCSkoug]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

So your saying that bead blasting them spraying some crap all over the metal compares to a nice even 400grit polish and Traditional bluing compares finish wise??

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

I have always worried about blued finishes as you have to keep them oiled and wipe off fingerprints.

TriNyte is not a spray finish - it is a PVD layer over other layers and materials. If you wanted to do that kind of upgrade on a custom rifle order, it would be about $350 - or more if you want to count the fact that it includes stainless steel. I cannot think of a system that is more rust resistant, and is looks really nice.

 

[300WSM]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

seen em all shoot well so once trued ...

 

[samnev]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Santo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I look at my 70's built 700 HB BDL Varminter and compare it to todays rifles it's no contest. </div></div>

I bet only true when compared to today's low-end models. Let me know the cost of that in 1970. I will adjust it for inflation and then show you a Remington rifle today for that price that is at least as nice.

I believe the "Good Old Days" are a myth. Nearly anything back then you can get better today. </div></div>

RSilvers,
When bought my 700 BDL HB Varminter back in the early 70's it and a 12X Unertal scope cost me less than $300 accoding to my records. I keep a spread sheet (used to use a log book) on every gun purchase I have made.
You might be able to get better today but i'd bet even adjusted for inflation it would be substantially more expensive.

 

[Guardian]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

I havent had any issues with any of the newer 700's. I believe that theyre as good as the old ones.

 

[kbrady]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$1407 was $209 in 1965.

It costs that much because it has an expensive stock, an expensive finish, and a stainless receiver and barrel.

I was commenting on troberson's post where he said a high-end finish was not available at any price.</div></div>

The only thing special about that particular model is the coating, which could be worth it, could not be......thats yet to be seen, and the 40-X trigger. Nothing special about the stock at all. And some would find the stainless steel barreled action attractive, some won't. Basically, I find it hard to believe the trigger and the finish bump up the price that much. Technically, yes a high end coating is available but good googly moogly look at what it'll run ya!

Kelly

 

[rsilvers]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

It may be an HS Precision stock. Or maybe Bell & Carlson.

 

[kbrady]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

Looks like a lower end B&C to me.

 

[338LM]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

I grew up shooting my Dad's Model 700's that were purchased in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. They were Varmint models in Varmint calibers. Everyone of them would easily clover leaf groups with handloads at 100 yards.
Does the Model 700's from the 90's-2000's do that out of the box?

 

[montyb]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

they are a pretty decent stock and the finish is tough as nails. still may or may not be worth the price. i like mine.

guns in general are more accurate now than ever. not too long ago, 1 moa was the gold standard, now if we get 1 moa groups, we start checking for things amiss.

 

[kbrady]

Re: 700 Remingtons Old vs. New quality.

The bar is continually being raised by all gun makers. Something has to suffer and since a big percentage of people replace factory parts from the get go, its not that big of a deal. I'll buy a rifle that has a shitty stock, replace it, and come out cheaper than buying a model from them that is almost identical to what I have. On the other hand, some people want a well rounded model right after they drop down the cash.......they make a model like that too. Back in the day guys got a rifle with a nice wood stock and a really nice bluing and they took care of it...lasted them for years. Now they have moved away from conventional bluing to incorporate matte finishes, parkerized finishes and a multitude of other high tech finishes usually at the cost of the stock and other components. If you want a model that has it all, nice usable stock, nice finish and all of the high end components.......you will definitely pay for it! It is a different market now, and the big gun makers have accepted that and cater to it.

Kelly