How to proceed- intermediate rifle set up

[maxpetros]

Hi all, long time lurker first, time poster.
Going to try and provide some appropriate context without being too long winded, please bear with me.

Purpose- This rifle build will hopefully be my jack of most trades (or so I intend). I foresee 75% of it's use being a range gun for 1000 yards and in. Very occasional hunting use (95% traditional bowhunter, not always the most effective lol, also hunt to fill the freezer.) Shots on game will be max 500 yards, elk being the largest I'll pursue for the foreseeable future.
Maybe some local PRS matches for fun.

I consider myself a decent shot. I do have some formal training on shooting bolt actions (Air Force Advanced Designated Marksman Course) at medium range. Not my primary duty so by no means a pro but I'd say more exposure than your average joe.

This leads me to the point of this post. My first firearm purchase within this category was a remington 700 AAC SD 308 win. Well aware of remingtons iffy history recently. This budget set up had a magpul hunter to replace the hogue noodle, an SWFA 10x, and a triggertech primary (this model was subject to the X-mark recall). It seems i lucked out and this rifle is a true .75 MOA shooter with 175gr GMM.

I want to take this set up to the next level, invest in a high quality stock or chassis, and high quality glass. Want a rugged dependable set up I can use across the board. Dependable rifle, suitable caliber for my needs, good glass, consistent tracking turrets.

From what I've read online (also a member of rokslide), it seems like i can proceed one of two ways. Upgrade the 700 into what I want or trip it and get a tikka of some sort. It seems like the general consensus is the tikka will be the better platform to start, but I feel hesitant as the remington is already a proven shooter (possible blind luck on my part).

Still deciding on optics but I like the idea of a 2-10/3-15, something that gives me more than enough magnification on the top end but still a decent low end for situations I take it hunting. For stock options I'm looking at KRG for a great array of accessories and the ease of configuration; though something like a manners or other high end composite stock isn't out of the question.

I'm fine humping a 10-12 pound all up rifle for the rare times I do hunt with it. Not expecting to build a 7 pound all up, do everything rifle.

Am I completely deluding myself with the concept of this set up? I don't have thin skin so if it's a dumb idea I'd rather hear it up front than figure it out after blowing my money.

Should I just ditch the 700 and go for something like the CTR? Or just shoot the hell out of it in 308 and then rebarrel it and get the action trued and have a semi custom once I've gained a lot more experience?



Sorry if this is confusing or has been asked ad nauseam, I'm just going in circles in my own head.

Thanks in advance,
Max

 

[Steel head]

You could build up your 700 up like my 260 savage.
It’s 13#, capable and pleasant to shoot.

1000+ yards is easy
Chassis/stock
Trigger
Remage barrel in 6 or 6.5mm cartridge(or the awesome 7-08)
Brake
Scope

happy pew pews after.

You could easily lose a pound or more with a light Palma barrel and modern scope instead of that old steel bodied dinosaur on my rifle.

 

[Broncovan]

Hi all, long time lurker first, time poster.
Going to try and provide some appropriate context without being too long winded, please bear with me.

Purpose- This rifle build will hopefully be my jack of most trades (or so I intend). I foresee 75% of it's use being a range gun for 1000 yards and in. Very occasional hunting use (95% traditional bowhunter, not always the most effective lol, also hunt to fill the freezer.) Shots on game will be max 500 yards, elk being the largest I'll pursue for the foreseeable future.
Maybe some local PRS matches for fun.

I consider myself a decent shot. I do have some formal training on shooting bolt actions (Air Force Advanced Designated Marksman Course) at medium range. Not my primary duty so by no means a pro but I'd say more exposure than your average joe.

This leads me to the point of this post. My first firearm purchase within this category was a remington 700 AAC SD 308 win. Well aware of remingtons iffy history recently. This budget set up had a magpul hunter to replace the hogue noodle, an SWFA 10x, and a triggertech primary (this model was subject to the X-mark recall). It seems i lucked out and this rifle is a true .75 MOA shooter with 175gr GMM.

I want to take this set up to the next level, invest in a high quality stock or chassis, and high quality glass. Want a rugged dependable set up I can use across the board. Dependable rifle, suitable caliber for my needs, good glass, consistent tracking turrets.

From what I've read online (also a member of rokslide), it seems like i can proceed one of two ways. Upgrade the 700 into what I want or trip it and get a tikka of some sort. It seems like the general consensus is the tikka will be the better platform to start, but I feel hesitant as the remington is already a proven shooter (possible blind luck on my part).

Still deciding on optics but I like the idea of a 2-10/3-15, something that gives me more than enough magnification on the top end but still a decent low end for situations I take it hunting. For stock options I'm looking at KRG for a great array of accessories and the ease of configuration; though something like a manners or other high end composite stock isn't out of the question.

I'm fine humping a 10-12 pound all up rifle for the rare times I do hunt with it. Not expecting to build a 7 pound all up, do everything rifle.

Am I completely deluding myself with the concept of this set up? I don't have thin skin so if it's a dumb idea I'd rather hear it up front than figure it out after blowing my money.

Should I just ditch the 700 and go for something like the CTR? Or just shoot the hell out of it in 308 and then rebarrel it and get the action trued and have a semi custom once I've gained a lot more experience?



Sorry if this is confusing or has been asked ad nauseam, I'm just going in circles in my own head.

Thanks in advance,
Max

The KRG Bravo is a helluva stock for the money. You can find used ones on here for 300-325 if you're patient. Much better than the magpul hunter.

308 out to 1k is doable, but 6.5cm makes it much easier. You're going to have some $$ tied up in it if you decide to change calibers.
Oops, edit to add that I always forget about the remage option in caliber of choice.

One issue that I have with a FFP scope as a hunting scope is that at low power it's tough for me to see the reticle and at higher magnification, it's tough to find the animal if it's a snap shot. I would go with the 3-15 in your flavor of focal plane, whichever you think works best for your application. I never go above 15x when shooting long range, usually 12-14 on man sized targets out to 1200.

 

[maxpetros]

The KRG Bravo is a helluva stock for the money. You can find used ones on here for 300-325 if you're patient. Much better than the magpul hunter.

308 out to 1k is doable, but 6.5cm makes it much easier. You're going to have some $$ tied up in it if you decide to change calibers.
Oops, edit to add that I always forget about the remage option in caliber of choice.

One issue that I have with a FFP scope as a hunting scope is that at low power it's tough for me to see the reticle and at higher magnification, it's tough to find the animal if it's a snap shot. I would go with the 3-15 in your flavor of focal plane, whichever you think works best for your application. I never go above 15x when shooting long range, usually 12-14 on man sized targets out to 1200.

I haven't stretched this 700 passed 600 yet but I've shot an M24 to 1000 multiple times on torso sized steel. Thats with a fixed 10x leupold so I'm confident I have no need for a 5-25 or other high magnification optic.

Definitely cognizant of focal plane for this optic choice. I think I'd prefer a first focal plane so long as the reticle is still easy to pick up on the low end. Seems a big ask, don't need to be able to make out subtensions but at least need it to act like a good duplex.

I've had my eye on the following
trijicon credo 2-10x36
SWFA 3-9X42 AND 3-15X42

I really like the idea of a bombproof 2-10 that tracks well in the 20-25 ounce range. So open to other suggestions.

 

[maxpetros]

You could build up your 700 up like my 260 savage.
It’s 13#, capable and pleasant to shoot.
View attachment 7397977
1000+ yards is easy
Chassis/stock
Trigger
Remage barrel in 6 or 6.5mm cartridge(or the awesome 7-08)
Brake
Scope

happy pew pews after.

You could easily lose a pound or more with a light Palma barrel and modern scope instead of that old steel bodied dinosaur on my rifle.

That looks like almost exactly what I'm after. Is that an XLR chassis? I've had my eye on one as well, could even have the folding option on the standard element and be lighter than my magpul stock, yielding a more portable setup

She sits at ~10.5 pounds at the moment sans bipod, with the 10x SWFA. If I went with the XLR, something like Hawkins long range hybrid rings, and ~25oz for the optic, I'd be right at the same weight if my math is correct.

Seems like a really workable set up. Maybe down the line rebarrel it with a nice carbon wrapped barrel and maybe shed some additional weight from the varmint profile and change calibers in the process to something a little more suited to long range (6/6.5 creed, 7-08)

 

[Steel head]

That looks like almost exactly what I'm after. Is that an XLR chassis? I've had my eye on one as well, could even have the folding option on the standard element and be lighter than my magpul stock, yielding a more portable setup

She sits at ~10.5 pounds at the moment sans bipod, with the 10x SWFA. If I went with the XLR, something like Hawkins long range hybrid rings, and ~25oz for the optic, I'd be right at the same weight if my math is correct.

Seems like a really workable set up. Maybe down the line rebarrel it with a nice carbon wrapped barrel and maybe shed some additional weight from the varmint profile and change calibers in the process to something a little more suited to long range (6/6.5 creed, 7-08)

Yes
XLR element.
It or a KRG bravo would be my first choices.
It’s a very pleasant and effective rifle, I even named it Buttercup.
They make a light version of that chassis now as well.

 

[maxpetros]

Here's how it sits at the moment

And 4 shots at 200 with m118lr

 

[jcmullis2]

It’s all doable and relatively inexpensive. Get your krg stock and your scope and call it a day. I wouldn't worry about trueing the action. Just before you change barrels lap your lugs it’ll improve the 3/4 moa your currently getting and will likely be capable of better accuracy than you are. Remington rifles are great and can be made better with a couple of things. A barrel, trigger, and a little attention to detail on the lugs will make it a tack driver. Like others have said the Remage barrel setup is the best bang for the buck. Good luck

 

[maxpetros]

I know the bravo always gets glowing reccomendations but don't hear much regarding the Xray. Is it worth it to slend the extra 100? I like the butt pad adjustability for height and cant, but don't know if thats worthwhile. Also like the idea in theory to change grip size as I have fairly large hands and like the large palm swell on the HS precision stocks.

Lastly, how do these non traditional stock designs compare to you're typical hunting rifle stock for offhand shooting? Very familiar with AR/M4 ergos so a chassis rifle doesn't seem dissimilar or looks to pose any issues.

Also would I gain anything from going to an XLR over the KRGs or do they seem to check every box?

 

[DownhillFromHere]

If 75% of your time will be on the range, and you want to go out to 1000, I think you'll quickly get frustrated with a 2-10 or maybe even a 3-15 optic. It's not that you can't hit out 1000 with the lower-mag optics, and I readily acknowledging that 15x is the most you'll normally use in PRS-style competition. For me, the benefit of higher magnification is the ability to see hits/misses the rest of the time on the range. On low-mirage days, I can see 6.5mm holes in paper out to 300 yards, and I can see hit detail on painted steel at 1000.

I started this rifle silliness with a DMR-variant AR mounted with a 1-8 optic. As the longer-range (over 400 yards) interest grew, I got a 2-10 (budget consideration). Then a 3-15. All SFP, because I hadn't convinced myself yet that FFP was hugely beneficial -almost a necessity - in PRS competition and I was trying to save $$ (SFP was cheaper than the same scope in FFP).

There have been four scopes in the 5-27 range since then, all FFP. It's easy enough to dial down to lower magnification when needed, but you can't dial up to higher magnification that doesn't exist.

You might even consider two optics - a SFP, lower-mag-range one for hunting and a higher-mag-range FFP one for range and PRS play. If that doesn't fit the budget, consider where you'll spend most of your time. Is being potentially limited 75% of the time (on the range) in order to optimize the other 25% (hunting) the correct priority for you? If so, drive on.

Above all, have fun. You'll probably change your mind quite a few times along the way. I certainly have.

 

[maxpetros]

If 75% of your time will be on the range, and you want to go out to 1000, I think you'll quickly get frustrated with a 2-10 or maybe even a 3-15 optic. It's not that you can't hit out 1000 with the lower-mag optics, and I readily acknowledging that 15x is the most you'll normally use in PRS-style competition. For me, the benefit of higher magnification is the ability to see hits/misses the rest of the time on the range. On low-mirage days, I can see 6.5mm holes in paper out to 300 yards, and I can see hit detail on painted steel at 1000.

I started this rifle silliness with a DMR-variant AR mounted with a 1-8 optic. As the longer-range (over 400 yards) interest grew, I got a 2-10 (budget consideration). Then a 3-15. All SFP, because I hadn't convinced myself yet that FFP was hugely beneficial -almost a necessity - in PRS competition and I was trying to save $$ (SFP was cheaper than the same scope in FFP).

There have been four scopes in the 5-27 range since then, all FFP. It's easy enough to dial down to lower magnification when needed, but you can't dial up to higher magnification that doesn't exist.

You might even consider two optics - a SFP, lower-mag-range one for hunting and a higher-mag-range FFP one for range and PRS play. If that doesn't fit the budget, consider where you'll spend most of your time. Is being potentially limited 75% of the time (on the range) in order to optimize the other 25% (hunting) the correct priority for you? If so, drive on.

Above all, have fun. You'll probably change your mind quite a few times along the way. I certainly have.

Valid point for sure. Most of my time on the range is accompanied by a spotter on a tripod for just that reason. Usually a buddy and I will alternate on the gun and spotter. And 308 is mild enough I can stay on target during recoil and spot my hits on steel or movement of the target.

Didn't want to go up to higher magnification glass with additional weight and cost when it doesn't really suit my needs. It is something to consider though. I wouldn't necessarily mind switching optics for different roles down the line but at this point I think it makes sense to have one set up I know damn well.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

Usually a buddy and I will alternate on the gun and spotter.

Good point. I almost always shoot by myself (well, not "paired" with a spotter) because I'm retired and oftentimes decide on spur-of-the-moment range trips. Early on, I bought a spotting scope... took it back after realizing, hey, you can either have an ok riflescope and an ok spotter or a really good riflescope. I never looked back - thus I didn't consider your situation of being paired with a spotter.

 

[spife7980]

I like the element more than the bravo, it just feels better to me. But the bravo on sale is a had value to argue against.
No wrong answer, just preference.

 

[308pirate]

@maxpetros some input from someone pretty much in your same shoes but a little bit farther along.

Keep the Remington. You already know it's a shooter. It will likely get better as you put it in a better foundation and put a better sight on it.

Get a KRG chassis. Remingtons have the advantage of a huge selection of chassis to choose from. Howas (what I own) have a smaller selection and it led me to KRG 3 - 4 years ago before the Bravo existed. Back then KRG had a version of the X ray chassis called the 180-Xray made for Howas. I have two and they are outstanding. The accessory ecosystem is great and the ergonomics and adjustability are phenomenal. I also highly prefer chassis that have little exposed metal. By the by, while the X ray chassis offers no more functionality than the Bravo, I prefer the looks of the X ray.

Here's the most important advice I can give you: use the money you saved by not buying a different rifle and step up your optics game above SWFA. I have two of them (3-15X42, 16X) and have had the 3-15X on a 308 Howa for 5 - 6 years. Last week I decided to step it up a notch and got a Steiner P4Xi 4-16X56 from @gr8fuldoug at Camerland. I've been comparing both side by side and while both are broadly equal up to about 8X, above that the Steiner pulls ahead with superior image quality, a much larger exit pupil (which makes it more forgiving of head position and gives it superior low light capability), 10 mils/rev turrets with revolution indicator for elevation, included zero stop that's one of the easiest to set, reticle illumination, and more importantly significantly larger depth of field for a given parallax setting. The Steiner also costs an incredible $850 and has a forever warranty

 

[maxpetros]

@maxpetros some input from someone pretty much in your same shoes but a little bit farther along.

Keep the Remington. You already know it's a shooter. It will likely get better as you put it in a better foundation and put a better sight on it.

Get a KRG chassis. Remingtons have the advantage of a huge selection of chassis to choose from. Howas (what I own) have a smaller selection and it led me to KRG 3 - 4 years ago before the Bravo existed. Back then KRG had a version of the X ray chassis called the 180-Xray made for Howas. I have two and they are outstanding. The accessory ecosystem is great and the ergonomics and adjustability are phenomenal. I also highly prefer chassis that have little exposed metal. By the by, while the X ray chassis offers no more functionality than the Bravo, I prefer the looks of the X ray.

Here's the most important advice I can give you: use the money you saved by not buying a different rifle and step up your optics game above SWFA. I have two of them (3-15X42, 16X) and have had the 3-15X on a 308 Howa for 5 - 6 years. Last week I decided to step it up a notch and got a Steiner P4Xi 4-16X56 from @gr8fuldoug at Camerland. I've been comparing both side by side and while both are broadly equal up to about 8X, above that the Steiner pulls ahead with superior image quality, a much larger exit pupil (which makes it more forgiving of head position and gives it superior low light capability), 10 mils/rev turrets with revolution indicator for elevation, included zero stop that's one of the easiest to set, reticle illumination, and more importantly significantly larger depth of field for a given parallax setting. The Steiner also costs an incredible $850 and has a forever warranty

Good point, I've already noticed and taken advantage of the incredible aftermarket support for the 700 series.

Maybe remington is not what they were in their hayday but to me they still symbolize a pretty iconic American rifle. Coupled with the fact that my example seems to not be plagued with quality issues, I certainly was inclined to keep it around. It may be petty but that means something to me even though I view firearms as tools.

I checked out the Steiner you recommended, looks like a phenomenal optic. To the above point, I also really like the idea of it being American made. The price isn't what drew me to the SWFA as I'm comfortable spending up to about 1200 on this optic choice.

I included them because they seem to fit ny requirements and its common to hear of other options costing much more and tracking like garbage.

My only reservation regarding the Steiner is the weight. By no means am I attempting a light weight build but if I throw weight concerns to the wind, I feel it'll be easy to end up with a complete pig of a rifle.

The Steiner certainly is giving me something to consider.

 

[308pirate]

My only reservation regarding the Steiner is the weight. By no means am I attempting a light weight build but if I throw weight concerns to the wind, I feel it'll be easy to end up with a complete pig of a rifle.

It's 30 ounces. 6 more than the SWFA 3-15X. Those 6 oz are more than worth it, trust me.

If you want to be shocked by weight, go look at a Vortex Razor 3-18.......

 

[maxpetros]

How does the Steiner stack up with the bushnell LRTS? Particularly the 3-12. Also curious how each reticle appears on the low end for quick snap shots. I was pleased with both the SWFA I'm looking at in that regard. The Steiner reticle looks awful thin on the edges, but couldn't find any subtensions. The bushnell looks like the outer posts are adequately thick at 1.5mils but I'm not sure if that hashes will look like a bold duplex at 3x

 

[308pirate]

How does the Steiner stack up with the bushnell LRTS? Particularly the 3-12. Also curious how each reticle appears on the low end for quick snap shots. I was pleased with both the SWFA I'm looking at in that regard. The Steiner reticle looks awful thin on the edges, but couldn't find any subtensions. The bushnell looks like the outer posts are adequately thick at 1.5mils but I'm not sure if that hashes will look like a bold duplex at 3x

I don't know anything about Bushnells, but I can tell you for sure that the Steiner/Burris SCR reticle is not optimal for use in the scope's lower magnification range. The SWFA reticle is much more usable at lower magnifications.

The SCR reticle's subtensions are 0.5 mils for elevation and 0.2 mils for windage.

 

[maxpetros]

I don't know anything about Bushnells, but I can tell you for sure that the Steiner/Burris SCR reticle is not optimal for use in the scope's lower magnification range. The SWFA reticle is much more usable at lower magnifications.

The SCR reticle's subtensions are 0.5 mils for elevation and 0.2 mils for windage.

Bummer, thanks for the info, that's what i was afraid of. I could tell the step in graduation lines but not the width of the outer posts in mils. The SWFA posts are 1.2 mils and give a nice duplex like appearance at 3x

 

[BikePilot]

I would second the notion of good glass. Given the choice I’d take a middle range rifle and top tier glass over the reverse. It’s not the scope you are looking for, but I have no problem seeing the reticle at min power on my zco527. The zco420 would be at the top of my list for a smaller, lighter scope. It’s not cheap by any means but it sure is nice to look through. I think you’ll eventually end up with two rigs. One for range and prs, and one for hunting. Most are using 6 or 6.5mm creed for prs while a much larger round would be better suited for elk.

 

[308pirate]

Bummer, thanks for the info, that's what i was afraid of. I could tell the step in graduation lines but not the width of the outer posts in mils. The SWFA posts are 1.2 mils and give a nice duplex like appearance at 3x

You're biasing your reticle selection towards the 20% to 25% of your expected usage. I wouldn't do it that way.

 

[NewsShooter]

Element and Bravo are good choices, you can get the Element in Magnesium now too so it's pretty light. My choice for a hunting/LR scope is a bushnell LRTS, usable for both. I have the previous model with the gap G2H reticle which is more hunting oriented. I don't have a problem with my Athlon Cronus with the floating cross and illumination at lower magnifications for a hunting use. While I understand the FFP drawbacks for hunting I still prefer them. A buddy just went hunting for axis deer using the bushnell, shots were just over 100, he didn't have an issue using a lower magnification. He's also a bowhunter 95% of the time and I've recently converted him FFP scopes.

 

[maxpetros]

I would second the notion of good glass. Given the choice I’d take a middle range rifle and top tier glass over the reverse. It’s not the scope you are looking for, but I have no problem seeing the reticle at min power on my zco527. The zco420 would be at the top of my list for a smaller, lighter scope. It’s not cheap by any means but it sure is nice to look through. I think you’ll eventually end up with two rigs. One for range and prs, and one for hunting. Most are using 6 or 6.5mm creed for prs while a much larger round would be better suited for elk.

I certainly can see that in the future. Far from the only firearm I own but as an alternate hobby, not at the point where I spend enough time shooting precision rifles or rifle hunting big game to justify a quality set up for each. I'm sure as my preferences develop it'll grow into more specialized rigs, but for now the one will suffice.

You're biasing your reticle selection towards the 20% to 25% of your expected usage. I wouldn't do it that way.

I do see your point but I guess im trying to look at the whole picture. I'm not choosing a reticle/optic with a singular focus in mind, it needs to be a jack of all trades. The mil quad reticle is a step above the mil dots I've been trained on and by no means going to be a gross handicap at the intended ranges. It also happens to work well for that small percentage use on the low end. In my eyes the functionality is important throughout the range on this build.

I could see choosing a duplex reticle as favoring the lesser usage too much but I think a fair middle ground can be had.

Perhaps I'm mistaken though as I'm not experienced enough to appreciate the more complex optics in practice.

 

[AlpineSniper]

Sounds like you've got a perfectly capable platform. I'd probably throw it in a decent chassis and shoot the hell out of it (maybe keep the magpul for hunting?). Then you can either rebarrel it and get the 700 blueprinted, or just buy a custom action with 700 footprint and a barrel, since you'll already have a chassis and trigger for 700.

 

[goosed]

Bravo has a larger palm swell and a longer trigger reach than the HS... might be a good thing if you have larger hands, just something to be aware of.

I own both the Bravo and Element. Like both about equal; maybe a slight edge to the element as I like the ergo zero grip slightly better than a plastic grip and the fact my cleaning rod fits under the XLR cheek piece so I don't need to move it like I do with the Bravo.

SWFA wouldn't be my first choice for a dual use scope in today's market... then again neither is my Bushnell ERS (gen1) and yet it's gone 4 for 4 on game animals the few times I've hunted with it and I was getting hits with it on a 6" plate at 1000 last weekend. So

 

[maxpetros]

Bravo has a larger palm swell and a longer trigger reach than the HS... might be a good thing if you have larger hands, just something to be aware of.

I own both the Bravo and Element. Like both about equal; maybe a slight edge to the element as I like the ergo zero grip slightly better than a plastic grip and the fact my cleaning rod fits under the XLR cheek piece so I don't need to move it like I do with the Bravo.

SWFA wouldn't be my first choice for a dual use scope in today's market... then again neither is my Bushnell ERS (gen1) and yet it's gone 4 for 4 on game animals the few times I've hunted with it and I was getting hits with it on a 6" plate at 1000 last weekend. So

The bravo having a larger palm swell and reach than the HS precision is actually great to hear! I was worried about the availability of an AR grip that provided the same feeling for the XLR.

As far as a crossover option what would you recommend?

At a minimum I'm looking for:
Mil/mil
Reliable tracking
Preferably FFP if reticle is easy to see at low end
Good quality glass but I'd put mechanical reliability above that
Durability
Preferably in the <25oz

 

[maxpetros]

How do the burris xtr ii and viper pst gen ii stack up? Both a little chunky but if they check the rest of the boxes could be a possibility

 

[Baron23]

How do the burris xtr ii and viper pst gen ii stack up? Both a little chunky but if they check the rest of the boxes could be a possibility

I have a similar rifle.

- 700 5R, .308, 20" barrel
- Harrells Precision brake turned down to barrel contour
- Jewel Trigger
- KMW Loggerhead adjustable cheek job
- Vortex Viper PST Gen II 3-15 x 44 with mil reticle. Vortex stuff seems to go on sale a lot. This is the EBR-2C. Now its the -7C. Very similar and I was fine with getting the -2C at half price.
- Leupold Mark IV medium rings (they don't have "low" and their "medium" is as low as I have found in steel rings at .84" to center")
- Harris bipod

And like yourself, I feel that I got a good barrel out of Remington and this gun shoots very well. I'm really very happy with it.

When we had the action of the HS stock for the comb job, I had it skim bedded when we put it all back together. I think this probably did the most to tighten the gun up as the wear marks on the bedding block were just very small areas around the action screws.

Look, I'm not one of the highly experienced guys on the Hide at all. But I do have a 6.5 CM in a JAE-700 chassis and that is a target gun only and completely unsuited, IMO, to hunting.

The Remington is fun, fun, fun to shoot at the range and is accurate enough to challenge me but its still a deer gun for those few times at 68 y.o. that I get out to hunt one.

I know that guys here hunt with chassis mounted rifles but to me, they are target guns. I like a stock for hunting.

If you want to stay in a chassis, and want to upgrade from the Magpul Hunter, I think you got a lot of input above. But to my mind this 20" Rem 700 belongs in a stock. Personally, I would look at Manners/McMillan over a chassis for that gun. It will shoot great at the range and should be very nice for hunting (depending on what stock you get).

Just thoughts from sort of a novice: take what you like, leave the rest.

 

[goosed]

The bravo having a larger palm swell and reach than the HS precision is actually great to hear! I was worried about the availability of an AR grip that provided the same feeling for the XLR.

As far as a crossover option what would you recommend?

At a minimum I'm looking for:
Mil/mil
Reliable tracking
Preferably FFP if reticle is easy to see at low end
Good quality glass but I'd put mechanical reliability above that
Durability
Preferably in the <25oz

There really isn't much below that weight restriction in your price range... we've all asked for it many times, but still to this day largely ignored. Most of the options that fit your other requirements are going to be in the 28-34oz range, which in all honesty means unless your mountain hunting you can basically ignore weight as there is less than half a pound between all the options which is peanuts in the grand scheme.

The only feature that never hurts you and is always nice to have no matter what is a zero stop. Beyond that it's all personal preference/style, imo... thus I generally don't make too many scope recommendations as to me which scope is usually like asking someone to pick your favorite color for you. Everyone's eyes and personal preferences are so different that what's best for one is garbage for another.

Stick with proven brands/models and favor towards the features you will use the most... odds are very good you'll do just fine. I know not the answer you want, but all of the scopes mentioned so far in this thread will do the job. Reality is a dual purpose scope makes an awful lot of compromises in one area or another, but that usually doesn't matter much after you have used it enough to comfortable with it. Hence why I brought up the gen1 Bushnell ERS as it's really not great at anything compared to other options these days yet it still does just fine.

 

[maxpetros]

There really isn't much below that weight restriction in your price range... we've all asked for it many times, but still to this day largely ignored. Most of the options that fit your other requirements are going to be in the 28-34oz range, which in all honesty means unless your mountain hunting you can basically ignore weight as there is less than half a pound between all the options which is peanuts in the grand scheme.

The only feature that never hurts you and is always nice to have no matter what is a zero stop. Beyond that it's all personal preference/style, imo... thus I generally don't make too many scope recommendations as to me which scope is usually like asking someone to pick your favorite color for you. Everyone's eyes and personal preferences are so different that what's best for one is garbage for another.

Stick with proven brands/models and favor towards the features you will use the most... odds are very good you'll do just fine. I know not the answer you want, but all of the scopes mentioned so far in this thread will do the job. Reality is a dual purpose scope makes an awful lot of compromises in one area or another, but that usually doesn't matter much after you have used it enough to comfortable with it. Hence why I brought up the gen1 Bushnell ERS as it's really not great at anything compared to other options these days yet it still does just fine.

Yeah it seems like that weight range is optimistic. I appreciate your answer, pragmatic and honest which makes a lot of sense to me. I think I have enough experience to know at least what features I'm looking for.

I think it comes down to just figuring out what I'm willing to compromise on as I know there's no perfect answer to this question. And just do some research and find something with a good track record.

I also won't be married to this optic choice and whatever I land on will help formulate my opinions for later purchases.

Thanks for the dose of reality