Experiences with recent 700s?

conor_90 said:
I’m going to start a go fund me so we can have some CGN members sent to audit a statistics course, preferably the portion where they cover sample size and it’s relationship with circumstantial evidence


We have two guys in this thread who have handled more 700s than most have guns, maybe we should consider their opinions of what common issues with those that come back on warranty are as facts
Click to expand...

This may come as a surprise to you but gunsmiths often get problem guns. Issues aren’t necessarily widespread but could be.
Enjoy auditing a statistics course whatever that means.

Is there anyone else in the wide world of cgn that uses a hammer to open a model 700 bolt due solely to the lack of primary extraction?
 
I don’t know how it would surprise me I literally referenced it in my post

Try increasing the font size or zooming in and reading again, some find following along with a pencil or covering portions of the text helps with general reading comprehension. We can work on that before we cover topics like sample size and circumstantial evidence
 
conor_90 said:
I’m going to start a go fund me so we can have some CGN members sent to audit a statistics course, preferably the portion where they cover sample size and it’s relationship with circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you yourself know nothing about statistics and need to start a go fund me to learn enough about them to share with the rest of us?

No surely that's not what you meant. So if you want to discuss statistics in this case, why don't we establish a proper n value to move the discussion forward.

According to what I can find, Remington had produced about 5.3 million 700s as of 2015. That's roughly 100,000 per year. So let's set a number of 6 million to date.

How many of those had documented primary extraction issues? No doubt a fair share. Maybe Leeper or Guntech could provide a total number they have each seen.

Then we can try to adjust the n size to properly represent how many of the 6 million model 700 produced had primary extraction problems.

At the end of the day I'm quite certain we'll be far enough from "the vast majority of them". In fact, we're going to be much closer to "barely any of them".

After all, even if 1 in a 100 Remington 700 had primary extraction issues, that would amount to 60,000 defective units. Enough to keep many gunsmiths busy no doubt. But not an indication of a widespread rampant issue by any means.

So yes by all means, please enlighten us as to how sending someone of a statistics course would productively further this discussion.
 
Good evening, Gentlemen. Arrived late, and have just now finished reading this thread.

The point being missed here by our friends is not if bolt handles are improperly affixed or not, but rather would you still buy a new 700 if, upon inspection, you determined that there was no primary extraction in a particular action as delivered from the factory?

I would not, but evidently some would. That certainly does not devalue Leeper's observations in any way. Clearly, he has seen and worked on enough 700s to present the problem, and it IS a problem when a bolt is not functioning as it was designed to.

Guntech, who also has many decades of gunsmithing experience, has set out his corroborating observations pertaining to this issue. He has also often posted on this site, his opinion that the 700 is the strongest factory two-lug action available. Leeper agrees it is a very strong action.

As for statistics, if the suggested value is indeed, 1/100, that only begs this question more fervently because 1% is a very high QC failure rate! Whatever the number is, it matters little.

The question remains: "Would you knowingly choose from the 1%, rather than take one of the 99% if available?"

Which one would you choose, regardless of who manufactured the product?" Say it was a car, or a wrench? A freezer, or a shovel? A lawn mower or a backpack? A new barbecue, or an outboard motor?

Why should it be any different if it was a new rifle?

It's late, and I'm off to bed now. See you all tomorrow! :)

Best,
Ted
 
My newest 700 is ~3 years old. Not sure that qualifies as recent production. The trigger (replaced w/ Timney CE) and bolt timing were not good. It needed a new barrel last year, so the action was trued & bolt timed/welded. It functions far better now.

I like 700s, LH short-actions are fairly plentiful & 2 of my main favorite rifles are based on the action, but the QC is definitely spotty from the factory.
 
Leeper is prone to exaggeration and running with an agenda here.
You do not need the entire primary extraction cam to be in contact with the receiver to have primary extraction. This is a case of a little goes along way when it comes to popping brass off the chamber walls. I have had no issues. Others have had no issues. But Leeper is telling tales of needing hammers to open bolts that specifically lack primary extraction.
Guntech said he would buy a new model 700. That’s strange. He must either like repairing brand new equipment or carry a hammer...

I have had real problems with a few rifles. Some Remingtons too. Gunsmiths have fixed these problems. The primary extraction of a Model 700 has never been one of them.
 
LittleBoyLefty said:
My newest 700 is ~3 years old. Not sure that qualifies as recent production. The trigger (replaced w/ Timney CE) and bolt timing were not good. It needed a new barrel last year, so the action was trued & bolt timed/welded. It functions far better now.

I like 700s, LH short-actions are fairly plentiful & 2 of my main favorite rifles are based on the action, but the QC is definitely spotty from the factory.
Click to expand...


Did it not originally extract the brass? Hard to believe you shot the barrel out of a faulty rifle without getting it fixed. Sounds like it wasnt really a problem.
 
Buckmastr said:
Did it not originally extract the brass? Hard to believe you shot the barrel out of a faulty rifle without getting it fixed. Sounds like it wasnt really a problem.
Click to expand...

It functioned, but not as well as it could have. It’s a higher round count competition rifle for me and I knew it would need a barrel in a year or two, so just used it as is, until it was apart for rebarrelling. Like I said, it is much nicer to use now. There is definitely a difference when a 700 functions as it was designed.
 
LittleBoyLefty said:
It functioned, but not as well as it could have. It’s a higher round count competition rifle for me and I knew it would need a barrel in a year or two, so just used it as is, until it was apart for rebarrelling. Like I said, it is much nicer to use now. There is definitely a difference when a 700 functions as it was designed.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. What is the difference between functioned and much nicer from a users point of view? Did the bolt open and retract on its own? Was it smoother? Did it make a louder click at the top of the bolt throw? Was the brass thrown further?
 
What's my agenda? A question was asked; I gave an answer. You, for some reason, were highly offended by my reply. Plainly, we are in opposing camps. Those on my side are in favor of functioning extractor cams on bolt action rifles while you and your side are opposed to them or consider them to be a superfluous design feature. OK.
 
Leeper said:
What's my agenda? A question was asked; I gave an answer. You, for some reason, were highly offended by my reply. Plainly, we are in opposing camps. Those on my side are in favor of functioning extractor cams on bolt action rifles while you and your side are opposed to them or consider them to be a superfluous design feature. OK.
Click to expand...

Your agenda is to call the most successful widely produced hunting rifle of all time faulty. Then call it’s users, that have been satisfied with its use, ignorant.

Don’t put words in my mouth. No one here is opposed to primary extraction. I have not seen a model 700 not pop brass out of the chamber with a proper load. It works so leave it alone.

Superfluous design feature? Please.
 
Last edited:
Buckmastr said:
Your agenda is to call the most successful widely produced rifle of all time faulty. Then call it’s users, that have been satisfied with its use, ignorant.

Don’t put words in my mouth. No one here is opposed to primary extraction. I have not seen a model 700 not pop brass out of the chamber with a proper load. It works so leave it alone.

Superfluous design feature? Please.
Click to expand...

That title belongs to the mauser 98;):dancingbanana:
 
Leeper said:
What's my agenda? A question was asked; I gave an answer. You, for some reason, were highly offended by my reply. Plainly, we are in opposing camps. Those on my side are in favor of functioning extractor cams on bolt action rifles while you and your side are opposed to them or consider them to be a superfluous design feature. OK.
Click to expand...

It’s actually kinda funny how emotionally invested some guys get in their ‘favorites’. Objectivity goes out the window.

I have, use and like 700s, but they aren’t perfect.
 
odsixer said:
So if you were looking to buy a new 700 how can you tell if its camming properly?
Click to expand...

Remove the striker assembly. Close the bolt and, holding the bolt back against the locking lug seats, use a caliper to measure the distance from the front of the receiver bridge to the rear surface of the bolt handle. Raise the bolt handle and, holding the bolt forward against the extraction cam, take the same measurement again. This measurement should be greater. The difference is the maximum amount of primary extraction afforded by that particular action. By the way, this measurement may not be all that precise due to variations in the front of the receiver bridge. You can measure to the front of the receiver ring as well if you can get a better measurement that way, If everything is perfectly set up on a 700, this amount will be about .090" but anything over .060" is going to work well enough. There are other factors; the thickness of the rim on the case, dimension differences in the extractor or the recess in the bolt, can also effect the amount of actual extraction. The 700 bolt will also cam forward when you close it; this amount will be greater and is pretty consistent from rifle to rifle.
There have been some real variations in the parts produced by and for Remington over the years. Dan 40X (accu-tig) is an expert in all of this and will absolutely improve any faulty bolt sent to him.
 
Leeper said:
Remove the striker assembly. Close the bolt and, holding the bolt back against the locking lug seats, use a caliper to measure the distance from the front of the receiver bridge to the rear surface of the bolt handle. Raise the bolt handle and, holding the bolt forward against the extraction cam, take the same measurement again. This measurement should be greater. The difference is the maximum amount of primary extraction afforded by that particular action. By the way, this measurement may not be all that precise due to variations in the front of the receiver bridge. You can measure to the front of the receiver ring as well if you can get a better measurement that way, If everything is perfectly set up on a 700, this amount will be about .090" but anything over .060" is going to work well enough. There are other factors; the thickness of the rim on the case, dimension differences in the extractor or the recess in the bolt, can also effect the amount of actual extraction. The 700 bolt will also cam forward when you close it; this amount will be greater and is pretty consistent from rifle to rifle.
There have been some real variations in the parts produced by and for Remington over the years. Dan 40X (accu-tig) is an expert in all of this and will absolutely improve any faulty bolt sent to him.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven’t bought a new gun recently.

A Model 700 is a safe buy. John in Nova Scotia listed a new production model 700 last night on the EE. It was gone in 45 min. I’m sure it has primary extraction. How much? Doesn’t matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom