Interesting purchase

[Coejro]

So, I was looking to trade a pistol for a Rem 700 on armslist. Posting was live for a week or so, and then I got a trade offer. Dunno why, but the trade intrigued me. So I now own this:

What's that you say? Yeah I didn't know either. But I likes the look and the action felt 10x better than any of the circa 2017 ones I'd played around with so I bought it.

Turns out it must have a good story behind it, and I only wish I knew what that was.

I called remington and it started life in September of 1990 as a 700 police in .308 with a 24" barrel. Between then and now it has had the barrel fluted, been switched to a decent looking Monte Carlo stock, had a Remington scope mount and cheap Konus scope thrown on, and from the looks of it maybe shot a hundred times tops.

The flutes are interesting. The barrel was removed and the flutes cut, then never refinished and re-installed. Whoever did the work marked a scratch along the top of the receiver, lug, and barrel, and used this to index everything. The fluting looks decent, if a little rough, but is evenly spaced.

So basically I'm thrilled, it's weird in it's own way but looks like a lot of fun. Which brings me to my questions. Anyone know what the proper bottom metal would be for this? It's set up as a BDL but the bottom metal looks like newer vintage. Any changes to the H&S stock between 1990 and now? And what is the proper leupold base for this setup? I'm thinking I'll return it to its original state as much as possible.

But i'm open to suggestions. And if anyone happens to have an old H&S police stock lying around hit me up.

 

[Sniperstud]

It should have originally had BDL bottom metal with a matte black finish. The early HS stocks used on Remington varmint rifles had bedding blocks that only went from the grip area to the recoil lug recess. Later stocks used full length bedding blocks that went all the way to the front swivel studs. I'm not sure if this applies to the 700P stocks, but I don't think there have been any external changes.

The 700P has never come from the factory with a scope base, unless you bought the Tactical Weapon System, which came with a mounted Leupold scope, a Harris bipod, a sling, and a Pelican hard case. The scopes included on the earlier systems were Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x40 Tactical models mounted with Leupold one piece std bases and rings. As the Leupold tactical models evolved, I believe the TWS was updated to include a 3.5-10x40 Long Range, and then the Mark IV 3.5-10x40, but their website still lists the Vari-X III 3.5-10x40. I think the later TWS scopes were mounted with Mark IV rings and bases.

I'm quoting this from memory, and since that's the second thing to go, maybe someone else will come along to confirm or deny my accuracy.

For what it's worth, I kinda like the look of it in that stock. I'd have it parkerized, mount either a 3.5-10x40 LR/T, or a Mark IV 3.5-10x40, free float it, bed it, and have myself a 700P / M40-ish retro-mod that hammers. There are a ton of cookie cutter 700P's out there.

 

[Coejro]

Awesome, thanks for the info. And I think I'm leaning towards your idea. It certainly has an undeniable flair as it, and a 700p/M40 hybrid definitely has the unique factor going for it.

Anyone have any recommendations for a good scope base? I have a seekins on my other rifle, but would want something in steel that looked a bit classier on this. Or is the Remington 1 piece scope base on it now good enough to be used?

 

[Sniperstud]

The original M40's used Redfield bases and rings, which were very similar to your current setup, as well as the Leupold mounts used on the Tactical Weapon Systems..

Leupold used to make a one-piece, dual dovetail base that looked similar to the base on your rifle, but it eliminated the rear windage screws in favor of a rear dovetailed connection. I always felt these were more durable than the windage adjustable mount. They still make dual dovetail mounts, but I'm not sure about the one piece base.

Theyre not steel, but I like the Nightforce one piece mounts. They're more elegant than a rail, and they're very strong.

An M40A1 mount would be a good choice. The DD Ross company, and, I think, Badger Ordnance, used to make them, but I'm not sure who still does.

Any of these would look more "correct" than a picatinny rail, for the period your rifle is from. Once you have the rifle refinished, and the stock bedded, try what you have. As long as it maintains zero, once properly installed, there's no need to change it, unless you just want something different, as that style mount is period correct for your rifle.

if you do decide to go with a pic rail, Badger makes a good one from pre-hardened steel.

 

[supercorndogs]

I would take it out and make sure it shoots before I did anything else with it. Nothing worse than putting a bunch of time and money into something, just to find out you have a problem child on your hands.

 

[Sniperstud]

I agree with Supercorndogs. I wouldn't spend the money to refinish it until I knew the barrel was good. However, I have owned, or worked with over a dozen of these rifles since the early nineties, and all of them have been good shooters with factory match ammo. Only one would not group inside 3/4" at one hundred yards. That rifle tightened right up to 5/8" or better, once it was bedded.

So, I'd properly mount the scope, or better yet, a known good scope, if you have one. Shoot it and see how it does. Regardless of the result, I would pillar bed the action, recoil lug, and floor-plate. It won't hurt, will probably help, will seal the wood from moisture, and keep it from compressing from the pressure from the action screws. Shoot again to check for improvement. If it shoots, then I'd refinish it. If not, then decide if you want to rebarrel it.

 

[Coejro]

Sniperstud, supercorndogs thank you both for the comments. Looking closer it does have a red field scope base with 1" rings. I'll probably just try it with the Konus and see how it shoots. I have a bushnell tactical 3-12x44 but it's a 30mm tube.

Should be be able to get out with it next weekend and run some FGMM 168's and 175's through it. I've had E and G series 700's issued to me in the past so I have no doubt it shoot, but with an unknown history I think you both are spot on with verifying before I throw any more money into it.

As as far as the wood stock, I've always had synthetic or aluminum stocks so I have very little experience with them. Is it worth using the wood stock it came on or should I be looking for a similarly styled custome stock?

 

[Sniperstud]

It depends on what you want to do with the rifle. If you’re going to compete with it, or subject it to extreme weather or field use, you’d be better served by a synthetic stock, or a chassis. The wood would really take a beating in that role, and wouldn’’t be as stable in inclement weather. However, if you primarily intend to use this rifle on the range, or for more moderate hunting or field use, and you like the look of the wood, then I would keep the wood. You could probably pick up a used McMillan HTG stock, bed it to your action, and swap between them, depending on your mood or intended use. Either way you’d keep that M40 look.

 

[Coejro]

Nothing crazy. Just multipurpose range and some hunting. I've had my eye on an HTG for a while, didn't think about having the wood stock and the McMillan both bedded for the same rifle though.