Magpul Hunter 700 Stock
- Thread starter Texan
- Start date
Quality wise it is awesome over a hogue and I prefer it over the HS precision as well. The standard comb provides me with just the right scope height using a 20moa rail and .93" high rings.
I tested it against my manners with mini chassis and it was just as accurate. My only complaint is the grip is a little thin for my liking.
The magpul stock has a generous barrel channel and my 700 with proof sendero (m24) contour barrel free floats just fine.
I tested it against my manners with mini chassis and it was just as accurate. My only complaint is the grip is a little thin for my liking.
The magpul stock has a generous barrel channel and my 700 with proof sendero (m24) contour barrel free floats just fine.
I could not see any difference in accuracy when I tried the Magpul hunter 700 instead of the Mcmillan A5 I was running at the time. I do prefer a steeper grip angle and I found a great deal on an McMillan A3-5 so I ended up getting rid of the Magpul after a few months.
I had a really hard time deciding between the Magpul Hunter stock and the Grayboe Renegade. Ultimately the main reason was how short the aluminum block in the Magpul stock is. In hindsight, it would have been a lot cheaper and I'd like have a lighter rifle if I opted for the Magpul. Not to mention, I have yet to hear anything bad about it.
I have the Grayboe Renegade. I am going to need to attach an aftermarket cheek riser for a good cheek weld, which means I will need to drill holes in the stock. I want qd flush cups for sling attachment. I paid extra for bottom metal. The Magpul would have definitely been less expensive and easier. Now that I am here I don't know if I should proceed with the upgrades to the Renegade or get the Magpul and sell the Renegade.
My new 6.5 sits in a magpul 700 stock. These were taken yesterday showing rounds 32-36 and 37-41 through the new proof research barrel and factory Prime ammo. I'm confident they'll tighten up once the barrel is "seasoned" more.
I have a TL2/Bartlein barreled action in a Magpul Hunter stock.
It's very accurate.
When I got mine I mixed up a bunch of epoxy and injected it into holes I drilled into the grip and the fore end where the bedding block ties in, to give it a little more stiffness. Not sure if it helped but I doubt it hurt. I got mine for pretty cheap from Primary Arms, around $240 with the bottom metal (plastic).
It's very accurate.
When I got mine I mixed up a bunch of epoxy and injected it into holes I drilled into the grip and the fore end where the bedding block ties in, to give it a little more stiffness. Not sure if it helped but I doubt it hurt. I got mine for pretty cheap from Primary Arms, around $240 with the bottom metal (plastic).
I switched from a B&C stock which shot consistently well. I changed to the Hunter 700 for the ergonomics (definitely better) and the DBM set up. While the Magpul stock has produced the best 5-shot group to date - .312" at 100 yards - it has also produced some slightly larger groups than the B&C. Compared to the B&C, the level of precision has not been as consistent, which I found disconcerting.
With the B&C stock, groups were consistently in the .5 to .65 MOA range, the best (ever) being .462 MOA. Here are two "best" 5-shot groups with the Hunter 700 stock from a single range session, during which I also had a few close to 1.0 MOA;
At that point I was disappointed with the lack of consistency. Not quite ready to give up on this stock, I took some time to try to figure out why the loss in consistency and I believe I've found the culprit;
I noticed that as I torqued down the action screws and contact was made between the trigger guard assembly and the bedding block, I did not get that immediate hard resistance that I had with the B&C stock. The screws would only slowly tighten, requiring more screw rotation to reach the torque setting. Upon examination, I found that Magpul uses steel inserts in the plastic trigger guard assembly for the action screws to pass through. In my case, the steel inserts were not quite flush with the top of the assembly where it comes into contact with the bedding block, resulting in the need to compress plastic. I'm not certain that at even 60 inch-pounds that the metal inserts ever made contact with the bedding block. Additionally, it was difficult to seat a loaded magazine against a closed bolt, and even an empty magazine contacted the bolt hard enough to cause drag. I'm pretty certain that neither of those conditions are beneficial for consistent precision.
My fix was to take down the plastic on the top of the trigger guard assembly (where it contacts the bedding block) to the top of the steel inserts, carefully and slowly using a file. With that done and the steel inserts in direct contact with the bottom of the bedding block, the action screws torqued down as expected. However, this also caused the magazine to sit even higher further aggravating the interference between the closed bolt and the top of the magazine.
The fix for this was simple - I placed a thin brass washer on top of the trigger guard assembly, one for each screw, which pulled the magazine down but now too far away from the bolt. I needed to thin the brass washers using a file until I achieved 100% reliable feeding from the magazine. With this done, there is now zero contact between the top of the magazine and the closed bolt. In fact, the operation of the DBM assembly now seems perfect, the bolt closes smoothly and the action screws tighten down as they should with metal-on-metal contact between the trigger guard assembly and the bedding block. At least in my case (sample of one), the Magpul DBM assembly works well but is not quite perfect without some work.
I spent considerable time working this out last winter but have yet to fire the rifle again. This thread has motivated me to hit the range tomorrow to see if there is any improvement (I'm betting there will be) and I'll post the results here.
Remington 700 SPS Tac in .308
Timney set to 3 lbs.
SWFA 10X42 HD in Seekins rings on Leupold 15 MOA steel base (bedded to receiver)
Hunter 700 with Arca-Swiss QD plate (and modified trigger guard assembly)
VG6 Precision Gama 7.62 brake (added after this photo was taken)
With the B&C stock, groups were consistently in the .5 to .65 MOA range, the best (ever) being .462 MOA. Here are two "best" 5-shot groups with the Hunter 700 stock from a single range session, during which I also had a few close to 1.0 MOA;
At that point I was disappointed with the lack of consistency. Not quite ready to give up on this stock, I took some time to try to figure out why the loss in consistency and I believe I've found the culprit;
I noticed that as I torqued down the action screws and contact was made between the trigger guard assembly and the bedding block, I did not get that immediate hard resistance that I had with the B&C stock. The screws would only slowly tighten, requiring more screw rotation to reach the torque setting. Upon examination, I found that Magpul uses steel inserts in the plastic trigger guard assembly for the action screws to pass through. In my case, the steel inserts were not quite flush with the top of the assembly where it comes into contact with the bedding block, resulting in the need to compress plastic. I'm not certain that at even 60 inch-pounds that the metal inserts ever made contact with the bedding block. Additionally, it was difficult to seat a loaded magazine against a closed bolt, and even an empty magazine contacted the bolt hard enough to cause drag. I'm pretty certain that neither of those conditions are beneficial for consistent precision.
My fix was to take down the plastic on the top of the trigger guard assembly (where it contacts the bedding block) to the top of the steel inserts, carefully and slowly using a file. With that done and the steel inserts in direct contact with the bottom of the bedding block, the action screws torqued down as expected. However, this also caused the magazine to sit even higher further aggravating the interference between the closed bolt and the top of the magazine.
The fix for this was simple - I placed a thin brass washer on top of the trigger guard assembly, one for each screw, which pulled the magazine down but now too far away from the bolt. I needed to thin the brass washers using a file until I achieved 100% reliable feeding from the magazine. With this done, there is now zero contact between the top of the magazine and the closed bolt. In fact, the operation of the DBM assembly now seems perfect, the bolt closes smoothly and the action screws tighten down as they should with metal-on-metal contact between the trigger guard assembly and the bedding block. At least in my case (sample of one), the Magpul DBM assembly works well but is not quite perfect without some work.
I spent considerable time working this out last winter but have yet to fire the rifle again. This thread has motivated me to hit the range tomorrow to see if there is any improvement (I'm betting there will be) and I'll post the results here.
Remington 700 SPS Tac in .308
Timney set to 3 lbs.
SWFA 10X42 HD in Seekins rings on Leupold 15 MOA steel base (bedded to receiver)
Hunter 700 with Arca-Swiss QD plate (and modified trigger guard assembly)
VG6 Precision Gama 7.62 brake (added after this photo was taken)
Attachments
Last edited:
Back from the range - using Federal 168 GMM, I saw no improvement. Fired four groups, which ranged from just under .8 MOA to just over 1.0 MOA. In the B&C stock, it was rare to see a group larger than .75 MOA. The DBM worked beautifully with the modifications - easy seating on a closed bolt, perfectly smooth feeding.
Bottom line for me with the Hunter 700: great ergonomics, and with just a bit of tinkering, a DBM set up that I couldn't ask any more of. In terms of precision though it would appear my rifle took a bit of a hit switching from B&C stock.
Bottom line for me with the Hunter 700: great ergonomics, and with just a bit of tinkering, a DBM set up that I couldn't ask any more of. In terms of precision though it would appear my rifle took a bit of a hit switching from B&C stock.
Have you played with torque settings? Could be one possible explanation. A good bedding would never hurt. If you like the ergonomics it might be worth it for you. Or just stick with the tried and true bc you have.
Taking a deeper - my 700 is being sent to Mike Bryant to have the action trued and a Bartlein .308 5R M24/M40 barrel installed, and then it's going in a McMillan A5 stock. If it doesn't consistently shoot .5 MOA or better after that, I'm going to jump off a bridge.... :-/
Rather than aggravate yourself I think you're smart to go that direction if you want that level of consistency.
My 700 shoots remarkably well for what it is... but what it is isn't consistent. Here's typical 300yd performance (Fed 168 GMM) with a 6rd magazine. All shots nicely sub MOA... then one not. I've made peace with it. Haha
My 700 shoots remarkably well for what it is... but what it is isn't consistent. Here's typical 300yd performance (Fed 168 GMM) with a 6rd magazine. All shots nicely sub MOA... then one not. I've made peace with it. Haha
Similar threads
