Why is that?
Not accurate? Not durable? Unreliable?
What makes it not "one of the good ones"?
Alternatives to Remington .308 Police
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
Why is that?
Not accurate? Not durable? Unreliable?
What makes it not "one of the good ones"?
The cheaply pieced together method of manufacture rather than solid steel one piece forging or investment casting.
Not sure exactly what you’re asking, but a lighter alternative to the 700P would be the LTR version of the same rifle that, while still technically a 700P, has a 20” fluted barrel to save weight, an H-S Precision stock from the factory with dual sling studs on the front to accommodate a bipod, a threaded muzzle and a 40x trigger on the later versions, and even 8-40 screw holes and 5R rifling on a few rifles.
It makes an ideal lightweight tactical rifle that could also serve as a hunting rifle in a pinch and they generally are very accurate right out of the box, though I’m sure there’s exceptions.
All of the above and also Bergara, they're going the direction I wish Remington would have gone
They make some very nice rifles and very accurate with many price point options. Comparable if not superior to Remington's Police Rifle
They make some very nice rifles and very accurate with many price point options. Comparable if not superior to Remington's Police Rifle
So it's not accuracy, durability or reliability, it's the manufacturing process that you don't like.
Rodan
SWCA Member
Many would say your average Taurus meets those three standards... but here we are on a S&W forum.
The difference should be obvious.
Design, design, design. Cheaply made of many small parts pieced together or simple sturdy real steel. If you’re buying with money in your pocket why not buy real quality to begin with? When you decide to sell your rifle sometime in the future see which one appreciates in value and which one you have to practically give away to get rid of.
I’ve worn out Savage rifles - the small parts, not the action, but I shoot a lot. Savage rifles hold up ok for shooters who shoot a box or two of ammo per year, and they hold up even better for that guy who fires a few rounds to confirm his zero before hunting season and then fires a few more during hunting season.
Is a Savage a great choice for a guy that shoots 2000 plus rounds a year? Not so much.
Many would say your average Taurus meets those three standards... but here we are on a S&W forum.
The difference should be obvious.
A good Taurus can be a very good firearm, the trick is getting a good one as quality is all over the map.
Rifle wise, Remington has had the same problem for about the last 20 years. As noted above I bought my 700 SPS with low expectations more as a project gun. It was along the lines of why people buy Ruger 10/22s, which are also not nearly the rifles they were 40 years ago - 50 years ago when they were actually medium-high end .22 LRs rather than low end.
I got lucky in that the barrel, while not a 1/4 MOA tack driver was exceptionally stable and able to deliver both an on point of aim cold bore shot and produce 10 shot 1 MOA groups firing 2-3 rounds per minute. That left me just having to replace the stock and the trigger.
———
As for Smith and Wesson….let’s just say I like the old ones a lot more than the new ones.
It’s somewhat ironic that the changes Winchester made in 1964 were so poorly received when the changes they made (brazed bolt handle, wedge extractor, and enclosed bolt face) brought the Model 70 in line with the Remington Model 700 which had essentially the same features and similar quality.
The controlled feed offered by the Mauser style claw extractor was an advantage with the pre 64 Model 70, as was the smoother bolt travel the design offered.
Winchester added an extended bolt lug and rib to smooth the feeding in 1968 as well as returning to steel bottom metal, and went back to the Mauser style controlled feed extractor the post 1992 Model 70.
FN currently makes the controlled feed Model 70 in two police versions, the Special Police Rifle and Patrol Bolt Rifle models.
——-
One of the reasons Winchester went back to the Mauser style controlled feed action on the Model 70 was the market share they lost to Ruger with its Model 77 and in particular the Model 77 Mk II.
The Model 77 was introduced in 1978 and had the Mauser style extractor which gave a smoother bolt travel. (Not coincidentally, Winchester added it’s anti-bind change in 1968). The Mauser extractor also provided very positive extraction, but wasn’t a true controlled feed design as the bolt face wasn’t open on the bottom so the extractor still snapped over tue rim and was still a push feed design.
In 1991 Ruger introduced the Model 77 MK II which opened up the bottom of the bolt face and made the design a true controlled feed rifle and went back to a Mauser style blade ejector.
That put the heat on Winchester to keep up with the Model 70 CRF in 1992.
Like the Model 70 the Ruger was designed with a large flat receiver bottom. Ruger did it in a manner that allowed all the contact surfaces to lie in the same vertical plane so that stocks could be machine inletted and still offer good bedding for the action. Ruger also designed the forward stock screw so that it engaged the lug at an angle and pulled the receiver back and down into contact with the stock.
Also like the Model 70, Rugers have been largely over looked as precision rifles. That’s in part due to Ruger switching from using Douglas barrels to Wilson barrels in 1974. Ruger started hammer forging its own barrels in 1991-1992, more or less with the introduction of the MK II.
The early 1968-73 Model 77s were quite accurate while accuracy in the 1974-1991 Wilson era Model 77 was spotty. In my experience the Ruger made barrels from 1992 onward have been superb.
But the Ruger Model 77 still suffers from that 1974-91 era of inconsistent barrel quality.
Modern precision shooters place way too much stock in the relative stiffness of the Remington tubular receiver and the “advantages” of short actions, and thus overlook the Winchester and Ruger options and their inherent advantages.
skwchock
US Veteran
Thanks for all the info and the beautiful pix. I sure like the M1A...looks awesome..
Yes, again, it's not accuracy, durability or reliability, it's the manufacturing process that you don't like.
I got it.
Do you not understand the difference between the design of a gun and how it is manufactured??? If you want to buy a Savage go ahead. Buy several. Lessons learned the hard way are the ones that stick with you
rockquarry
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,493
- Reaction score
- 10,417
It seems many shooters have one or two rifles of the same brand that are quite accurate. Based on that small sample, they tend to think that's they have the best. I guess in a narrow perspective, they're right.
This thread has drifted from heavy barrel police/varmint-type rifles to a much broader field so I'll stay at the point it's deteriorated to. I won't include my experience with one or two-only samples like a very accurate CZ sporter I bought a few years ago as it's only the second CZ rifle I've ever purchased.
However, I've had many Remington, Ruger, and Winchester bolt-actions over the last forty+ years, most of them new-in-the-box. Many were sporters, but quite a few had heavy barrels. While I've had fewer Remingtons (at least nine), these were easily the most accurate from a percentage-wise comparison than the Rugers and Winchesters (all model 70s), though I've had some accurate Rugers and Winchesters. I won't include Savage because I haven't had that many (five that I can think of) or Kimber (two).
My last four Remingtons had heavy barrels in .260 Remington, 7mm Remington Magnum, .308 Winchester, and .300 Winchester Magnum. The .260 shot poorly. The others have been very accurate, out-of-the-box. I got all these just about the time Remington went under, six or seven years ago.
This thread has drifted from heavy barrel police/varmint-type rifles to a much broader field so I'll stay at the point it's deteriorated to. I won't include my experience with one or two-only samples like a very accurate CZ sporter I bought a few years ago as it's only the second CZ rifle I've ever purchased.
However, I've had many Remington, Ruger, and Winchester bolt-actions over the last forty+ years, most of them new-in-the-box. Many were sporters, but quite a few had heavy barrels. While I've had fewer Remingtons (at least nine), these were easily the most accurate from a percentage-wise comparison than the Rugers and Winchesters (all model 70s), though I've had some accurate Rugers and Winchesters. I won't include Savage because I haven't had that many (five that I can think of) or Kimber (two).
My last four Remingtons had heavy barrels in .260 Remington, 7mm Remington Magnum, .308 Winchester, and .300 Winchester Magnum. The .260 shot poorly. The others have been very accurate, out-of-the-box. I got all these just about the time Remington went under, six or seven years ago.
Last edited:
Do you not understand the difference between the design of a gun and how it is manufactured??? If you want to buy a Savage go ahead. Buy several. Lessons learned the hard way are the ones that stick with you
Yes, indeed I do understand, bot the design and the manufacturing process. I also understand that the rifles in question are accurate, reliable and durable, and you have not presented anything to the contrary.
If you don't like Savage rifles, don't buy one.
If you don't like Savage rifles, don't buy one.
I don’t like them and I’ve never owned one and never will. Buy a truck load if you want. Couldn’t care less, got it? Now run along and enjoy your multi piece wonders
I don’t like them and I’ve never owned one and never will. Buy a truck load if you want. Couldn’t care less, got it? Now run along and enjoy your multi piece wonders
Well thank you, your opinion and advice are worth considerably less than I paid for them.
